6 ms·

Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors In hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be

by ptha 10y ago

Hard to believe the Soviets were using vacuum tubes instead of transistors In hindsight, the MiG 25, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did, however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts). The huge engines required so much fuel that the MiG was surprisingly short-ranged. It could take-off quickly, and fly in a straight line very fast to fire missiles or take pictures.

atemerev 10y ago
We were _really_ preparing for nuclear war. While US military adopted the MAD doctrine, considering their nuclear weapons just the ultimate deterrent, Soviet generals thought that nuclear war can actually be fought — and won. I am quite surprised that we are not living in Fallout by now.
- arethuza 10y ago
  Pretty sure the US and NATO had "flexible response" where they would have options other than MAD. NB I'm having a binge of reading novels about WW3 scenarios in Europe at the moment, my favourite being "Chieftans" by Bob Forrest-Webb, mind you it doesn't end well. [NB Rather hoping WoT gets to Challengers/Chieftans/M1s vs T-80s at some point...]
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Maybe after the Cuban Crisis. But Kennedy basically had to tell his advisors to shut up, because they were slavishly following RAND's escalation policy.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Kennedy repeatedly dismissed other opinions and had to change his positions after being proven wrong. He accused Eisenhower of allowing the Soviets to accumulate more missiles than the USA, and found out he was wrong after getting elected. Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster. Kennedy even refused to admit that he had agreed to all of Kruschev's terms in relation to de-escalating the Cuban missile crisis, and pretended that it was a victory of American diplomacy and intimidation. Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba.
      - bootload 10y ago
        " Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster." Kennedy was handed the Bay of Pigs by Ike. I've wrote up a timeline of the Bay of Pigs (citations included) about 3 weeks ago ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12324273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12324273 "Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba." Maybe, the decision to use tactical nukes in the battlefield was left to commanders in the field.
  - chiph 10y ago
    Their tank expert is an actual tanker: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/best-for-vets/2015/03/17/tanker-historian-gamer-with-a-tanker-historian-gamer-job/70285462/ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/best-for-vets/20... He's got a Youtube channel that has fascinating reviews of WW-II era tanks, Watching him try and fit his over-6' height into some of them is hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChieftainWoT https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChieftainWoT
icegreentea 10y ago
Something to take note of was that analog systems could drive far more power than solid state systems at that time, especially given the USSR's relative backwardness in solid state electronics. It really is worth noting how montrously powerful that MiG 25's radar is. It could pump out 600kW. Western fighter radars top out in the low 10s of kW. (they went with raw power to burn through jamming). I think the whole EMP robustness thing is overplayed everytime something like this pops up - I think that at most the EMP robustness is just a side benefit to the analog systems.
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Analog is not the opposite of solid state. You can build analog systems with solid state components.
  - nickff 10y ago
    To further this point, it is often said that "at high speed, everything is analog".
    - NickNameNick 10y ago
      Or "Digital circuits are built from analog components"
yaakov34 10y ago
The factoid about resistance to EMP gets repeated endlessly online and in print, but it doesn't really make sense, and I doubt it's true. EMP damages electrical connections which are: a) long. b) thin. c) far from a ground plane. In more detail: the induced current depends directly on the length of the conductor; a thin is more easily overheated and damaged than a thick one; and conductors running near ground planes make poor antennas for picking up pulses. Now, all three of these factors describe vacuum tubes more than solid-state electronics. Vacuum tubes have to have very thin heated cathode wires, and the dimensions of vacuum tubes result in a substantial distance to the ground plane and in long conductors. Compared with solid-state electronics, which, especially in modern design, can practically live on or between ground planes, this makes for a lot of sensitivity to EMP and external interference. One sanity check is to consider electromagnetic noise emitted by the device. Any device which is emitting substantial RF noise from its internal components is also going to be vulnerable to external EMP or interference, since antennas work both ways - anything which is good at emitting will also be good at receiving. Now, vacuum tube devices emit more RF noise than modern solid state devices, and generally need more shielding. The components in the MiG-25 radar had more to do with what was available to the Soviet designers in the 1950s. The radar of the MiG-25 came from the Tu-128 interceptor which first flew in 1961, which means that the radar was designed in the mid-1950s at the latest. Wouldn't surprise me if the US radar of the same vintage also used vacuum tubes.
- batbomb 10y ago
  The difference is that tubes saturate differently and they won't die due to high instantaneous voltages.
  - yaakov34 10y ago
    Like I said - people say this all the time, but a lot of vacuum tube equipment did die in EMP testing (in the USSR in 1964), and I don't see why vacuum tubes should be less vulnerable than solid state electronics to either short or long pulses (nuclear EMP contains both). A glass vacuum tube will pick up orders of magnitude more interference than a small transistor sitting inside its grounded metal can (and it's weight-prohibitive to build a metal shield around all your vacuum tubes), and the high voltage induced can damage either the vacuum tube itself, or something else inside the device. Unfortunately, very little has been published on this (although we do know that militaries test their modern solid-state devices with EMP, and they generally pass), and any online search produces a deluge of statements to the effect of "vacuum tubes are impervious to EMP" without anything to back that up. If there was ever a direct test of vacuum tubes vs. solid state, that would be very interesting to find.
vilhelm_s 10y ago
It might not be extremely out of date. According to some random wiki[0], "In 1963 Westinghouse was awarded a US Navy contract for the AN/AWG-10 to provide fire control for guns and Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow and Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on the F-4B Phantom II. The first radars were delivered in 1966 and became standard equipment. The AN/AWG-10 was claimed to be the first interceptor radar to feature transistorised circuitry." Meanwhile, the MiG-25 first flew in 1964, which would suggest that at that time it was developed western interceptors used tube-based radars too. [0] http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Westinghouse_AN/APQ-72 http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Westinghouse_AN/APQ-72
- nickff 10y ago
  Most aircraft make their initial flights without their first avionics suite (including radar and weapons control systems). Since the MiG-25 was introduced into service in 1970, and the radar it used was a development of another first used on an aircraft that entered service in 1964, I would hazard to guess that the Foxbat's radar wasn't delivered until 1965-1969.

