What drives some to make the assumption that the U.S. is NOT as Militarily Advanced as it truly is?

Originally posted by squarehead666
Maybe you should ask that question to the designers of the rather expensive US drone that spontaneously decided to land itself in Iran?

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Once again though, while what you are saying is all very interesting.....I'm seeing no links.

edit on 20-11-2012 by squarehead666 because: Content

That won't be happening again anytime soon. They had help from China, who are also very good at cybering.

Seriously though, not too far in the future, it won't be an issue...
Secrets lost? "Never again." - Darpa

Very interesting.....Not quite the death ray I was hoping for, but definitely cool.

Hope nobody 'cybers' the tech straight off DARPAs network using the back doors in all those chips they made for them.

Face it dude the script is written, the US empire is going the way of the British and Roman before it.....It's all just a big morality play and, sorry to say, right now we in the west (especially the US, UK & Israel) are the bad guys!

reply to post by squarehead666


Depends on the perspective.We already know we are the "end all to all" but that doesn't matter. There is much more in play than you apparently know. What is it that you're playing at? What weapons do you know about that we don't?

reply to post by SoulVisions


The Quantity and Scope of the U.S. Military's BLACK PROGRAMS to anyone who might learn is unbelievable. The Reality is that the U.S. is the Worlds Largest Economy and to put this into perspective...China is # 2 with a population of close to 2 Billion people. The United States is # 1 with only 300 Million people.

That is a ratio of almost ONE SEVENTH the population of China still creating an economy larger than China. Thus this Country very avidly protects itself as well as the World in general.

Certain Black Programs are of such a secret nature that even a sitting U.S. President is on a Need to Know basis. I would not want to be a Country that underestimates the United States Military's Capabilities. Some of these Weapon Systems are not only Deployed but will not be used as just the possibility of either our Foes or Friends knowledge of their existence would turn into a Political Nightmare.

If your enemy spends Money and Time developing a Massive Weapons Program that you already have rendered obsolete...it continues to keep you safe as well as places a drain upon your enemies resources.

Disinformation that directs your foes into believing that your capabilities are limited is the Best Way to stay several steps ahead. In the case of the U.S. Military Black Programs..it is more like being at the top of the stairs looking down. Split Infinity

reply to post by Zaphod58


Dude in the water is NOT like in the air, unless the opposing ship/s have a 300/or more mph reaspons it will not stop that Torpedo from slamming into it, plus look (I'll try and find it) at the Iranian testing of the Shkval, it looked like it 0-5--300 mph in about 1-3 seconds.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


How old are you the fighters/strike fighters and f-117 were 100% late 80's 1990/1 upgrades !!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Dude in the water is NOT like in the air, unless the opposing ship/s have a 300/or more mph reaspons it will not stop that Torpedo from slamming into it, plus look (I'll try and find it) at the Iranian testing of the Shkval, it looked like it 0-5--300 mph in about 1-3 seconds.

Here's the video, count how fast the Shkval starts its rockets,, it's pretty much as soon as the trigger/button is pulled/pushed, I'll find more info on it.

www.youtube.com...



"Shortly afterwards, its liquid-fuel rocket ignites and propels it to speeds of up to 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a 300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.[2] The rocket engine uses the combination of high test peroxide and kerosene; the propellant tanks contain about 1.5 tonnes of hydrogen peroxide and 500 kg of " en.wikipedia.org...

How many wars are won underwater?
It may be the battleground of the future, but for now, airspace is where it's at.

reply to post by SoulVisions


Oh come on dude.....Now you are just making yourself look stupid, most of the worlds materiel goods are still moved by sea.

Here's some history for you to brush up on:
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


It's not how fast it starts its rockets, it's how long it takes to accelerate. You can't go from 0-250 knots instantaneously.

Shkval accellerates a lot faster than surface ships turn.

The age of the surface ship is over, only the need for carriers to project airpower has kept them in service this long....They're dinosaurs and like them have been out evolved by smaller, faster, more intelligent things.

Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

Oh come on dude.....Now you are just making yourself look stupid, most of the worlds materiel goods are still moved by sea.

Here's some history for you to brush up on:
en.wikipedia.org...

Well, thank you for schooling me. I'm done with this conversation.
Resulting to insults to make your point leaves nothing further to discuss.

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

How old are you

the fighters/strike fighters and f-117 were 100% late 80's 1990/1 upgrades !!!!!!!!

I am TOO OLD. You are incorrect. The F-15 program started in 1968. The F-117 program started in 1975. I will detail this out for you. The B-52 program started in 1949. Most of the weapon systems used in Iraq and Afghanistan are programs that are over 40 or 50 years old. How old are YOU!?

The following information is from 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft' - General Editor Paul Eden - which I always keep handy, "The beginning of today's F-15 Eagle occurred in February 1968 when Tactical Air Command chief General Gabriel P. Disosway signed off on an ROC (Required Operational Capability) statement. This held that any F-4 replacement to emerge from thee F-X (next-generation fighter) studies must be an air superiority fighter. In May 1968, USAF Chief of Staff General John P. McConnell endorsed Disosway's package and allocated to the F-X effort his services highest priority.

In August 1975, Lockheed and Northrop were invited to develop and test an aircraft known as the Experimental Survivable Testbed (XST). Both manufacturers designed small single seat aircraft. The results of radar tests gave Lockheed victory in the Have Blue demonstration program in April 1976.

Have Blue was the development of the Lockheed F-117.

I think you would do yourself a favor and at the very least research what i post before you condemn it as it makes you look silly when I have to prove myself. Split Infinity

reply to post by squarehead666


You mean like the age of the gun on fighters ended in Vietnam?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ATSWATCHER

 

It's not how fast it starts its rockets, it's how long it takes to accelerate. You can't go from 0-250 knots instantaneously.

Not quite instantaneously but...




Regarding the fearsome Shkval, one of the Military.com contributors wrote a decent piece in 2006 that supports the point you are making in a bit more detail. Here are some of the relevant bits..

This weapon has been called in print “hellacious.” It's been described as a “quantum leap” in the nature of naval warfare from this day forth -- a disruptive technology for which America is woefully unprepared. It's even been said that there's no physically possible friendly defense against it, and the target won't even realize the weapon is coming until it impacts and the target's crew are dead. Paints a scary picture, doesn't it? Yet none of these statements are true....

....More properly, I should say “the Soviet Union's design,” because -– despite certain misconceptions to the contrary -- the first Shkvals entered service at the height of the Cold War, after a decade in development, back in 1977. That's almost thirty years ago. Since America's Submarine Force and other intelligence assets in those days kept very close tabs on Moscow's naval weapon tests and exercises, Washington's defense establishment has been well aware of supercavitating torpedoes for a entire human generation. That the U.S. Navy chose not to develop and field such weapons years ago says something, not about a lack of ability as some writeups have insinuated, but about a lack of desire. I'll return to this later in the discussion. (The Navy and DARPA do slowly continue R&D into possible supercavitating projectiles and vehicles for specialized purposes, but these remain paper concepts or in the early test-apparatus stage.)....

....To best appreciate these issues, it's important to think of the bigger picture. Superior U.S. Navy sonars (and the skilled sonar techs who use them) in any theater of conflict or combat will constantly be hunting for the slightest hint of enemy threats. And an incoming Shkval has to come from somewhere -- it doesn't materialize out of thin air. The best strategy, as always in naval warfare, is to destroy the enemy platform before it can fire its weapons effectively. Special new active and passive sonars, advanced signal processing algorithms, and console display modes so sophisticated they're classified are intended to eke out the slightest whiff of an enemy diesel sub concealing itself amid the naturally high background noise to be found in most littoral areas. The same thing goes for enemy fast-attack craft rushing along or lurking on the surface....

