Something's going down... (Page 9 of 9)
|
Originally Posted By Canoeguy: I am not an expert at anything but I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there are people that could solve this issue in short order if we had to. It may break current protocol or procedures but surely we havent fallen so far as a country that we can no longer solve problems through some Jerry rigging. Also let me add...I am a contractor and use a hammer but that doesnt make me a metalurgist. I'm sure one could jerry rig a number of "solutions," but do you really want to do that with nuclear weapons? This isn't the Indian Air Force cobbling mishmashed parts together to make their own laser guided bombs to use on Mirage 2000s. We're talking canned sunshine. I'm not the expert, and I'll defer to Mudeagle, but it is probably an issue of having to remove the payload from the casing and create an entirely different detonation methodology. The core is still explosive and can be made to go boom, but the weapon casing has all of the safeguards built in that had to be satisfied by the commands given by the plane via the national command authority and that capability has been removed. |
The duty of a patriot is to protect his nation from its government.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Canoeguy: I am not an expert at anything but I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there are people that could solve this issue in short order if we had to. It may break current protocol or procedures but surely we havent fallen so far as a country that we can no longer solve problems through some Jerry rigging. Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. That’s my take as well. Why use a B1B when a B2 will do the job perfectly well and it is less likely to be detected by the enemy or shot down? Why spend the $$ to convert a B1B to nuclear capable when they are actively trying to retire the B1B? Have B1B pilots and bombadiers (is that still a position?) even been nuclear mission trained? Can that conversion happen? Yes. Can it happen efficiently? I doubt it. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: I'm sure one could jerry rig a number of "solutions," but do you really want to do that with nuclear weapons? This isn't the Indian Air Force cobbling mishmashed parts together to make their own laser guided bombs to use on Mirage 2000s. We're talking canned sunshine. I'm not the expert, and I'll defer to Mudeagle, but it is probably an issue of having to remove the payload from the casing and create an entirely different detonation methodology. The core is still explosive and can be made to go boom, but the weapon casing has all of the safeguards built in that had to be satisfied by the commands given by the plane via the national command authority and that capability has been removed. No, we dont want to or even need to. My point wasn't that we should do it but that someone out there or more likely several someones could make it happen. I thought that was the silly discussion. Now back to WWIII... |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Canoeguy: I am not an expert at anything but I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there are people that could solve this issue in short order if we had to. It may break current protocol or procedures but surely we havent fallen so far as a country that we can no longer solve problems through some Jerry rigging. Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. All i was ever arguing is that the task of improvising a field expedient solution if necessary is possible. Not that it makes sense to do so. You just goto the new hire 26 year old Pantex engineer and say “hey nerd we have this problem, figure something out.” It may be crude, but they would figure out some solution if it were necessary. I don’t think that this is that crazy of an opinion. |
|
Originally Posted By 9D1Alpha: We have Bluetooth now , we dont need no stinkin wires ... probly. Attached File |
-Women should always wear tight clothes and men should carry powerful handguns
|
It is a much more interesting topic to see the tail-chasing over trying to correlate the HFGCS character string broadcasts to real world US military events. The threads on X over these broadcasts are pretty funny. People should take a step back and think about why the US National Command Authority would be using HF radio to transmit a message via clear (unencrypted) voice -- and to whom -- in the year 2026. Or, alternately, think about why HF broadacasts like this were used during the SIOP days between the 1950s and 1990s. Then, ask yourself what their need or utility is in an era of multi-spectral encrypted air-to-air and air-to-ground datalinks (that route themselves via multiple avenues both hard-wired, terrestrially broadcast, and from/via space-based vehicles). Why would the NCA need (or want) to broadcast a command via HF radio to begin a military operation such as is taking place against Iran or the Houthis? Who would be the intended audience? How would they hear it, and what kind of cryptography would they need on hand to decode it? |
|
Originally Posted By ar-15envy: Wondering what this flight is about. It originated from Andrew's near DC. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/304454/1000002881_jpg-3830595.JPG Most likely routine normal stuff I know nothing about. Looks like practicing IFR approaches and maybe some traffic pattern work. |
“If you want a glimpse of the future, imagine a clown shoe stamping on a human face. Forever.”
Don't sweat the petty shit. Just pet the sweaty shit.
Don't sweat the petty shit. Just pet the sweaty shit.
