Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Apparently, Putin's security messes up the GPS signal wherever he is for some distance around him.

Sounds like a job for a 100 megaton nuke. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites. You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military sys

The Kirov ? Really ? If the Russians had gotten that right, it would have been the only one, as they failed miserably with their carriers, and had to sell them for liquid funds to India and China

Wars without human casualties tend to go on as long as money/resources last. My opinion on the matter was formed by an episode of Star Trek:TOS, 'A Taste of Armageddon'. Read the plot here     

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites.
You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military system would  use AWACS,  software translation, and a secure digital link ( see NATO's Link 16, for example ), to transmit location information, and still get the job done.

V Putin is lucky his 'enemies' are not like him.
If someone wanted him dead, he would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MigL said:

Try that with a military GPS.

The signal-to-noise ratio at the output of the matched filter does not depend on the signal form, but only on the signal energy and the spectral density of the noise

Q = sqrt (2E/N0)

thus, you can always choose the noise power at which it will be impossible to detect a signal with a given energy. On the other hand, the energy of a signal is the product of its power and time, so for a continuous signal, you can always find the time it takes for this signal to be detected at any spectral noise density. That is, by increasing the noise power, we slow down the GPS operation and can always slow it down so much that it becomes impossible to determine our coordinates in a reasonable time.

 

The coded signal is needed by the military so that the enemy, who does not know the structure of the signal, could not use the system.

 

GPS jamming is facilitated by the fact that satellites in stationary orbit are located at a distance of 36,000 km, and the signal strength decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MigL said:

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites.
You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military system would  use AWACS,  software translation, and a secure digital link ( see NATO's Link 16, for example ), to transmit location information, and still get the job done.

V Putin is lucky his 'enemies' are not like him.
If someone wanted him dead, he would be.

So, he's wasting his time really? I also considered he might be found just by measuring the area of the disturbance and he'd be in the middle.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody 'jams' the satellite transmitter , although there have been attempts at lo-orbit satellite killing missiles.
What you do is 'swamp' the local reciver with spurious noise, burying the signal.

It is a simple matter for a trio of AWACS, at say 200 mi. distance, to pick up the satellite signal, do triangulation and transmit the modified ( and not quite as accurate ) signal to the networked, and securely linked, F-35, which then fires its missile, and V Putin is history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

GPS jamming is facilitated by the fact that satellites in stationary orbit are located at a distance of 36,000 km, and the signal strength decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

GPS satellites are not in stationary orbit. Their altitude is ~ 20,000km and they make two orbits a day.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Nobody 'jams' the satellite transmitter , although there have been attempts at lo-orbit satellite killing missiles.
What you do is 'swamp' the local reciver with spurious noise, burying the signal.

It is a simple matter for a trio of AWACS, at say 200 mi. distance, to pick up the satellite signal, do triangulation and transmit the modified ( and not quite as accurate ) signal to the networked, and securely linked, F-35, which then fires its missile, and V Putin is history.

That would blow up the transmitter doing the spoofing, but I doubt that it's particularly close to Vladimir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The OP will want to watch this:

 

The US can barely afford to replace its aged out submarine fleet both Virginia and Ohio classes are now "end of life".

The plan is to build 1, OR, 1 VPN each year or 2 VPNs in an off year while maintaining the construction of 1 carrier per every 5-6 years or so.

This commitment has basically prevented the US navy from building any other ships.

 

Everything you THINK you know about Naval armaments is garbage. Laser beams are my little pony magic rainbows. Rocket propelled artillery....rail guns. Missile to missile interceptors. This is all dog ****.

 

Right now the US would grossly lose a naval war to Russia and maybe even China but china's strike power comes from land based assets still. They haven't been able to put their most capable antiship missiles to sea. But Russia has and Kirov shows it off extremely well.

Russia and China both invested in the future of Naval warfare while 20 years of low intensity conflict in the middle east drove the US to develop longer strike power against static, no moving, non-reacting and non-technically competent terrorist targets 200+miles inland.

Now the US has THAT advantage. But it needs to play catchup to Russia in particular. Which built a navy to sink the US Navy while the US Navy built a Navy to blow up airfields in Syria.

The USN next big step is to replace the Destroyer fleet commitments with Virginia Submarine replacements firing 40+ cruise missiles thereby replacing the loss of Destroyers as they age out.

On 4/12/2021 at 9:24 PM, zapatos said:

I suspect ballistic missiles and cruise missiles from submarines are not very cost effective and will be limited in number

Your suspicion is 100% wrong ironically.

To save cost the US is retiring the surface DDG fleet and offloading all of its capabilities to submarines.

