|
So it's more complicated than I thought. Didn't realise the launcher did anything except, well, launch the rocket.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Polikarpov posted:TOW knows where the missile is It can mess with the optics by simply being a giant spotlight but is unlikely to mess with the missile tracking - or at least there seems to be a lot of doubt about how effective it would actually be. If it can trick the launcher into thinking the tank is the missile then it could potentially mess with tracking. Anyways the T-90's primary means of threat detection for the shtora system is through laser detection. TOW and similar ATGMs don't use lasers for anything other than optional initial rangefinding, so unless they already know which direction the missile team is in (or the missile team decides to play laser tag with the tank) it's not going to be a factor. It's notable that aside from a few modernized T-80Us and the T-90A the Shtora system hasn't seen much adoption. The T-14 dropped the IR jamming countermeasure portion while keeping the smoke component and complementary hard-kill system while the primary operator of the T-90 (See: India) dropped the entire system in favor of a South African Saab system that also focuses on smoke and a hard-kill system. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:Fair enough. I guess everyone's front-line planes have similar-enough top speeds? That's part of it, the other is part is that generally you know what fighters your enemy will be flying and what missiles he can carry, so you can do some math to figure out the ranges well enough to devise tactics to avoid dying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Menelven posted:Speaking of Nimrods, we studied the case of XV230 on my aeronautics course, a Nimrod that exploded midair in 2006. Probably caused by a fuel leak into the bomb bay during an in-flight refueling of the aircraft, whereupon it caught fire. One of the many sad aspects of that whole situation was that the problem was in part due to the Nimrod air refuelling capability being developed in a week with literally round the clock effort when the Falklands kicked off, and rather than come up with a proper system post conflict the MoD spent the next 25 years with their fingers in ears over it, even when there were aircraft landing with fuel pooled in the bomb bay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Sheer variety of Russian subs is pretty crazy. They still have something like 13 active sub types according to a quick scan of wiki. Where we are down to Ohio's, cruise missile boat converted Ohios, LAs, a handful of Seawolfs, and Virginias. For a while we just had the Ohios and LAs. Can anyone recommend a good book to read about US and/or NATO submarines? I recently read, Rising Tide: The Untold Story Of The Russian Submarines That Fought The Cold War and enjoyed some of the stories in it but it was a little too pro-USSR for my tastes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It can mess with the optics by simply being a giant spotlight but is unlikely to mess with the missile tracking - or at least there seems to be a lot of doubt about how effective it would actually be. If it can trick the launcher into thinking the tank is the missile then it could potentially mess with tracking. Making the launcher think the Shtora spotlight is the missile tracking flare is the whole point of the system. The issue is that TOW pulses the output of the flare for identification purposes, so you'd only be able to reliably spoof missiles where you know that code, most likely from captures. When you combine that with the fact that modern missiles are moving away from SACLOS guidance, it doesn't make that much sense to keep using heavy spotlights that create gaps in ERA coverage and make a giant SHOOT HERE sign in IR sights when they activate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Trampus posted:Can anyone recommend a good book to read about US and/or NATO submarines? I recently read, Rising Tide: The Untold Story Of The Russian Submarines That Fought The Cold War and enjoyed some of the stories in it but it was a little too pro-USSR for my tastes. Blind Man's Bluff by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Blind Man's Bluff by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. It's a good read but covers more of what US submarines did than the technical poo poo about US and other western subs. Unfortunately I don't know any good resource for that. Definitely worth reading though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Blind Man's Bluff by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. hogmartin posted:It's a good read but covers more of what US submarines did than the technical poo poo about US and other western subs. Unfortunately I don't know any good resource for that. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out. Yeah, I'd like to read about the developmental history of US submarines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
In terms of technical information, even early Cold War stuff is likely still classified. I'd poke around the Naval War College website, I'm sure someone did their thesis paper about Sub development. Or look for biographies of Adm. Rickover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
There's an enormous coffee table book about US submarines that goes all the way back, covers WWII and the Cold War, and modernish stuff. It's pretty good and cheap as hell too. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0883631032?ref_=cm_lmf_img_2 Still no good guidance on other western boats, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Trampus posted:Can anyone recommend a good book to read about US and/or NATO submarines? I recently read, Rising Tide: The Untold Story Of The Russian Submarines That Fought The Cold War and enjoyed some of the stories in it but it was a little too pro-USSR for my tastes. Yes. Hunter Killers by Iain Ballantyne: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hunter-Killers-Dramatic-Untold-Service/dp/1409144186
