User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:56:18 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We still use the B-52, and there is no plans at all to retire it or replace it. Not saying the B-52 is good survivability in Russian airspace, but you can't really make fun of them for using the Tu-95 when the B-52 is going to have just as big of a radar signature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:56:46 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die....  ARFCOM... where OPSEC is not understood |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:59:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everything I've read is that the props of the Bear make it's RCS HUUUUUUUUGE. Way more than if it was just jet powered. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We still use the B-52, and there is no plans at all to retire it or replace it. Not saying the B-52 is good survivability in Russian airspace, but you can't really make fun of them for using the Tu-95 when the B-52 is going to have just as big of a radar signature. You think so, with props chopping the shit out of the air. That's got to make a big signature. But that's I'm just speculating; this is definitely outside my lane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:26:22 AM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:20:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With all due respect to Mach, it's not his office anymore. That said he if he doesn't want to talk about it, that is his prerogative, but being a bitch and squealing OPSEC every time something comes up is fucking stupid and is literally the same shit as black people screaming racism every time an inconvenient truth like their abysmal family situation comes up. Secondly, talking about the prop on the enemy aircraft which was made in the fifties and the discovery of the Doppler effects were discovered about two days afterwards, and it is talked about AT LENGTH on any number of several hundred websites isn't letting all the big secrets out. Now were someone throwing out specifics of wavelength for ALE activation, I'd be onboard telling someone to think about OPSEC. When everyone starts labeling everything OpSEC, and oh noes we can't talk about that because OPSEC it starts to sound like a bunch of fucking wannabes talking about tactical operators. It's not OPSEC if it is and has been in the public sector for no less than the last forty years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
pan style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span] and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Yeah, because publicly available info on enemy airframes is fucking OPSEC. Fuck's sakes I can look up Laircm, Link32, and Suter and not only learn how it works off the internet, I can download the latest flight simulator and get hands on training on how the fucking thing works, operating parameters, and the screens aren't just kind of the same, it is IDENTICAL. Jesus Fucktits. Hey, today I troubleshot a FD109 flight director system and found out that, *GASP!!!* The Air Data Sensor makes the fly to bars operate! I replaced that bitch and used 34jg-20-1 to ops check that motherfucker after I put it in! ERMAGERD OPSEC!!!!! Every time someone on this fucking website squeals about OPSEC, I want to headslap them. And not the nice headslap like you get from the barber on deployment after the haircut, more of the, "You're fucking stupid" headslap. The guy whose office is an F-15 wouldn't speak about it...... Just keep that in mind bubba With all due respect to Mach, it's not his office anymore. That said he if he doesn't want to talk about it, that is his prerogative, but being a bitch and squealing OPSEC every time something comes up is fucking stupid and is literally the same shit as black people screaming racism every time an inconvenient truth like their abysmal family situation comes up. Secondly, talking about the prop on the enemy aircraft which was made in the fifties and the discovery of the Doppler effects were discovered about two days afterwards, and it is talked about AT LENGTH on any number of several hundred websites isn't letting all the big secrets out. Now were someone throwing out specifics of wavelength for ALE activation, I'd be onboard telling someone to think about OPSEC. When everyone starts labeling everything OpSEC, and oh noes we can't talk about that because OPSEC it starts to sound like a bunch of fucking wannabes talking about tactical operators. It's not OPSEC if it is and has been in the public sector for no less than the last forty years. Lol u mad bro?
Who are you? The OPSEC standards police? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:50:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Turns out that Finkle is Einhorn. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip I'm so far out of the loop....what happened to Dport??? Well done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:51:43 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We still use the B-52, and there is no plans at all to retire it or replace it. Not saying the B-52 is good survivability in Russian airspace, but you can't really make fun of them for using the Tu-95 when the B-52 is going to have just as big of a radar signature. I've read that by the time we totally retire the B-52, we'll be flying airframes that are pushing 100 years old.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:52:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You people  are funny.No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:44:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. I know I will get shouted down for OPSEC, but we widely deployed this system in the 19070's. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:22:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryThat may be one of the coolest photos I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:45:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. There are many out there already for both visible and IR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:27:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know I will get shouted down for OPSEC, but we widely deployed this system in the 19070's. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=69857 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. I know I will get shouted down for OPSEC, but we widely deployed this system in the 19070's. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=69857 Reported to the OPSEC police. Prepare for peepee slappage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:38:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol u mad bro?