On 4/10/2021 at 2:15 PM, Moontanman said:

A battleship was once supposed to be used for fighting other ships but that seldom happened, only once or twice in WW2

This is a gross misunderstanding of Naval warfare in WW2.

Battleships and fleet engagements were common and destructive. Sources of damage seemed almost random and luck of the draw at the time.

The Japanese midway task force was badly beaten by dive bombers.

But the Allied fleet at Savo Island was badly destroyed by a Japanese Destroyer.

Japanese Submarine I-19 sank one US fleet carrier, one battleship and one Destroyer in one shot.

The USS Tang is the only Submarine gifted the honor of blowing itself up with a circular-misfired (imbalanced propulsion) torpedo.

So the idea that battleships didn't just line up broadside and shoot each other in the face is irrelevant. 

It's a team effort and the WHOLE team has to he 100%

On 4/12/2021 at 10:37 AM, SergUpstart said:

For example, there have been reports on the Internet that China is developing ballistic anti-ship missiles with a range of 2,000 km

How are you going to coordinate this attack from 2000km away. You have to find the fleet. You have to communicate its course. You have to hit it with a nearly 100% CEP. And it still doesn't achieve Chinese grand strategy of securing the 2nd and 3rd island chains?

The course is most important. It's one thing to plot a firing solution against a target 2 minutes away. It's another to plot a firing solution. For a target 1 hour away.

How powerful are these 2000km bombs? 300kg maybe?

Each one MUST strike its target and each target is 2 miles apart. (2NM is the usual MINIMUM distance of fleet ships spacing, all courses are determined by this principle).

There's things that sound cool on paper. 

But you can generally see what the US is concerned about in their public hearings on budget matters.

They are principally concerned about acoustic superiority and maintaining mission tempo.

They aren't concerned about Chinese land based ballistics. 

The Russians have solved this problem but for much shorter ranges. 100km mostly.

Or better said...10 minutes distance.

Edited by IDNeon
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Hmm. I thought we were still building them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

At end I provided citation. Watch it 

 

Nope. But don't get me wrong. Navy is a COMPLEX machine. Planning usually takes 10 years and ship building another 5 to change gears. So most plans are 15 year scopes.

What you're seeing is a winddown of the Arleigh Burke build-run.

So a few things.

1) Navy has ceased the Destroyer concept in 2017 and will be replacing it with new Virginia type submarines. But the first VPN is laid in 2021 (now).

2) AB construction continues both because it was budgeted some years ago but also because as older keels age out the new keels replace those. So if you have a life span of 20 years and want 80 you need to build 4 a year for the entire time you want to maintain 80.

The US will let the AB age out.

The new fleet is in Flux. 

USN admits we need 1trillion from 2017 to 2027 just to replace the Ohio.

That is their PRIMARY concern.

They have been unable to figure out what to do with the fleet composition problems as a result of this paramount crisis. 

The USN admits this has happened only 2x before in the history of the Navy. It must happen. So they are Willing to sail the conventional fleet right into the shallows if they have to to achieve this transition. 

I think the new fleet composition will be submarine heavy. It won't look le anything of the past.

They want UAV "long arms" to give submarines great aerial operations at depth and they want to put AA missiles on board new Virginia types.

The USN rightly asses two things. 

In the Era of ship launched ship-to-ship missiles a surface ship is a liability. 

Long range stand off cruise missiles make fleets obsolete in peer-competitor engagements.

So a fleet needs to identify and destroy Russian T-160 bombers bombers 3000 miles away.

A carrier is needed to project US sea power inland.

LDH or LPHs are needed to land divisions in hostile beaches.

That means a carrier screen will be more lethal and much larger range as Virginia Submarines get on station and provide air defense air defense 2000 miles away.

There will probably be a Destroyer replacement but I have no clue what it will look like...most likely massive ASW and point defense.

https://youtu.be/yfrrYcphFBo

Personally I think the US needs a few more LDHs and it should be a hybrid with an VTOL airwing tabletop.

But it needs a wet deck not helicopters.

This type of LDH allows for very massive flexibility which is the only way to cost save. 

The US needs to maintain carrier shipyard skill so it needs one in continuous production. But like a reactor in scram it needs to be at the smallest amount.

Offset that with LDH to compete in depth missions.

In the citation I gave the USN is using the same equipment going into a carrier to put into submarines so the cross compatibility to save cost is enormous.

A few ASW/point defense screen. A super carrier. An LDH. And a submarine AA/Anti-ship screen operating a distant UAV/UUV capability will be the most likely future for USN.

Because the Russians can project power from its borders it doesn't need Aircraft carriers.