by ptha 10y ago

atemerev 10y ago

We were _really_ preparing for nuclear war. While US military adopted the MAD doctrine, considering their nuclear weapons just the ultimate deterrent, Soviet generals thought that nuclear war can actually be fought — and won. I am quite surprised that we are not living in Fallout by now.

arethuza 10y ago
Pretty sure the US and NATO had "flexible response" where they would have options other than MAD. NB I'm having a binge of reading novels about WW3 scenarios in Europe at the moment, my favourite being "Chieftans" by Bob Forrest-Webb, mind you it doesn't end well. [NB Rather hoping WoT gets to Challengers/Chieftans/M1s vs T-80s at some point...]
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Maybe after the Cuban Crisis. But Kennedy basically had to tell his advisors to shut up, because they were slavishly following RAND's escalation policy.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Kennedy repeatedly dismissed other opinions and had to change his positions after being proven wrong. He accused Eisenhower of allowing the Soviets to accumulate more missiles than the USA, and found out he was wrong after getting elected. Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster. Kennedy even refused to admit that he had agreed to all of Kruschev's terms in relation to de-escalating the Cuban missile crisis, and pretended that it was a victory of American diplomacy and intimidation. Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba.
    - bootload 10y ago
      " Kennedy then supported the Bay of Pigs assault, but pulled back at the crucial moment when the rebels needed support, and the whole affair was a disaster." Kennedy was handed the Bay of Pigs by Ike. I've wrote up a timeline of the Bay of Pigs (citations included) about 3 weeks ago ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12324273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12324273 "Castro was also a troubled character who actually advocated using nuclear weapons against the USA, and had to be persuaded that it was a bad idea because the fallout would hit Cuba." Maybe, the decision to use tactical nukes in the battlefield was left to commanders in the field.
- chiph 10y ago
  Their tank expert is an actual tanker: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/best-for-vets/2015/03/17/tanker-historian-gamer-with-a-tanker-historian-gamer-job/70285462/ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/best-for-vets/20... He's got a Youtube channel that has fascinating reviews of WW-II era tanks, Watching him try and fit his over-6' height into some of them is hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChieftainWoT https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChieftainWoT

icegreentea 10y ago

Something to take note of was that analog systems could drive far more power than solid state systems at that time, especially given the USSR's relative backwardness in solid state electronics. It really is worth noting how montrously powerful that MiG 25's radar is. It could pump out 600kW. Western fighter radars top out in the low 10s of kW. (they went with raw power to burn through jamming). I think the whole EMP robustness thing is overplayed everytime something like this pops up - I think that at most the EMP robustness is just a side benefit to the analog systems.