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: It is a much more interesting topic to see the tail-chasing over trying to correlate the HFGCS character string broadcasts to real world US military events. The threads on X over these broadcasts are pretty funny. People should take a step back and think about why the US National Command Authority would be using HF radio to transmit a message via clear (unencrypted) voice -- and to whom -- in the year 2026. Or, alternately, think about why HF broadacasts like this were used during the SIOP days between the 1950s and 1990s. Then, ask yourself what their need or utility is in an era of multi-spectral encrypted air-to-air and air-to-ground datalinks (that route themselves via multiple avenues both hard-wired, terrestrially broadcast, and from/via space-based vehicles). Why would the NCA need (or want) to broadcast a command via HF radio to begin a military operation such as is taking place against Iran or the Houthis? Who would be the intended audience? How would they hear it, and what kind of cryptography would they need on hand to decode it? |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: It is a much more interesting topic to see the tail-chasing over trying to correlate the HFGCS character string broadcasts to real world US military events. The threads on X over these broadcasts are pretty funny. People should take a step back and think about why the US National Command Authority would be using HF radio to transmit a message via clear (unencrypted) voice -- and to whom -- in the year 2026. Or, alternately, think about why HF broadacasts like this were used during the SIOP days between the 1950s and 1990s. Then, ask yourself what their need or utility is in an era of multi-spectral encrypted air-to-air and air-to-ground datalinks (that route themselves via multiple avenues both hard-wired, terrestrially broadcast, and from/via space-based vehicles). Why would the NCA need (or want) to broadcast a command via HF radio to begin a military operation such as is taking place against Iran or the Houthis? Who would be the intended audience? How would they hear it, and what kind of cryptography would they need on hand to decode it? Yea, the radio broadcast theory is a little dumb. But then again we are keeping the system around and still active though I suspect for last ditch Mad Max scenarios. |
|
Originally Posted By Kuraki: No more F-111  Was it the Aussies that were the last to retire them? Might have been spark varks. |
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
702
EE: 0% (0)
OH, USA
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Uh, no. US nuclear weapons are not unlocked, armed, or released (and actually function) without very specific crypto-keyed hardware. Hardware that the B-1 no longer has...and even if it did have what it originally came with, that original hardware is obsolete by now. It has been a couple decades since I went to the Sandia course, but in 1990s-era weapons there were something like 120 operations that had to be executed in order and sequence and in correct timing in order for a nuclear yield to be achieved. There are layer upon layer of "nuclear surety features" which ensure that they are only released by specifically authorized personnel under specifically authorized conditions and circumstances. And, if those features are attempted to be spoofed or bypassed, the weapons very conveniently render themselves quite inert and useless. Good luck with the iPad, though. Here is the definitive documentary on nuclear surety... Always/Never  Always/Never: The Quest for Safety, Control, and Survivability - Part 1  Always/Never: The Quest for Safety, Control, and Survivability - Part 2  Always/Never: The Quest for Safety, Control, and Survivability - Part 3 |
Decadence is no longer morally acceptable.
Joined:
Jan 2014
Posts:
43525
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
|
For those interested in learning more about nuclear technology and especially weapons, I highly recommend this museum. https://www.nuclearmuseum.org/ It’s in Albuquerque New Mexico. They have a lot of really cool stuff on display. |
Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague.
Decadence is no longer morally acceptable.
Joined:
Jan 2014
Posts:
43528
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
|
Originally Posted By atavistic: We've gone from Saturday not knowing WTF is happening to Monday, not knowing WTF is happening. Progress. I'm just worried the principals are in the same boat as us. I wouldn’t rule that out. It seems that we need AI to process everything these days, but is the AI trustworthy? |
Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague.