Who are you? The OPSEC standards police? No, I'm the guy with the high level clearance that has to deal with the shit we're talking about in this thread on a daily basis. If it were OPSEC, I'd be the first guy to tell you that we shouldn't be talking about it and reference why. Talking about a phenomenon that CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT, i.e. High Performance, have experience with and have for about the last forty years isn't OPSEC. Oh man, I hear that we use GPS and the Russians use GLONASS and that'll tell us where on Earth we are to within a matter of feet! Did you hear about that? OPSEC? Do I sound mad? Hmm.... How about now? I'm not mad. Amused? Yes. Mad? Nope. Sorry man, there is nothing on ARFCOM worthy of getting mad about, least of which is tacticool attempts, which are just funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:29:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm the guy with the high level clearance that has to deal with the shit we're talking about in this thread on a daily basis. If it were OPSEC, I'd be the first guy to tell you that we shouldn't be talking about it and reference why. Talking about a phenomenon that CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT, i.e. High Performance, have experience with and have for about the last forty years isn't OPSEC. Oh man, I hear that we use GPS and the Russians use GLONASS and that'll tell us where on Earth we are to within a matter of feet! Did you hear about that? OPSEC? Do I sound mad? Hmm.... How about now? I'm not mad. Amused? Yes. Mad? Nope. Sorry man, there is nothing on ARFCOM worthy of getting mad about, least of which is tacticool attempts, which are just funny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol u mad bro?
Who are you? The OPSEC standards police? No, I'm the guy with the high level clearance that has to deal with the shit we're talking about in this thread on a daily basis. If it were OPSEC, I'd be the first guy to tell you that we shouldn't be talking about it and reference why. Talking about a phenomenon that CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT, i.e. High Performance, have experience with and have for about the last forty years isn't OPSEC. Oh man, I hear that we use GPS and the Russians use GLONASS and that'll tell us where on Earth we are to within a matter of feet! Did you hear about that? OPSEC? Do I sound mad? Hmm.... How about now? I'm not mad. Amused? Yes. Mad? Nope. Sorry man, there is nothing on ARFCOM worthy of getting mad about, least of which is tacticool attempts, which are just funny. Lol "Stop using My words!" My iPhone has glonass |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:50:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. just before lasers can take out air to air missiles, the air to air missiles will have a counter measure to survive lasers. and if lasers can knock out missiles, why don't the lasers just knock out airplanes instead? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:45:37 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
just before lasers can take out air to air missiles, the air to air missiles will have a counter measure to survive lasers. and if lasers can knock out missiles, why don't the lasers just knock out airplanes instead? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. just before lasers can take out air to air missiles, the air to air missiles will have a counter measure to survive lasers. and if lasers can knock out missiles, why don't the lasers just knock out airplanes instead? Better question: Why take out the plane when you can kill the pilot or disable him from afar with a laser? And we are already using lasers to knock out missiles. That's old shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:53:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Better question: Why take out the plane when you can kill the pilot or disable him from afar with a laser? And we are already using lasers to knock out missiles. That's old shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. just before lasers can take out air to air missiles, the air to air missiles will have a counter measure to survive lasers. and if lasers can knock out missiles, why don't the lasers just knock out airplanes instead? Better question: Why take out the plane when you can kill the pilot or disable him from afar with a laser? And we are already using lasers to knock out missiles. That's old shit. we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:13:12 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles? I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? The way I understand it the large counter rotating props create a phenomenon called micro-Dopler and it effects the radar return. The radar system has to effectively filter the harmonic "Chop" of the props which is not an easy task. Seeing the aircraft on radar is one thing. Sending some love its way made more difficult due to the noise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:19:05 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. just before lasers can take out air to air missiles, the air to air missiles will have a counter measure to survive lasers. and if lasers can knock out missiles, why don't the lasers just knock out airplanes instead? Better question: Why take out the plane when you can kill the pilot or disable him from afar with a laser? And we are already using lasers to knock out missiles. That's old shit. we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? THAT is OPSEC. I'll IM you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:20:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THAT is OPSEC. I'll IM you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? THAT is OPSEC. I'll IM you. LOL I knew that and I have never been in the military. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:20:54 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I understand it the large counter rotating props create a phenomenon called micro-Dopler and it effects the radar return. The radar system has to effectively filter the harmonic "Chop" of the props which is not an easy task. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles? I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? The way I understand it the large counter rotating props create a phenomenon called micro-Dopler and it effects the radar return. The radar system has to effectively filter the harmonic "Chop" of the props which is not an easy task. But again, isn't there 100 tons of steel and aluminum attached to those props? How do the propellers shield that huge bulk from any radar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:24:49 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again. just before lasers can take out air to air missiles, the air to air missiles will have a counter measure to survive lasers. and if lasers can knock out missiles, why don't the lasers just knock out airplanes instead? Better question: Why take out the plane when you can kill the pilot or disable him from afar with a laser? And we are already using lasers to knock out missiles. That's old shit. we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:25:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But again, isn't there 100 tons of steel and aluminum attached to those props? How do the propellers shield that huge bulk from any radar? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles? I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? The way I understand it the large counter rotating props create a phenomenon called micro-Dopler and it effects the radar return. The radar system has to effectively filter the harmonic "Chop" of the props which is not an easy task. But again, isn't there 100 tons of steel and aluminum attached to those props? How do the propellers shield that huge bulk from any radar? I edited my post above. The problem is nothing to do with not being able to see it on radar. The plane stands out like a sore thumb. Think of the counter rotating props as causing a big area of snow. Like on your tv. Getting a radar lock with offensive systems are made much more difficult due to the huge Doppler effect of the props. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:27:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL I knew that and I have never been in the military.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? THAT is OPSEC. I'll IM you. LOL I knew that and I have never been in the military.
Yeah, but because he is and was what he is and was, I can talk to him in a different capacity than I can in the open forum. I.e., what it is and how it works. Probably because he has seen or used it at some point. No offense, but that part *IS* OPSEC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:27:38 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are many out there already for both visible and IR. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. There are many out there already for both visible and IR. That seems implausible. It's no where as simple as "just put a mirror on the missile". Mirrors can still be penetrated by lasers. Mirrors don't aborb 100% of the light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:30:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That seems implausible. It's no where as simple as "just put a mirror on the missile". Mirrors can still be penetrated by lasers. Mirrors don't aborb 100% of the light. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Until a countermeasure for the lasers is developed. There are many out there already for both visible and IR. That seems implausible. It's no where as simple as "just put a mirror on the missile". Mirrors can still be penetrated by lasers. Mirrors don't aborb 100% of the light. It's a little more complicated than that. Some missiles use dual mode seekers now, with radar initial and IR terminal guidance, they can be jammed, sure, they can be blinded, sure. Unless both are happening simultaneously though they can still guide. There are other countermeasures as well, some are pretty far from reflective paint or filters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:31:02 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:31:21 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but because he is and was what he is and was, I can talk to him in a different capacity than I can in the open forum. I.e., what it is and how it works. Probably because he has seen or used it at some point. No offense, but that part *IS* OPSEC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we were using laser eye protection visors in the 90s because of a laser threat against the pilot. that is old shit. So you are saying we are disabling air to air missiles with lasers? THAT is OPSEC. I'll IM you. LOL I knew that and I have never been in the military.