...Previously in thie piece I stated that the Shkval isn't, as claimed, completely immune to friendly defensive weaponry. This is because, for years, the U.S. Navy has been investing in, developing, and testing undersea weapons that really do move at Mach 1 or faster in seawater. In contrast, the Shkvals and their ilk, which weigh several tons and can be close to 30 feet long, come up against a practical speed limit. Once supercavitation is achieved, water friction drag is significantly reduced, but some drag is always still there. That's why a Shkval hits 200 or 300 knots and then stays at that terminal velocity, instead of going faster and faster till it takes off for outer space, so to speak....

So what are the true Mach 1 weapons America is working on?

One of these devices is an anti-torpedo dart, fired underwater by an sonar-aimed gun in a streamlined turret. In a proof-of-concept experiment several years ago, the Naval Undersea Weapons Center Newport Division was able to shoot a dart in a tank at greater than the speed of sound in the surrounding water. Though the dart is not self-propelled, and thus loses velocity (and accuracy) with range, as a close-in defense system against fast (and not so fast) enemy torpedoes it holds great promise.

The other device that's been discussed for a while in the unclassified literature is a hull-mounted pressure-wave generator. (Think of something like an active sonar array that sends out a tremendously strong burst of noise.) The pressure-wave generator transmits an intense underwater focused shock wave in the direction of an inbound torpedo. Since shock waves automatically move at the speed of sound, this provides a genuine Mach 1 countermeasure against any Shkval. If the pressure wave is aimed well and the timing is just right, a “hellacious” wall of acoustic energy will smash the Shkval to pieces. (The Shkval's higher speed makes the collision all the more violent!) This device is ideal for mounting on the hulls of all-electric surface ships, such as the DD(X)/CC(X) fleet of the future, and maybe LCSs and even subs too.

If you're really feeling the need for speed, think about these developmental supersonic underwater weapon systems. They outclass the Shkval by a factor of ten.

Some urgency is called for regarding such advanced defensive measures, as supercavitation technology is quickly proliferating among America's actual and potential foes. But at the same time it's crucial to recognize that the Shkvals of the world have been surrounded in a fog of plain untruths and insidious rhetoric. What concerns me most is not the supercavitating weapons themselves -- as I say, they've existed for decades. Their sensationalized treatment in pockets of the media give domestic nay-sayers further ammo to press their case in the most absurd and self-destructive claim of all, that America's current nuclear submarines are nothing but Cold War relics -- now, because they're supposedly hopelessly vulnerable to Shkvals. This essay has attempted to show that it's the Shkvals that are the real Cold War relics. So long as they're deprived of their nuclear warheads, against a properly trained and equipped U.S. Navy their speed is their own greatest weakness.

Taming the Shkval

Lol this thread is still going.
second line

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by squarehead666

 

You mean like the age of the gun on fighters ended in Vietnam?

The abandonment of the GUN as well as the dependence upon Air to Air Missiles as the sole system of an F-4 being able to shoot down enemy aircraft was quite possibly the SINGLE MOST IDIOTIC assumption in the History of Fighter Aircraft.

This concept that Fighter Aircraft would no longer need a Gun as it was thought the age of DOG FIGHTING was a thing of the past...caused the downing of many an F-4. The F-4 eventually was fitted with a under frame POD designated SUU-16/A by the USAF was a 20MM cannon. The F-4 then was finally built with internal gun mounts.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


The G finally had an internal gun. That's why one of the requirements for the F-15 was an internal canon. The pod the Phantom carried was an ok interim measure, but it was very difficult to aim, as it was carried under the aircraft.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Yes it was very difficult to accurately fire the POD and this idea of Missiles Only thus not designing the F-4 with a Gun was a directive carried out by Non-Pilots. These PAPER PUSHERS had incorrectly assumed that the GUN would no longer be necessary.

The F-14 and F-15 were designed with Great Input by the Pilots who new the necessity of a Fighter Aircraft having a gun. Split Infinity

reply to post by SoulVisions


Well, If they have to recruit hackers directly at Defcon that means that they probably don't have the most knowledgeable hackers already. That's an example. So, in that field. But they have so much money, they can attract whoever they want.