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: All i was ever arguing is that the task of improvising a field expedient solution if necessary is possible. Not that it makes sense to do so. You just goto the new hire 26 year old Pantex engineer and say "hey nerd we have this problem, figure something out." It may be crude, but they would figure out some solution if it were necessary. I don't think that this is that crazy of an opinion. The bombardier...or a specialist had to insert half the "pit" (gun style so not really a single pit) after they were safely in the air on the way to Hiroshima. Modern bombs start with an implosion fission bomb,(fat man) that then creates the physics required to produce fusion. Lots of shaping and lensing of xrays and neutrons, math and shit, I think there is some plastic foam involved....physical forces we cannot create outside of a super collider or tokamak reactor......add in some tritium for that extra kick, or make some stuff out of lithium-6.....(looking at you shot Castle Bravo) Viola! How big of a hole do you want? Fusion bombs scale really well, whereas fission bombs have a practical limit where the material is physically dispersed by the explosion before it can all react. Over a certain size you're just making the boom dirtier. But it all starts with some very precisely shaped explosive blocks detonated in very precise order. Takes special switches just to function accurately enough. If you can trigger those switches correctly, the rest will go boom to one degree or another, likely with a nice multi-stage pop. So you don't need fancy nuclear assurity and security systems, if you have knowledge and resources I'm sure you could rig something eventually. It's a hell of process to figure out given the results of a successful test. it's not practical to do in tactical field expedient time frame, and that's probably about as secure as it will ever be. Practically speaking Mach couldn't lose his shit, hang a left from Edwards and crater downtown LA. (not that they were doing testing with live bombs) The entire triad of strategic weapons has similar safeguards. Not sure how the one they strapped to Billy Waugh as he jumped out of perfectly good airplane was safeguarded. But that was a thing at one point. How did we end up here? |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: It is a much more interesting topic to see the tail-chasing over trying to correlate the HFGCS character string broadcasts to real world US military events. The threads on X over these broadcasts are pretty funny. People should take a step back and think about why the US National Command Authority would be using HF radio to transmit a message via clear (unencrypted) voice -- and to whom -- in the year 2026. Or, alternately, think about why HF broadacasts like this were used during the SIOP days between the 1950s and 1990s. Then, ask yourself what their need or utility is in an era of multi-spectral encrypted air-to-air and air-to-ground datalinks (that route themselves via multiple avenues both hard-wired, terrestrially broadcast, and from/via space-based vehicles). Why would the NCA need (or want) to broadcast a command via HF radio to begin a military operation such as is taking place against Iran or the Houthis? Who would be the intended audience? How would they hear it, and what kind of cryptography would they need on hand to decode it? It's a back up to the back up comms, and no there is no reason to use it in a situation like this. Do we still use ELF for pinging submarines? There used to be terrestrial stations miles long for that job. And the TACAMO and E-4s used to have an HF/LF tail they could unreel out the back in flight. HF isn't going anywhere. It's still an upgraded capability, even though the others you mention are the primaries. |
Now fellate me, as I eat this expensive ham.
Joined:
Aug 2007
Posts:
48675
EE: 100% (161)
USA
Is it still going down?   Celly Cel - It’s Going Down |
Look, yes, I have banged HUNDREDS of broads. INTERNATIONALLY. But know this - I wrap my rascal, TWO TIMES, cuz I like it to be joyless and without sensation. It's a way of punishing supermodels.
Now fellate me, as I eat this expensive ham.
Joined:
Aug 2007
Posts:
48676
EE: 100% (161)
USA
|
Originally Posted By 64FXR: So has the thing gone up? Or down? Or whatever the fuck this thread is about? Sideways and to the right a bit I think |
Look, yes, I have banged HUNDREDS of broads. INTERNATIONALLY. But know this - I wrap my rascal, TWO TIMES, cuz I like it to be joyless and without sensation. It's a way of punishing supermodels.
|
Originally Posted By xd341: HF requires no infrastructure. But I bet bombs do bad things to the ionosphere. It's a back up to the back up comms, and no there is no reason to use it in a situation like this. Do we still use ELF for pinging submarines? There used to be terrestrial stations miles long for that job. And the TACAMO and E-4s used to have an HF/LF tail they could unreel out the back in flight. HF isn't going anywhere. It's still an upgraded capability, even though the others you mention are the primaries. I'm perfectly aware of why the HF system still exists and what it's used for. My point is that the people who believe that an odd-character HF transmission is going to signal something that is observable in Iran -- e.g. this thread -- aren't really using critical thinking. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm perfectly aware of why the HF system still exists and what it's used for. My point is that the people who believe that an odd-character HF transmission is going to signal something that is observable in Iran -- e.g. this thread -- aren't really using critical thinking. Just the discussion.  |
|
Originally Posted By HK-Slap: Here is the definitive documentary on nuclear surety... Always/Never Haven't seen that one before, but looks interesting at a quick glance. Thanks for posting that. In case anyone was wondering who the "100 lb brains" were that I posted about earlier....these are those guys. |
Joined:
Mar 2023
Posts:
1240
EE: 0% (0)
MD, USA
|