Yeah, but because he is and was what he is and was, I can talk to him in a different capacity than I can in the open forum. I.e., what it is and how it works. Probably because he has seen or used it at some point. No offense, but that part *IS* OPSEC. I get ya. 
Probably helps that I grew up on Air force bases and lived as a brat bouncing from base to base for 16 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:35:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. I'm only a senior.  you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:37:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm only a senior. you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. I'm only a senior. you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
Loose tits sink ships.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:39:22 AM EDT
[#31]
This reminds me of people that have never driven a Ferrari asking why anyone would drive a 360 Modena on an autocross course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:40:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm only a senior. you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. I'm only a senior. you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
I thought 2A590 was the Maintenance Chief? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:48:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought 2A590 was the Maintenance Chief? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. I'm only a senior. you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
I thought 2A590 was the Maintenance Chief? 2A500 is a Chief... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:55:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Bears have been flying longer than most of us have been alive. The effects of their props on radar aren't gong to be news to anyone who deals with such things for a living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:58:56 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. OPSEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 2:00:32 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought opsec was the Maintenance Chief? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: opsec google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL opsec, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. I'm only a senior. you mentioned opsec earlier in the thread...I thought opsec was the Maintenance Chief? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 2:09:19 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter_Measures OPSEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. OPSEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You done blown the doors wide open now. Someone call the Internet police! The consequences will never be the same! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 2:47:36 AM EDT
[#38]
The biggest advantage is the props. Fuel efficiency and lowered maintenance. Lower in operating cost and man hours to keep flying. That's a strategic advantage. They are strategic bombers. Over the long haul they can stay on station longer, better range and back up on station faster than our bombers, or interceptors. That means we have to throw piles of money to keep up with them, or equal their deployment while they linger and harass us in to debt, complacency or a mistake.
Of course they can carry the same type of payload as our bombers. Every time I hear one of our politicians saying he's "not afraid of propeller bombers" I cringe. He should be, or more likely he's just feeding the public propaganda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 4:01:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Gigantic russian landing gear always cracks me up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 4:25:22 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gigantic russian landing gear always cracks me up. Comical as it may be, it has a practical purpose. And the B-36 remains king of gigantic landing gear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 4:29:03 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But again, isn't there 100 tons of steel and aluminum attached to those props? How do the propellers shield that huge bulk from any radar? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles? I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? The way I understand it the large counter rotating props create a phenomenon called micro-Dopler and it effects the radar return. The radar system has to effectively filter the harmonic "Chop" of the props which is not an easy task. But again, isn't there 100 tons of steel and aluminum attached to those props? How do the propellers shield that huge bulk from any radar? With radar, size matters not, Yoda says. Pulse-doppler radars work with some rather different principles than simply size. The Wiki will open your mind a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 7:44:56 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2A500 is a Chief... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just google LAIRCM, plenty of open source info that is interesting. LOL Chief, that was what I was trying to avoid talking about. I'm only a senior. you mentioned LAIRCM earlier in the thread...
I thought 2A590 was the Maintenance Chief? 2A500 is a Chief... 2A300 is best Chief.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 8:03:48 AM EDT
[#43]
This whole thread is ARFsec and needs to be blacklisted!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 8:06:35 AM EDT
[#44]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 11:55:48 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With radar, size matters not, Yoda says. Pulse-doppler radars work with some rather different principles than simply size. The Wiki will open your mind a bit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles? I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? The way I understand it the large counter rotating props create a phenomenon called micro-Dopler and it effects the radar return. The radar system has to effectively filter the harmonic "Chop" of the props which is not an easy task. But again, isn't there 100 tons of steel and aluminum attached to those props? How do the propellers shield that huge bulk from any radar? With radar, size matters not, Yoda says. Pulse-doppler radars work with some rather different principles than simply size. The Wiki will open your mind a bit. Some topics are better left in the dark....,,, 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
