|
Dead Reckoning posted:There's a difference between a RWR/missile warning system and an ELINT package. A lot of countries that might be OK with the former are going to be a lot less comfortable with the latter. How would they know the difference? I'd challenge you to point to generic hardware that can only be used for one but not the other.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:How would they know the difference? I'd challenge you to point to generic hardware that can only be used for one but not the other. Really depends, and I'm not sure we should have the conversation. Too easy to slip up on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:How would they know the difference? I'd challenge you to point to generic hardware that can only be used for one but not the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Really depends, and I'm not sure we should have the conversation. Too easy to slip up on this topic. Agreed, to clarify I'm not talking about any specific system, I mean it in a generic way. X-Band is X-Band, the computer and software you hook up to it is easy to change when the rest is already integrated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That said, not getting dip clearances is a pain in the dick. Just ask NATO how much fun it was trying to get their Luxembourg-registered jets around all the countries that don't recognize Luxembourg for some loving reason. Just tape over the "LX-" bit and they're registered in the United States, easy peasy. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's dumb for a lot of reasons. First thing that comes to mind is airframe utilization. If the Tanker Duty Officer wants to re-task a tanker for an air refueling, or even just have it depart its orbit on time for a scheduled refueling in a way that takes it away from whatever the sensor is looking at, you're setting up a dick-waving contest between the TDO, the ISR director, the receiver unit, and whoever cares about whatever the sensor is looking at. I wasn't an airlift guy, but I never sat next to one at an exercise who was saying, "yeah bro, I've got all this excess airlift capability that I don't even know what to do with. I'm happy to whore out with no expectation of when I'll get it back." Pissing matches occur on the reg in the tactical ISR world just between the Supported Unit, the ISARC, and the aircrew/associated aircrew types. I can't imagine the headache if you took that and instituted it across multiple external (non-ISR) desks plus the gamut of ISR folks that are already in an internal ISR tug of war over who gets the asset when and for how long. also I'll nth the idea that discussing the specifics of RWR vs ELINT vs SIGINT vs other systems is probably not a very good idea in this particular venue
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
movax posted:Actually, after posting that, I thought about a tiny-rear end little pod you could chuck onto civilian airliners at-will and end up with a network of thousands of airborne snoops at any given time. Sip a little bit of electrical power (or self-generate it), dump data to NSA/whatever SIGINT agency on landing. Pay the airlines some dough to carry it around and call it good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:How would they know the difference? I'd challenge you to point to generic hardware that can only be used for one but not the other. Even setting aside the massive resource fights that would come up when every mobility tail gets diverted to try to cover a TIC, that is a dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Pffft, I have better ideas. 747's that can launch cruise missiles from hidden compartments. Cargo container nukes. Navy seals that wear Red Cross aid uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:More to the point, no airline would agree to that, because they don't want their jets impounded by various foreign governments, to say nothing of losing their freedom of navigation and a shitload of international business. The NSA would probably be against too it due to the high likelihood of the pods getting stolen. I wouldn't say no airline, it sounds like something Israel/El Al would do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Lord knows we can't make a modular EO pod. No siree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Lord knows we can't make a modular EO pod. No siree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
I would be very surprised most nations weren't already covertly using freedom of flight stuff for basic passive intelligence gathering purposes anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:I would be very surprised most nations weren't already covertly using freedom of flight stuff for basic passive intelligence gathering purposes anyway During the Cold War Soviet airliners used to regularly suffer 'navigation difficulties' which just happened to take them near UK military installations. Also RAF aircraft in the Berlin corridor may have had more than just the day's mail on board, dependent on who you talk to 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
movax posted:Actually, after posting that, I thought about a tiny-rear end little pod you could chuck onto civilian airliners at-will and end up with a network of thousands of airborne snoops at any given time. Sip a little bit of electrical power (or self-generate it), dump data to NSA/whatever SIGINT agency on landing. Pay the airlines some dough to carry it around and call it good. Who says they don't already. Most airliners today have a wifi network on them. Airliners use a LOT of computer based radio systems. There is a thin line between receiving over the air signals, and passively recording/compressing/emailing the ones on the desired bands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Who says they don't already. Most airliners today have a wifi network on them. Airliners use a LOT of computer based radio systems. There is a thin line between receiving over the air signals, and passively recording/compressing/emailing the ones on the desired bands. WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT MAN WHO POSTS ON EVERY FORUM
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:I would be very surprised most nations weren't already covertly using freedom of flight stuff for basic passive intelligence gathering purposes anyway Can open skies aircraft collect radio frequency communications or just visual/IR imagery? Speaking of the open skies treaty, I bet Turkey really wishes they weren't a signatory right now... edit: Oh hey, they're just blatantly ignoring treaty obligations and refused a Russian overflight as recently as a few weeks ago. I guess thats a thing you can do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:The NTISR part is the dumb idea. Having the ability to target your own JPADS (or even just IR illuminate the drop zone/turn points) is a good idea, even if putting pylons on a C-130 is probably expensive as poo poo. I didn't say it was tactically valuable, I said that's a thing that can get you funding. There's a big difference, and it's completely hosed where our priorities are because the people signing the checks don't know a goddamned thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I didn't say it was tactically valuable, I said that's a thing that can get you funding. There's a big difference, and it's completely hosed where our priorities are because the people signing the checks don't know a goddamned thing. "This will ensure the M1A production line will continue to make tanks well into the 2020's."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
