|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also in the recommended books section I've several Non-fiction but only On the Beach for fiction Fire Lance by David Mace is the thread's official fiction book, nevermind that the Let's Read thread didn't get very far.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also in the recommended books section I've several Non-fiction but only On the Beach for fiction Definitely put that Charles Stross novelette where MAD involves not only nukes but also shoggoths and it breaks down over a crisis in the ME and the Soviets unleash Cthulhu, A Colder War. Very atmospheric. I would be up for some Cold War fiction recs that maybe aren't the usual spy thrillers, Red-Storm-cold-war-gone-hot or nuclear war things, anyone have something like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:ditto. The families can be compensated now. Here's hoping. 100% not surprised this seems to have been the IRGC doing reckless dumb poo poo rather than the regular military.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:I would be up for some Cold War fiction recs that maybe aren't the usual spy thrillers, Red-Storm-cold-war-gone-hot or nuclear war things, anyone have something like that? A million years ago I read "The dogs of war" by Frederick Forsyth (an idiot, but nonetheless a good war novelist). If you like reading about the international mercenary occupational tradecraft in the 70's, with a sprinkle of African coup d'état action, you might mildly enjoy this. I was playing Jagged Alliance at the time, so I did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 14:29
|
|
priznat posted:I want to see footage of a sealed up LAV driving off the side from that height possibly with a ramp to see what happens. Would it bob up to the surface and be able to motor away? Sink? Snap in half? Roll upsidedown? Etc it would sink straight to the bottom. at lav school, you tie an empty jerry can to the bustle rack in case you sink and they need to find the vehicle. the following story and video isn't exactly an indictment of the lav's swimming capacity but you can see how low they sit in the water in the video. when i was in afghanistan, my battalion had an ao that straddled the helmand river. the ao was established in the summer, when the river was low and slow. we arrived in november, just before the winter rains and well before the snow began to melt, and, by february or so, the river was considerably deeper and faster. i want to say in the 5-7mph range but i couldn't really say. sometime around then they tried sending 7tons across the river, and 1 didn't make it across. the battalion then said "no more river crossings" after that. well...one of the platoon sergeants in a sister company decided that he needed to get across for whatever reason and decided to conduct swim ops. they prepped the a section of vehicles, poorly, and set out into the river. they made it about 20 seconds before they realized that one crew had forgotten to put the hull plugs back in the bottom and the bilge pumps didn't work, so it sank straight off. the other vehicle either didn't enter the water, turned back when they saw the lead vehicle sink or turned back when they realized they were going to be a couple of miles downstream when they got to the other side. i dont remember that part of the story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTDqcfPUTt0 vains fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 14:50
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Definitely put that Charles Stross novelette where MAD involves not only nukes but also shoggoths and it breaks down over a crisis in the ME and the Soviets unleash Cthulhu, A Colder War. Very atmospheric. Definitely Alas Babylon in that category. Others mentioned "Arc Light" before about a more limited late cold-war nuclear exchange that seemed realistic?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Oh boy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
- Go to periscope depth - Sir, this a LAV - Fine, blow all main ballast tanks - Sir - ok, abandon ship
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
Is the Hurricane Hunter A-10 still a thing which is going to happen? Could the BRRRRTTT gun get replaced with like a tesla lightning coilgun? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also in the recommended books section I've several Non-fiction but only On the Beach for fiction Team Yankee maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
 jesus that LAV vidI thought they’d be better floaters! Oh boy
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:A million years ago I read "The dogs of war" by Frederick Forsyth (an idiot, but nonetheless a good war novelist). If you like reading about the international mercenary occupational tradecraft in the 70's, with a sprinkle of African coup d'état action, you might mildly enjoy this. I was playing Jagged Alliance at the time, so I did. That sounds cool! That Works posted:Definitely Alas Babylon in that category. Others mentioned "Arc Light" before about a more limited late cold-war nuclear exchange that seemed realistic? I feel like I've read enough nuclear war stuff for a while, I was looking more for something involving bureaucratic warfare, or something set against that weird CIA modern art funding operation, off the beaten track a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
priznat posted:
