Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on November 14, 2014, 11:55:20 AM
-
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/14/australian-pm-furious-as-putin-arrives-at-g20-summit-with-warships-in-tow/
Putin shows up in Australia at the same time that (aging) Russian warships arrive just outside of Australian waters. That's no surprise, it fits with Putin's character perfectly.
What IS telling is this quote:
“Russia is being much more assertive now than it has been for a very long time,” he said at a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, also in Australia for the summit. “Interestingly, Russia’s economy is declining even as Russia’s assertiveness is increasing.”
I bolded the important part. The article goes on about encouraging Russia to be a superpower of freedom, enjoying prosperity, blah blah blah.
The bolded statement ought to be concerning. It can indicate a country has decided it has more to lose by avoiding military conflict than they can gain be asserting power. It's not a "Oh, wow, how ironic is that!" kind of statement.
I wish I had enough faith in our leaders that I could know they would see this as concerning.
-
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer.
-
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
s the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer.
So the Russkies are Cylons?
-
http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
Bull. *expletive deleted*it. The Russians may or may not have some super-cylonesque shut down button. (I doubt it, but it's an infinite universe) but if they did, and it worked, the US State Department would not be talking about it*. Given how the DOD and DOS feel about each other, I doubt the US State Department would know about it. Everything other then the fact that the SU-24 made passes on the ship is Russian fantasy propaganda.
*For that matter if the Russians had that they would not be telling US about it until bullets were flying. Why would you send the enemy an engraved note "Hey your countermeasures don't work, better beef them up before it's real..."
-
It's poorly made Russian propaganda. Superior Russian technology completely defeats decadent capitalist oppressors, weak capitalist dogs resign and need psychological therapy after seeing glory of the Motherland! Comrade Putin's glorious five year plan includes more unspecified black boxes that perform magic tricks that are invisible to warmongering Yankees' so-called "cameras", "witnesses" and "reality"!
http://www.stopfake.org/en/lies-the-crew-of-the-us-destroyer-ship-got-scared-by-the-russian-fighter-aircraft/
Next will be claims that the rights and freedom of North Korean citizens steadily increase with the consolidation and development of the socialist system.
http://korea-dpr.com/citizen.html
:laugh:
-
The Russians may or may not have some super-cylonesque shut down button.
Wouldn't some sort of localized EMP do that, at least temporarily ??? =|
-
Wouldn't some sort of localized EMP do that, at least temporarily ??? =|
I'm not a physicist, nor am I really up to date on military level hardening for EMP's, certainly not the Navy's. But what I do know of the subject points to No it would not.
An EMP of sufficient size to shut down even a Corolla isn't the easiest thing to generate. To affect military hardware you're generally talking about large fission blasts in near vacuum. There are Non-Nuclear EMP generators, but they don't really have the umph or range to get even from the SU-24 to the ship.
I also don't think I'm giving away military secrets when I point out that much of our proprietary military hardware is shielded against a variety of EM interference, not just EMP's.
-
Wouldn't some sort of localized EMP do that, at least temporarily ??? =|
So, are you thinking that SU-24's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24) use no electronics, or that they can shield them from an EMP a couple of feet away that is strong enough to disable a giant ship's entire array of (hardened against EMP) electronics from a couple hundred feet away? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
-
Well, people think EMP pulse, we do EW jammers that are directional and overload specific frequencies in the spectrum. Probably enough to smoke circuits. And I'm thinking that we are way ahead of the Bear when it comes to EW. As in the ship fire up the SLQ-32 and cease to exist as far as the Fencer is concerned.
-
Sounds like the tinfoil is a little loose at voltairenet.org. They'd better be careful, it will let in the EMP.
-
Voltaire Network is run by a 9/11 truther. That should give you an idea of how...credible they are.
-
Well, people think EMP pulse, we do EW jammers that are directional and overload specific frequencies in the spectrum. Probably enough to smoke circuits. And I'm thinking that we are way ahead of the Bear when it comes to EW. As in the ship fire up the SLQ-32 and cease to exist as far as the Fencer is concerned.
Back in the Cold War when a Soviet pilot defected to Japan with his then-modern MiG-25 Foxbat he reported that the plane's radar (electronics were basically vacuum tubes [in the 1980s!!!]) was, while not sophisticated, very powerful -- enough to burn through a lot of ECM. During takeoff the plane was known to microwave small animals like rabbits to death that were in front of the plane; a Russian general who was something of an animal lover ordered that the radar not be turned on until the plane was airborne in order to preserve the rabbits.
I don't know how this would effect other aircraft; presumably they'd be far away and the radar pulse by then wouldn't be dangerous. It wasn't dangerous to the Foxbat's electronics though and they were a lot closer, though of course the radar was directional and pointed forward from the nose.
However airborne radar can be pretty nasty if the Foxbat is any evidence ...
doubt it could shut down a U.S. Navy vessels electronics though .... [tinfoil]
-
The SPY-1 on that cruiser can direct upwards of 1,000,000 watts down a beam with 1 degree dispersion. And it's digitally steerable. They could have microwaved the pilots in an EM feud. I doubt the aircraft can generate enough power to come close even if they shut everything else off.
-
Bull. *expletive deleted* it. The Russians may or may not have some super-cylonesque shut down button. (I doubt it, but it's an infinite universe) but if they did, and it worked, the US State Department would not be talking about it*. Given how the DOD and DOS feel about each other, I doubt the US State Department would know about it. Everything other then the fact that the SU-24 made passes on the ship is Russian fantasy propaganda.
*For that matter if the Russians had that they would not be telling US about it until bullets were flying. Why would you send the enemy an engraved note "Hey your countermeasures don't work, better beef them up before it's real..."
While certain parties may claim that the Russians were able to shut down the electronics, the far, far, far more likely case is that the US ships shut down their electronics so the enemy could not record the electronic signatures for intelligence purposes.
Trying to get the enemy to fire up their systems in order to record the characteristics is an age-old tactic.
-
While certain parties may claim that the Russians were able to shut down the electronics, the far, far, far more likely case is that the US ships shut down their electronics so the enemy could not record the electronic signatures for intelligence purposes.
Trying to get the enemy to fire up their systems in order to record the characteristics is an age-old tactic.
Something submarines are very good at, sort of. We just sort of snuck in and waited.
The first ESM system I was trained don and worked with was a tube system, the microwave section of the antenna system was a nightmare of semi-rigid waveguide and tuned cavities. Frequency response was pretty much DC to daylight.
Unless you're particularly close to the source a high power radar won't be much of an issue unless you are operating on the same frequency or near enough for harmonics to be an issue.
-
Another report of the same incident
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/
Interesting that a Russian political scientist provided a reason (excuse) for the failure to perform. The demonstration was original enough. A bomber without any weapons, but having onboard equipment for jamming enemy radar, worked against a destroyer equipped with “Aegis”, the most modern system of air and missile defence. But this system of mobile location, in this case the ship, has a significant drawback. That is, the target tracking capabilities. They work well when there is a number of these ships which can coordinate with each other somehow. In this case there was just one destroyer. And, apparently, the algorithm of the radar in the “Aegis” system on the destroyer did not load under the influence of jamming by the Su-24.
-
Another report of the same incident
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/
Interesting that a Russian political scientist provided a reason (excuse) for the failure to perform.
Again I say: Bull. *expletive deleted*it.
-
Su-24 does carry some kind of EW jamming systems for disrupting AA, but I think they're a bit exaggerated here.
(Stopfake, obviously, exaggerates in the other direction.)