Originally Posted By xd341: HF requires no infrastructure. But I bet bombs do bad things to the ionosphere. It's a back up to the back up comms, and no there is no reason to use it in a situation like this. Do we still use ELF for pinging submarines? There used to be terrestrial stations miles long for that job. And the TACAMO and E-4s used to have an HF/LF tail they could unreel out the back in flight. HF isn't going anywhere. It's still an upgraded capability, even though the others you mention are the primaries. As long as the symbol rate doesn't exceed 1200 per second or the ARRL old timers are really gonna lose their shit. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm perfectly aware of why the HF system still exists and what it's used for. My point is that the people who believe that an odd-character HF transmission is going to signal something that is observable in Iran -- e.g. this thread -- aren't really using critical thinking. Note that I don't think that's what actually happened. Just offering a counterpoint. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By CampFireChef: The facility in my area closed in the early 2000s I am unsure what is used now Originally Posted By CampFireChef: Originally Posted By xd341: Do we still use ELF for pinging submarines? The facility in my area closed in the early 2000s I am unsure what is used now I still think *that* question is deeply intruiging. We spent a lot of money on ELF/ULF broadcast capability..and then just quietly shuttered the systems. EAM needs still exist. Something else fulfills them now. The *what* appears to be almost completely undisclosed in the public sphere. One can't help but wonder if we didn't successfully develop and field quantum comms systems in limited numbers 20+ years ago. Though I've also heard an intruiging hint that we might be using some form of satellite-based laser comms to reach deep-diving SSBNs. |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: All kinds of shit is happening, but no we haven't conducted a strike against the houthi that I've seen. I believe that was the original potential happenings. Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By konger: So nothing has happened yet? Thanks! |
|
Originally Posted By R2point0: Well, one advantage of HF transmissions is that they can be received by ordinary shortwave radio, which are ubiquitous outside the US. If one wanted to set deep cover or indigenous assets in motion in Iran it's a good way. Note that I don't think that's what actually happened. Just offering a counterpoint. Yep, everybody still uses those too. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
9356
EE: 0% (0)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By The_Master_Shake: Is it still going down?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11IblTQh6F0Always...  Yung Joc - It's Goin Down (Official Music Video) But seriously, theres some cool stuff to read in a thread about nothing. Thanks SMEs. |
When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.
|
Originally Posted By WesJanson: I still think *that* question is deeply intruiging. We spent a lot of money on ELF/ULF broadcast capability..and then just quietly shuttered the systems. EAM needs still exist. Something else fulfills them now. The *what* appears to be almost completely undisclosed in the public sphere. One can't help but wonder if we didn't successfully develop and field quantum comms systems in limited numbers 20+ years ago. Though I've also heard an intruiging hint that we might be using some form of satellite-based laser comms to reach deep-diving SSBNs. |
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
703
EE: 0% (0)
OH, USA
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Haven't seen that one before, but looks interesting at a quick glance. Thanks for posting that. In case anyone was wondering who the "100 lb brains" were that I posted about earlier....these are those guys. You're welcome. The video was produced by Sandia National Laboratory. The dudes in the documentary are some of the actual dudes that designed and developed the various generations of the PAL devices. |
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
459
EE: 0% (0)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By Thoughtcrime: https://media3.giphy.com/media/6WgPXAa0FfaLhxbRCK/200.webp?cid=8dc8958c1lf5ab2z4txr7jz8w3n311kmjrsjbug6yog4hghq&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g https://media3.giphy.com/media/ABgNxvbk95V3W/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cnr58sfwef70zy8wilwbhmgxch8zswubg7la14w8g&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Too F'ing Funny!! 😆😅😂🤣 Perfectly timed, Sir. 👍 Thank You, for the belly laughs. |
|
Originally Posted By SquatchAv8: And this folks is pure GD in a bottle. Go ahead high speed, keep arguing with SME's who have direct experience and knowledge on what you are mouth breathing about. Keep smacking that keyboard with your Iron Eagle/Top Gun expertise. This is almost as good as the Higgs particle burn. He's just trolling because he knows he can't be put on ignore. |
|
Originally Posted By WesJanson: I still think *that* question is deeply intruiging. We spent a lot of money on ELF/ULF broadcast capability..and then just quietly shuttered the systems. EAM needs still exist. Something else fulfills them now. The *what* appears to be almost completely undisclosed in the public sphere. One can't help but wonder if we didn't successfully develop and field quantum comms systems in limited numbers 20+ years ago. Though I've also heard an intruiging hint that we might be using some form of satellite-based laser comms to reach deep-diving SSBNs. Technology has rendered low frequency (HF and lower) obsolete. Data networks are extensive and capable of transmitting anything you want. That modern technology requires significant infrastructure support though (computers, satellites, networks, relay stations, etc), and infrastructure is vulnerable to attack, maintenance, natural disaster, etc. HF(and lower) communications don't require any infrastructure. You only need a radio that can be carried by a couple people and an antenna that is simply a wire strung between poles, laid on the ground, or towed behind an airplane. It's a simple/cheap/reliable backup to more modern systems. |
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
460
EE: 0% (0)
TN, USA