The comments seem to indicate that a number of steps that should have been taken for the sake of buoyancy were not. E: I have no first hand knowledge of LAVs so I cannot comment intelligently as to the truth of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The first situation is way, way loving better than the second one. Only if your definition of "way, way loving better" is that more innocent people died in the 655 incident and that since the US negligently obliterated people from a foreign government while invading TTW, it was easier/better to staunchly refuse to admit fault despite it being an even more egregious screw-up than the current event, whereas since Iran killed many of its own citizens in their fuckup, they're facing severe domestic pressure for said fuckup. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
Are we still arguing across multiple threads about which fuckup shooting down an obvious civilian airliner was worse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Are we still arguing across multiple threads about which fuckup shooting down an obvious civilian airliner was worse? The blindly rah rah pro-American version of 655 must die. Destruction of its whitewash story is the duty of all people who do any form of air defense, curmudgeonly US Naval officers be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Are we still arguing across multiple threads about which fuckup shooting down an obvious civilian airliner was worse? Next month we'll have some bigger fuckup to talk about, have no fear. It's been a moment since Boeing killed people to Make Number Go Up
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Only if your definition of "way, way loving better" is that more innocent people died in the 655 incident and that since the US negligently obliterated people from a foreign government while invading TTW, it was easier/better to staunchly refuse to admit fault despite it being an even more egregious screw-up than the current event, whereas since Iran killed many of its own citizens in their fuckup, they're facing severe domestic pressure for said fuckup. I'm going to stick to my position that lying to deny involvement is, in fact, worse than admitting involvement and issuing an apology. I am going to go further and say that lying to deny involvement, literally bulldozing the evidence, then admitting involvement and issuing an apology after it becomes clear there's already a mountain of evidence circulating to confirm your involvement is also worse than just admitting involvement and issuing an apology. Whether the parties responsible are facing "severe domestic pressure" or not hasn't really been established yet, so maybe you should stop making poo poo up and wait to see what happens like the rest of us. mlmp08 posted:The blindly rah rah pro-American version of 655 must die. Destruction of its whitewash story is the duty of all people who do any form of air defense, curmudgeonly US Naval officers be damned. Wow, I was unaware that saying the Iranians did worse than the Americans in the first few days after shooting down an airliner was a pro-American whitewash stance. I guess if one thing is bad the other must be good! vv Yeah, I'm done with this. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
The worst dick measuring contest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
I just think it’s mega lame for Americans to come blustering into the room after a tragic civilian loss to point out how this tragic loss is worse than when America did the same thing, except the Americans did it to objectively worse effect and with a more brazenly stupid and arrogant chain of decisions. E: lol fitting for the 1988 page. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:What the heck, do F-35s actually fly around like that at air shows and during training so nobody ever sees into the inlet? My attempts to find out anything else about this by searching the web failed. Memento posted:I don't think so, but that's only based on the picture that was posted earlier, where it looks like there's a white panel in the intake. I believe you guys are seeing something that isn’t there. They are painted white but there isn’t any dummy panel there. The S definitely happens, you cannot see the fan blades. Head on, in the sun, it’s just flat white, likely to make internal geometry hard to pick out in photos, but it’s just the intake. Remember with the F135 you are talking a single (large) engine along the centerline, not two offset engines like the F119s. The whole idea is just to not have the fan blades visible as.they present a big reflective surface. EDIT: Not factoring in the below as well Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Memento posted:I don't think so, but that's only based on the picture that was posted earlier, where it looks like there's a white panel in the intake. I don't know anything about what bits are colored white and what are gray, but I don't think the inlet is reconfigurable. The DSI hasn't been a secret for a long time, if it even ever was. Here's an article about testing it on the F-16 circa 2000 from Lockheed's own magazine.. These days, there are several Chinese aircraft with DSIs, so they arguably have more experience with them than we do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
How did the USS Stark track the attacking aircraft but miss the Exocet launches? First warning they had was when a lookout called it in. The more I read about the US Navy surface warfare capabilities (aforementioned shooting a Turk ship with a sea sparrow, USS Stark, USS Vincennes, ramming incidents) has me convinced it's a goddamn dumpster fire and nothing works.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
priznat posted:
What's the official requirement for designating a vehicle as amphibious? "Sometimes doesn't sink in glass-smooth water?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Is the Hurricane Hunter A-10 still a thing which is going to happen? Not a hurricane hunter, a tornado chaser. And the answer to "still a thing which is going to happen?" is probably no: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23088/the-tragic-tale-of-the-a-10-thunderhog-storm-chasing-jet