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Making the launcher think the Shtora spotlight is the missile tracking flare is the whole point of the system. The issue is that TOW pulses the output of the flare for identification purposes, so you'd only be able to reliably spoof missiles where you know that code, most likely from captures. When you combine that with the fact that modern missiles are moving away from SACLOS guidance, it doesn't make that much sense to keep using heavy spotlights that create gaps in ERA coverage and make a giant SHOOT HERE sign in IR sights when they activate. That's kinda what my point is. It'll work against first gen and maybe some second gen SACLOS missiles but past that all it's going to do is make life a bit annoying for the operator if he's using IR optics. It has to trick the TOW launcher into thinking the tank is the missile, which isn't as easy as just pointing a big honking IR spotlight at it. Nobody knows exactly how well it'll work, but there's a lot of doubt that it'll do any good for reasons like the one you mention above and both Russia and the primary export target are both dropping/have dropped the system - not something you'd expect if it actually functioned well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Links to Lenin: the past Swiss villagers tried to forget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Haha yeah gently caress those guys for wanting to end the brutal and moronically moribund illiberal governments that started the most devastating war in history because of some stuff that happened 20+ years later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:According to Jane's, the Su-24M can't receive transmissions on the Guard frequencies without a optional radio upgrade. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Convenient that we have emotes for the lead designer! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Russia didn't have enough science points to unlock the radio upgrade 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Haha yeah gently caress those guys for wanting to end the brutal and moronically moribund illiberal governments that started the most devastating war in history because of some stuff that happened 20+ years later. Well, while their goal was ending the ongoing war their plan involved launching a whole bunch of civil wars across Europe. It's also not entirely wrong to take into account the governments the movement actually created where it was successful. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
 This is one of the silliest things I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
http://www.yarz.ru/prod_r862me.html Funny, the manufacturer doesn't seem to indicate any band breaks at 121.5MHz or 243.0MHz. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Did you miss this line?quote:(with VHF/UHF emergency receivers or without them); I assume that's what they are calling guard...not sure what else it would be referring too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Meaning, the radio was still fully capable of using the two emergency frequencies that literally every organized fleet in the world uses, including every other Russian platform that responds to queries by NATO. It's very likely the "emergency" receiver they're trying to claim they don't have is the automated distress beacon system. http://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/beacons-pro/experts-beacon-information/beacon-carriage-requirements-pro "Emergency" receivers are not used for communication, they're beepy squeaky data signals used to alert SAR. It'll override other signals or audio inputs and put a squeal in the pilot's ear to let them know there's been a plane crash within their receiver range. Propagandalf fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Meaning, the radio was still fully capable of using the two emergency frequencies that literally every organized fleet in the world uses, including every other Russian platform that responds to queries by NATO. It's very likely the "emergency" receiver they're trying to claim they don't have is the automated distress beacon system. ELTs are something completely different and only transmit. They also make it pretty hard to use 121.5 for anything else https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_AMzBuoLs0 So they had UHF and VHF radios, duh. The question is how many of them and what they were tuned to. If they only have one or two it'll be tuned to something related to the operation (flight communications, or air to ground or whatever) so they wouldn't have been listening to guard. The radios they needed to have are ones that can monitor guard and whatever operational frequencies they needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Tell me about this magical transmitter that works without a receiver on the other end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Tell me about this magical transmitter that works without a receiver on the other end. The audio I posted is a recording of VHF guard (121.5), thats why you can hear pilots over it 38s in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Tell me about this magical transmitter that works without a receiver on the other end. The guard frequencies are known. Presumably the extra module is additional receiver hardware that's permanently set to those frequencies. Nothing prevents the tunable portion of the radio from being set to transmit/receive on guard, but those were almost certainly set to operational control channels. As for why the guard receiver is an extra module, my guess is for aircraft that carry multiple radios. Only one needs the guard module.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Tell me about this magical transmitter that works without a receiver on the other end. Where do you think the sun goes when you shut your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:As for why the guard receiver is an extra module, my guess is for aircraft that carry multiple radios. Only one needs the guard module. It could add some significant cost because it would basically be another receiver with the dial 'broken off', you still have to process/de-mod anything that comes in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