I want to believe there's a difference between doing it to get a useful product in the field vs Congress doing it to get votes. Lord knows it's a pain in the dick to get any money for poo poo like vehicle maintenance because it's not flashy. If you can't tie it directly to an immediate mission that's attention-getting in the fiery caverns of the Pentagon, you're hosed. So yeah, call it NTISR and write the AFI so that it's almost impossible to task, make the pods removable and let C-130s find their loving drop zones and landing strips from a billion miles away when it's useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I want to believe there's a difference between doing it to get a useful product in the field vs Congress doing it to get votes. Lord knows it's a pain in the dick to get any money for poo poo like vehicle maintenance because it's not flashy. If you can't tie it directly to an immediate mission that's attention-getting in the fiery caverns of the Pentagon, you're hosed. So yeah, call it NTISR and write the AFI so that it's almost impossible to task, make the pods removable and let C-130s find their loving drop zones and landing strips from a billion miles away when it's useful. That was the biggest problem with all the C-17s the Air Force didn't want making it into the budget. Great, you bought the airframe but didn't program funding for all the poo poo you need to make it fly, and flyable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I want to believe there's a difference between doing it to get a useful product in the field vs Congress doing it to get votes. Lord knows it's a pain in the dick to get any money for poo poo like vehicle maintenance because it's not flashy. I'm starting to suspect this is the main problem the German Army has, too. Apparently we are buying hundreds of new tanks now. No word on new maintenance units. I guess if one breaks they can just take a new one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I want to believe there's a difference between doing it to get a useful product in the field vs Congress doing it to get votes. Lord knows it's a pain in the dick to get any money for poo poo like vehicle maintenance because it's not flashy. If you can't tie it directly to an immediate mission that's attention-getting in the fiery caverns of the Pentagon, you're hosed. So yeah, call it NTISR and write the AFI so that it's almost impossible to task, make the pods removable and let C-130s find their loving drop zones and landing strips from a billion miles away when it's useful. Is it that its not flashy, or because maintenance is something that is the military spending money on itself, while buying new airframes is money going to build stuff in a congressional district? Think big guys, just do all your maintenance in like 4 congressional districts, you get the money
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Think big guys, just do all your maintenance in like 4 congressional districts, you get the money
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Some LRSB stuff released. Looks like just a render and the designation B-21 http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/26/b-21-bomber-air-force-lrsb/80976160/
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:There's no way some contractor hasn't already thought of this and tried to sell some system where you have to take everything apart, ship it to 8 different factories in the districts of appropriations committee members, then ship it back and reassemble it. Is there even a pretense of caring about field serviceability for fancy new toys? This isn't already the current model? Most components now are just boxes that you pull and replace when they go bad. e: ^^^^ So the B21 is really just an up-revved B-2 with a new designation so that they can price it like a whole new system? Well, I guess that bodes well for the F-22. Call it the F-2020 and put it back into production. Murgos fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 16:29
|
|
Murgos posted:This isn't already the current model? Most components now are just boxes that you pull and replace when they go bad. Eh, from a render it's hard to say. You could also say that a 707 and 787 look very similar if you wanted to.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
A B-2 is a proven platform, so a very good place in which to build off of. And there's only so many ways a flying wing is gonna look.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:A B-2 is a proven platform, so a very good place in which to build off of. Yeah, completely. Only so many ways, and still maintain the same low signature. That aesthetic is going to be around for a long time, until radar is replaced with something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
This comes via foxtrot alpha, but it might be of interest around here: the Marines have 'Sea King'd' their CH-53 Super Stallion fleet
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:A B-2 is a proven platform, so a very good place in which to build off of. I still see McCain is trying his best to shoot this down though...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
That Works posted:Some LRSB stuff released. Looks like just a render and the designation B-21 Why couldn't they just call it the B-3 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Why couldn't they just call it the B-3 The correct designation ship sailed with the F-35, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The correct designation ship sailed with the F-35, sorry. So is the number just arbitrary marketing now or what
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
I'm just going to keep calling it the B-3 anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Why couldn't they just call it the B-3 Because it's essentially the B-2.1
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
That Works posted:Eh, from a render it's hard to say. You could also say that a 707 and 787 look very similar if you wanted to. From the article: quote:James also explained in the statement why the B-21 shares a resemblance to the B-2, also built by Northrop. It's more than a passing coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
This begs the question, what the gently caress were those flying triangles spotted a while ago then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I thought those were the surveillance drone that were all hush hush until Iran shot one down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Here's a decent Russian Assault-engineer/Sapper photo set: http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1180821.html Do we have anything like those coolant-suits? Or are they not necessary the majority of the time? I wonder how effective they are, especially in a hotter environment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:45
|
|
