If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
On Jun 28, 4:32*am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote: BlackBeard ha scritto: On Jun 27, 7:42 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look :at surface targets too: : :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController.... : :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get :expensive after awhile. : Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively inexpensive. Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so I deleted the entire post. I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out of me. How I must parse this ? "I was writing ramblings on 'how things must be done' theme" or "I was on the verge of talking too much in a public place" Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. Number two... BB I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life. It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson wrote:
In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@ 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says... On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look :at surface targets too: : :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController.... : :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get :expensive after awhile. : Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively inexpensive. Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so I deleted the entire post. I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out of me. It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit stingy with those! Mark Borgerson The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the group. BB I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life. It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
BlackBeard wrote:
:On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson wrote: : In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@ : 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says... : : On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: : wrote: : : :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look : :at surface targets too: : : : :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController... : : : :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get : :expensive after awhile. : : : : Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using : the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered. : : : I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of : what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a : serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively : inexpensive. : Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so : I deleted the entire post. : I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to : see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and : playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that : might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out : of me. : : It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making : it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I : suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar : ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas : than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That : balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some : different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are : probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit : stingy with those! : : :The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the :group. : And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer. I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check - Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for the same reason. If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place... -- "I know Slayers. No matter how many people there are around them, they fight alone." -- Spike, the vampire |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
In article ,
says... BlackBeard wrote: :On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson wrote: : In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@ : 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says... : : On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: : wrote: : : :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look : :at surface targets too: : : : :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController... : : : :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get : :expensive after awhile. : : : : Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using : the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered. : : : I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of : what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a : serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively : inexpensive. : Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so : I deleted the entire post. : I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to : see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and : playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that : might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out : of me. : : It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making : it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I : suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar : ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas : than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That : balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some : different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are : probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit : stingy with those! : : :The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the :group. : And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer. I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check - Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for the same reason. If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place... Age and temporal distance from the subject are also a factor. There are a lot of declassified documents available now covering operations I was part of in the 1970s. There are also semi-official sources like "Body of Secrets" covering sigint ops. Rather than base my statements solely on my memories of the 1970s, I try to find an online reference to any classified projects I might have worked on. OTOH, I feel reasonably free to speculate on possible military uses of unclassified technology I've worked with. If some of the government R&D I've worked on has slid into classified projects, they're not telling me about it! Since I last had a clearance in 1974, any remnants of classified knowledge I might dredge up probably come under the "Top Secret Embarassing" heading, rather than being a revelation of sensitive technology. Technology we thought was hot in the 70's is now $1.95, qty 1 in the DigiKey catalog (microprocessors with 1MHz clock rates, etc.). Mark Borgerson |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
In article c24e0219-f846-4d01-a3d3-
, says... On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson wrote: In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@ 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says... On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look :at surface targets too: : :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController... : :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get :expensive after awhile. : Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively inexpensive. Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so I deleted the entire post. I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out of me. It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit stingy with those! Mark Borgerson The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the group. I suppose there are lots of seemingly-insignificant operational and technical details that could add up to a risk to our submariners. Something as simple as "You know, the bojimbo always clicks against the frammistan when we go from 400 to 450 ft." may sound insignificant in itself. But if you fill a notebook with observations like that, it probably shouldn't leave the boat. Simple observations about recurring patterns, mixed with bright minds can get you to something like Ultra. When it comes to subs or other military operations, the biggest leaks often start with "We always....". Part of the problem for submariners is that the training may emphasize "Before conducting procedure X, you will always do procedure Y." If either X or Y has a physical manifestation outside the boat, you could have a security problem. Here's my own totally-made up version of an operational detail that might be a security problem: "When initiating TMA on the Seawolf Class submarine, it is always best to make the initial turn to starboard and use the port side lateral array between the hours of 1300-1500 and 1900-2100. During these hours, the galley dishwasher, mounted against the starboard outboard bulkhead, causes a 2.3dB reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio in the forward half of the starboard lateral array. SUB_NAV_FIXEM has issued a modification order to resolve this problem, and parts are estimated to be sub qualified and available in early 2011." It gets even worse when a new mess crank arranges the plates so that they clink together as the spray head rotates! ;-) Mark Borgerson |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
BlackBeard ha scritto:
Number two... OK I acknowledge; a year or so on the Italian military/Naval NG we have haved a similiar incident..... Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
BlackBeard wrote: :On Jun 29, 12:01 pm, Mark Borgerson wrote: : In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@ : 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says... : : On Jun 27, 7:42 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: : wrote: : : :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look : :at surface targets too: : : : :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController... : : : :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get : :expensive after awhile. : : : : Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using : the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered. : : : I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of : what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a : serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively : inexpensive. : Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so : I deleted the entire post. : I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to : see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and : playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that : might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out : of me. : : It would probably have been an interesting discussion. As for making : it work---there might be people out there to do that. However, I : suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar : ideas. From my semi-insider point of view, there are more ideas : than engineers, scientists, and research dollars in the US now. That : balance may be different in China and Iran. They may have some : different set of ideas, funding and engineers. The ideas are : probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit : stingy with those! : : :The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the :group. : And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer. I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check - Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for the same reason. If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the :group. : And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer. I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check - Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for the same reason. In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best "no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain facts, classifying it it's useless" Hence my original question. Aside the issues on the (perceived or not) excesses of classification by the current US (and other) administration & gov't, I guess that a balance with Occam's razor in classifications is what current state of scientific & military research needs, to be restarted after the many SNAFUs in the procurement (even civilian) worldwide. Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study
Mark Borgerson ha scritto:
Since I last had a clearance in 1974, any remnants of classified knowledge I might dredge up probably come under the "Top Secret Embarassing" heading, rather than being a revelation of sensitive technology. Technology we thought was hot in the 70's is now $1.95, qty 1 in the DigiKey catalog (microprocessors with 1MHz clock rates, etc.). I guess that you have actually read, and also read between the lines, of the my post on geeks & engineering Indeed the issues around the first microprocessor and the F-14 CADC was in my mind when I wrote said post... It's a pity that sometimes my posts are apparently ignored, albeit I acknowledge that lately the quality of my English is a bit wandering, to say the least..... Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna Reveals "Cirrus Killer" | Darkwing | Piloting | 31 | July 28th 06 07:29 PM |
For F-5 fans - Iran reveals new F-5 based twin-tailed Azarakhsh fighter | TJ | Military Aviation | 1 | July 11th 04 09:40 PM |
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:18 PM |
Wild flight reveals gaps within FAA --Philadelphia Inquirer | News | Piloting | 0 | March 29th 04 01:30 AM |
Aviation Conspiracy: AP Reveals Series Of Boeing 777 Fires!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 18 | October 16th 03 09:15 PM |