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Next month we'll have some bigger fuckup to talk about, have no fear. What idiots, number went DOWN. The worst crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:What's the official requirement for designating a vehicle as amphibious? "Sometimes doesn't sink in glass-smooth water?" I was surprised the hatches stay open with the water levels that close, but then I guess if they’re closed you are dooming yourself to a watery grave. The only amphib I’ve seen that doesn’t look like a barely floating iceberg is that big usmc aav but it probably sucks in its own special ways. But at least it doesn’t look like the hatches are 2 inches above the waterline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:How did the USS Stark track the attacking aircraft but miss the Exocet launches? First warning they had was when a lookout called it in. IIRC it had something to do with the launch detectors being directional in nature? It's been a while since I read up on the technical details. It had to something to do with them commencing a full power run as part of an engine test. edit: Ok, looking over some old notes it's the STIR that they were in a blind spot for. There were also some questions about why the SRBOC weren't armed earlier than they were, and why the CIWS remained in passive the whole time. They were also under rules of engagement that focused on not getting involved in the Iran/Iraq war. Fun fact, the radar in that version of the Mirage is the Cyrano IV. Also the missiles were launched at 22 NM out. I don't know if they were in a radar blind spot or what, but they were also tracking the Iraqi jets via a link from an AWACs. I don't know if the Stark's SLQ-32 had the resolution to track an Exocet sized thing that far out. They did detect the radar lock on, though, although it was kind of last minute. The report on the formal investigation is online in a redacted format if you google it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:There's no spillage concern on SIPR. Everyone with access is a working professional, and everyone's work is affected by current ongoing events. Broad situational awareness is a benefit, not a security concern, and there are other networks and other classifications for information that really does need to be compartmentalized. The onus is on the user to be cognizant of what they're sharing, but there's plenty of daily brief type information that doesn't need to be close hold and plenty of stuff that doesn't make it into publications that also doesn't need to be close hold. CarForumPoster posted:Talking about classified stuff to people that don't have a need to know, even if in the correct environment, would be perceived that way on the defense contractor side. You're told really explicitly, don't do that. For example I wouldn't discuss collateral secret things with someone working a different collateral secret program, even if in a room at that level. Not being mil I can't say anything about SIPR or the policies on that side. Fools rush in where Cyrano posts a '.', but gather ye 'round and I'll explain need-to-know. NTK so I don't have to type it out. NTK is not rigidly defined anywhere in national-level policy. Yes, if you look up EO 13526, you'll see it defined as "a determination within the executive branch in accordance with directives issued pursuant to this order that a prospective recipient requires access to specific classified information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function." Naturally there's a huge amount of ambiguity there. What does "within the executive branch" mean? What does "a determination" mean? What does "requires" mean? I've had it explained to me thusly, and it fits with all the actual written policy I've seen: 1. If you are a govie (i.e., part of the executive branch), then presuming you are complying with all the relevant rules and regulations, you have the authority to say "this guy probably needs to know" and you can tell him. But your determination needs to be an honest one. If that guy's job is sensitive Elbonian diplomacy and your job is naval nuclear propulsion and you're just telling each other work stories, you could make the case that you're actually doing something that will improve situational awareness and thus assisting in an authorized government function. But you're certainly operating in at best a gray zone, and if something goes wrong and your friend turns out to be a Chinese spy then "violation of NTK" will certainly be on the papers that terminate your clearance and employment (and put you in jail if the DoJ is feeling fiesty). But if you work on protecting planes against missiles and your friend builds missiles to kill planes, it's pretty reasonable that you might want to trade notes. Rule of thumb - if you would feel awkward explaining it to your security officer, don't say it. 2. If you are a contractor, you live in a world where security may be king but contract law is the emperor. You must do what the contract says, and you must not do anything the contract does not say. The Scope of Work defines the boundaries of your world. Those boundaries might be very large or very small, but they are firm. If the goverment gives you information, congratulations, you and your co-workers are authorized to use and distribute it to appropriately cleared people within the Scope of Work. If someone, govie or not, wants to give you information that you're cleared for but is not part of your scope of work, they're violating NTK because your "authorized governmental function" is defined by your scope of work. Some of the confusion results from poor training, but some of it is because institutional policy has swing back and forth. After 9/11, "stovepipes" were