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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
... snip Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories, this one never made much headway in the news. Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we? I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1, proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG. According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest. (We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.) -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Greg Hennessy
writes On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial, the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances. One wonders why. To avoid being sued? However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG. Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80 available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired there if at all. Was it even entered? (I don't think the line is still open) It is understood whichever alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration. Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL. Talk to the troops. They're the ones using the weapon. THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon so far. What basis was that calculated on, pray tell? Alternatives usually end up priced lowball per rifle... but then you find the cost for (proprietory) magazines, cleaning kits, spares, armourer training etc. (all of which you need for changeover) is not included. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working now honest' honest from them. So, where's the "it's useless and it won't work" stories now? -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Greg Hennessy
writes On 25 Sep 2003 23:53:17 -0700, (Tony Williams) wrote: Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2... FWIH, specifically in the case of the minimi and M16 that was more to do with the age of the weapons to the region combined with wholly unsuitable lubrication for desert conditions. Oddly, nobody was willing to accept "unsuitable lubrication" when discussing L85 problems - it had to be a rifle fault. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Andrew Chaplin
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... snip Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories, this one never made much headway in the news. Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we? I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms Trial held at Shilo in 1980. In 1980 the proto-SA80 would still have been firing 4.85mm... They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1, proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG. According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest. (We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.) Has the Diemaco proved to be a disaster? -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ... On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote: No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping") transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*, Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here, not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot quicker than 10 ms. So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time (something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad spectrum. OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the frequency in advance. BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided into how many bands, roughly? It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can use is 58,000. More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time, since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about 1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time. Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic attacks. Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not. Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael? Otherwise we would have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key generation" using input from that source) are not unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them, True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in existance right now, or likely to exist. Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1 billion keys/second. Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about 10^60 years. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Mike Andrews wrote:
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote: Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic attacks. That's a great idea, and I suspect tthat you're right in the general case. But a modern cryptosystem, badly implemented, will have all manner of vulnerabilities -- most of which are not particularly obvious. Absolutely. Remember the competition for the successor to DES as the standard crypto algorithm? That was *quite* interesting. What was interesting about it? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:08:36 -0400, John Hairell wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike Andrews) wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote: Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic attacks. [stuff snipped] I love it when people make blanket statements. There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade that's not sitting there just generating heat. Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly. I would be very surprised if modern symmetric and assymetric ciphers are prone to cryptanalitic attack. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ... On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote: I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm. I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2 weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with a limited traverse. If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank, because that in the end is what it is going to be used as, That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:55:53 GMT, Thomas Schoene wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress, and not in any technology of any kind. That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. Maybe. And maybe QC will make possible other encryption techniques. OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack, but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). All good cryptosystems are still effective if the adversary knows the algorithm. The most effective attacks aren't usually on the systems, but on the people -- e.g. getting an insider to divulge secrets. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:42:59 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Greg Hennessy Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial, the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances. One wonders why. Indeed. Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL. I agree. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
---California International Air Show Pics Posted!!!! | Tyson Rininger | Aerobatics | 0 | February 23rd 04 11:51 AM |
TRUCKEE,CA DONNER LAKE 12-03 PICS. @ webshots | TRUCKEE_DONNER_LAKE | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 19th 03 04:48 PM |
Aviation Pics | Tyson Rininger | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 7th 03 01:04 AM |
b-17C interior pics site | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 03:42 AM |
Nam era F-4 pilot pics? | davidG35 | Military Aviation | 2 | August 4th 03 03:44 PM |