honkhonkpants 10y ago
Analog is not the opposite of solid state. You can build analog systems with solid state components.
- nickff 10y ago
  To further this point, it is often said that "at high speed, everything is analog".
  - NickNameNick 10y ago
    Or "Digital circuits are built from analog components"

yaakov34 10y ago

The factoid about resistance to EMP gets repeated endlessly online and in print, but it doesn't really make sense, and I doubt it's true. EMP damages electrical connections which are: a) long. b) thin. c) far from a ground plane. In more detail: the induced current depends directly on the length of the conductor; a thin is more easily overheated and damaged than a thick one; and conductors running near ground planes make poor antennas for picking up pulses. Now, all three of these factors describe vacuum tubes more than solid-state electronics. Vacuum tubes have to have very thin heated cathode wires, and the dimensions of vacuum tubes result in a substantial distance to the ground plane and in long conductors. Compared with solid-state electronics, which, especially in modern design, can practically live on or between ground planes, this makes for a lot of sensitivity to EMP and external interference. One sanity check is to consider electromagnetic noise emitted by the device. Any device which is emitting substantial RF noise from its internal components is also going to be vulnerable to external EMP or interference, since antennas work both ways - anything which is good at emitting will also be good at receiving. Now, vacuum tube devices emit more RF noise than modern solid state devices, and generally need more shielding. The components in the MiG-25 radar had more to do with what was available to the Soviet designers in the 1950s. The radar of the MiG-25 came from the Tu-128 interceptor which first flew in 1961, which means that the radar was designed in the mid-1950s at the latest. Wouldn't surprise me if the US radar of the same vintage also used vacuum tubes.

batbomb 10y ago
The difference is that tubes saturate differently and they won't die due to high instantaneous voltages.
- yaakov34 10y ago
  Like I said - people say this all the time, but a lot of vacuum tube equipment did die in EMP testing (in the USSR in 1964), and I don't see why vacuum tubes should be less vulnerable than solid state electronics to either short or long pulses (nuclear EMP contains both). A glass vacuum tube will pick up orders of magnitude more interference than a small transistor sitting inside its grounded metal can (and it's weight-prohibitive to build a metal shield around all your vacuum tubes), and the high voltage induced can damage either the vacuum tube itself, or something else inside the device. Unfortunately, very little has been published on this (although we do know that militaries test their modern solid-state devices with EMP, and they generally pass), and any online search produces a deluge of statements to the effect of "vacuum tubes are impervious to EMP" without anything to back that up. If there was ever a direct test of vacuum tubes vs. solid state, that would be very interesting to find.

vilhelm_s 10y ago

It might not be extremely out of date. According to some random wiki[0], "In 1963 Westinghouse was awarded a US Navy contract for the AN/AWG-10 to provide fire control for guns and Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow and Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles on the F-4B Phantom II. The first radars were delivered in 1966 and became standard equipment. The AN/AWG-10 was claimed to be the first interceptor radar to feature transistorised circuitry." Meanwhile, the MiG-25 first flew in 1964, which would suggest that at that time it was developed western interceptors used tube-based radars too. [0] http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Westinghouse_AN/APQ-72 http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Westinghouse_AN/APQ-72

nickff 10y ago
Most aircraft make their initial flights without their first avionics suite (including radar and weapons control systems). Since the MiG-25 was introduced into service in 1970, and the radar it used was a development of another first used on an aircraft that entered service in 1964, I would hazard to guess that the Foxbat's radar wasn't delivered until 1965-1969.