considered dangerous (and they can be), so "responsibility to provide" became more important in determining NTK. But then Manning and Snowden happened, and the pendulum swung back. That itself caused problems, and so "risk management rather than risk elimination" became the new hotness. Nonetheless, at the working level one should be especially cautious to protect information in a way that meets both the letter of the law and also involves common sense. hypnophant posted:If it's just SECRET then honestly This is a super dangerous way to think. Yes, SECRET is sometimes applied where the actual risk is marginal. But it's also the working level of the operational military, and much of the information it protects would get people killed if released. In any event, the NDA applies without distinction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:How did the USS Stark track the attacking aircraft but miss the Exocet launches? First warning they had was when a lookout called it in. Counterpoint: If you want to see a real dumpster fire of a Navy, look no further than Murmansk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:This is a super dangerous way to think. Yes, SECRET is sometimes applied where the actual risk is marginal. But it's also the working level of the operational military, and much of the information it protects would get people killed if released. In any event, the NDA applies without distinction. There's also the issue of small bits of poo poo as low level as unclass FOUO aggregated together creating a larger picture that can be problematic as gently caress. Then you have additional concerns with PII, both in terms of aggregated poo poo being a security threat and individual poo poo being damaging to the individual. Basically being blase about security crap is a really, really good way to find yourself looking or a new job that doesn't require a clearance even if we just want to ignore all the actual security threats and just focus on selfish self-preservation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Fortunately, we have engaging computer based training to make this all clear. Or at higher levels of classification, a training video fit for an after school special!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Counterpoint: If you want to see a real dumpster fire of a Navy, look no further than Murmansk. No no, that’s a bunker fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
At your job do they tell you/suggest something like, "Don't say where you work except to close family/friends, especially not to tinder dates or on social media." How strictly do you abide by this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:At your job do they tell you/suggest something like, "Don't say where you work except to close family/friends, especially not to tinder dates or on social media." No, and anyone who’s like... an undercover field agent won’t answer that. There are guidelines about unwise things to wear/say when traveling or to rando strangers chatting you up on the DC metro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 21:00
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:At your job do they tell you/suggest something like, "Don't say where you work except to close family/friends, especially not to tinder dates or on social media." How strictly do you abide by this? Me, pretty strictly. You'd be amazed at the amount of dumb poo poo people put on social media / say in elevators / etc. I once had to call up a detective and tell him I knew all about his wiretap, and so does Brooklyn Defender Services because a legal aid couldn't keep his trap shut in an elevator. I can only imagine what these dumbasses say in bars. Edit: I highly doubt a public defender from an unrelated case tipped anyone off, most of them take ethics very seriously but you can't be too careful. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:At your job do they tell you/suggest something like, "Don't say where you work except to close family/friends, especially not to tinder dates or on social media." How strictly do you abide by this? I have worked in debt collection and was told about this, and I always took it seriously because it's trivial to do and helps ensure some vindictive rear end in a top hat doesn't turn up to my house to stab me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:
A friend who has ties to the world of secret squirrels has a good story about that. Some dipshit was talking up a woman in an airport bar before a DC bound flight and had a line like “bet you’ve never seen one of these before” while showing off his agency ID. Someone in his chain of command happened to be at a table and saw that, tapped him on the shoulder, and told him he looked forward to talking to him in his office on Monday. Not my story but the source was good so I’ll trust it far enough to have a laugh about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Well it's official, Dennis Muilenburg got $233,000 per corpse. $80.7 million pay package. They put $50 million away for compensating victims. But hey the FAA still has a sense of humor! They're fining Boeing $5 million over the whole affair. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:But hey the FAA still has a sense of humor! They're fining Boeing $5 million over the whole affair. How are they issuing fines when it's not done yet? Isn't the thing still grounded and they just uncovered a whole pile of employee communications about how much the plane sucks and how much the certification process was corrupted? Also I like to joke about how fun it would be to be a fired college football coach being paid millions not to coach football. I guess "fired CEO" pays better, but it's less funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2020 00:12
|
|