With some extra digging, it seems Su-24s may not even carry UHFs at all, making the whole exercise pointless. The Turks were barking into a void and the Russians were staring at a wall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Regardless of the lack of UHF radios; the Turkish planes were transmitting on VHF guard (121.5MHz) and UHF guard (243MHz) according to previous reports. The Russians were obviously not monitoring either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Tell me about this magical transmitter that works without a receiver on the other end. You mean any functional transmitter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
What cold war vehicle is this? I'm thinking BTR-70 but it's sort of double-decker. I looked at command variants but couldn't find anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
That shure do look like a 70-K (Command) to me but you can't confirm with google cause google doesn't know poo poo (ie gis gives you pictures of regular btr's, bmp's, and a handfull of T 72's for good measure). Still, all of the K converted sovet apc's have that raised roof look. E. btw, that's an 80-K. Look at the door
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It can mess with the optics by simply being a giant spotlight but is unlikely to mess with the missile tracking - or at least there seems to be a lot of doubt about how effective it would actually be. If it can trick the launcher into thinking the tank is the missile then it could potentially mess with tracking. There is also this thing about the newer TOW 2 which seems to be in ample supply in Syria. FM 3-22.34 posted:(e) Xenon Beacon. The xenon beacon emits an infrared beacon, which is picked up by the infrared receiver on the daysight tracker. The infrared receiver measures the angle at which the infrared beam strikes, thus providing the major source of data on the position of the missile to the MGS. The xenon beacon consists of a bulb filled with xenon gas and two electrodes. When an electric current passes between the two electrodes, it creates a spark, which excites the gas. This excited gas emits infrared light that exits from a window on the rear of the beacon as a narrow beam. All basic TOW infrared beacons operate on the same frequency (the infrared light turns on and off at the same rate of speed). This causes two problems: First, two systems cannot be placed closer than 300 meters because the beacons overlap and the MGS has no means of distinguishing between the missiles, causing it to lose control. Second, jamming the daysight tracker is fairly simple if the enemy knows the correct frequency. The TOW 2 overcomes these problems by having the MGS send a signal to the missile that controls the frequency at which the xenon beacon is operating. The MGS varies this pattern randomly, speeding it up and slowing it down in no apparent pattern. The MGS is always able to distinguish its missile from other missiles because no two missiles will be operating on the same frequency at the same time. For the same reason, the enemy cannot jam the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:There is also this thing about the newer TOW 2 which seems to be in ample supply in Syria. I've only seen older TOW variants in use. I could be wrong but I've seen no I-TOW or TOW-2 (of any version) in the videos I've seen so far. It caused a tiny stir in the TANK STRONK community because the old TOWs have been shown popping holes through the front of the T-72, which contradicted some 80's era Syrian and Russian accounts (I know, I know).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:That shure do look like a 70-K (Command) to me but you can't confirm with google cause google doesn't know poo poo (ie gis gives you pictures of regular btr's, bmp's, and a handfull of T 72's for good measure). Still, all of the K converted sovet apc's have that raised roof look. Ah yes. One of the exact pictures that came up when I searched for BTR 70 last night came up when I searched BTR80 today. I can see the difference now. Thanks for the help!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I've only seen older TOW variants in use. I could be wrong but I've seen no I-TOW or TOW-2 (of any version) in the videos I've seen so far. I can't tell TOW-1 or TOW-2 launch units apart. They share a lot of components. The missile serial numbers sure indicate that TOW-2 stuff is around. http://armamentresearch.com/us-produced-tow-2a-atgws-in-syria/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRHQ3-pgrKk
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Oh man http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russian-mp-died-when-husband-sets-of-grenade-during-sex-romp/news-story
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Oh man Booooo, the story disappeared. I feel like I was just robbed after reading the headline and not getting a story 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:07
|
|