So the Kirov makes sense for a capital ship.

The thing is a lion poised to kill a carrier group.

China will probably attempt the hybrid. A BC and Carrier fleet. 

But they haven't worked out the carrier yet and are waiting to see what the Ford does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

At end I provided citation. Watch it 

 

Got anything besides Youtube?

24 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

The US will let the AB age out.

When will they be gone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Got anything besides Youtube?

It's a CSIS lecture from the office of Naval budget 

It's more than sufficient.

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

When will they be gone?

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/12/navy-will-extend-ddgs-45-year-service-life-no-destroyer-left-behind-officials-say

 

Because we are running the Arleigh Burke into the ground, literally in some cases. The peak mission capable number of ABs is at 2033.

At which point US will lose 3 a year. Because maintenance of a ship increases with age the attrition rate is actually higher.

But by 2033 the US will have approximately 18 Virginia type replacements to cover the loss of ABs. So they will probably retire 6-12 rather suddenly in 2030s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

It's more than sufficient.

No thanks.

17 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

The peak mission capable number of ABs is at 2033.

So when you said I'd be "100% wrong", you meant I'd be 100% wrong in about 20 years. I can't tell you how shocked I am to learn that a statement I made about our current military capability won't be accurate 20 years from now.

Perhaps you overstated things just a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No thanks.

Are you 60 years old and unable to change? It's literally the Navy lecturing on their next 20 year plan and fleet composition.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So when you said I'd be "100% wrong", you meant I'd be 100% wrong in about 20 years. I can't tell you how shocked I am to learn that a statement I made about our current military capability won't be accurate 20 years from now.

Perhaps you overstated things just a bit.

Not my fault that you think you're right when you're wrong. 

My specific statement was that the new Virginia type will be taking over the roll of all DDGs in the Navy.

Then you said something along the lines of "what about the Arleigh Burke, still making those."

To which I said you're wrong.

The Arleigh Burke is not a part of the future roll of the Navy.

I don't really care that you think you're right because of 12 years (not 20 years) from now.

45 years for a steel ship is like sailing around on a mouse trap.

The ship is more likely to break in half than make it to its patrol zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

Are you 60 years old and unable to change? It's literally the Navy lecturing on their next 20 year plan and fleet composition.

Who in the fuck do you think you are?!?! Did you consider a disability might not allow me to use Youtube successfully?

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

I don't really care that you think you're right because of 12 years (not 20 years) from now.

So you mean in 12 years when we are at "peak mission capability" of the AB? That's when they'll no longer be functional?

6 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

The ship is more likely to break in half than make it to its patrol zone.

Now you are just being asinine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zapatos said:

So you mean in 12 years when we are at "peak mission capability" of the AB? That's when they'll no longer be functional?

I don't care that they are functional now. They won't be continued in the future navy. Their roll is given to submarines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

they are functional now

In which case I am not 100% wrong. Thanks for confirming.

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

They won't be continued in the future navy.

I don't care if they won't be continued in the future navy. It has nothing to do with my statement about TODAY'S CAPABILITIES.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Now you are just being asinine.

Do you know how many welds have to be reseamed every dry dock just to keep a 20 year HSLA steel hull from breaking apart in moderate to rough seas? (Greater than 8ft waves).

By 35 years of life it takes something like 90% new welds.

Most of the US DDG fleet has already become a fair weather navy

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In which case I am not 100% wrong. Thanks for confirming

Why even bring up the Arleigh Burke then? 

The Kirov would literally sink the entire USN fleet of carrier screen Destroyers in one Salvo.

 

All of them. 

With missiles to spare for the rest of the group.

And there's no good defense against the Granit

Edited by IDNeon
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

Are you 60 years old and unable to change? It's literally the Navy lecturing on their next 20 year plan and fleet composition.

 

Are you a deuterostome? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kirov ? Really ?

If the Russians had gotten that right, it would have been the only one, as they failed miserably with their carriers, and had to sell them for liquid funds to India and China ( where they turned out to be crap and almost unuseable )
Did you forget to mention that the Kirov never actually made it out of the Mediterranean Sea, where, during tis second deployment, it suffered reactor damage ?
It has basically been mothballed since the 90s, and although the Russians announced plans to overhaul the whole Kirov class nuclear missile cruiser fleet, the Kirov itself ( sometimes known as Admiral Ushakov ), and its sister ship, Admiral Lazarev, were beyond repair. 

Get your military analysis from Jane's, not YouTube.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IDNeon said:

To save cost the US is retiring the surface DDG fleet and offloading all of its capabilities to submarines.

Citation or retraction please. Your choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Citation or retraction please. Your choice.

I literally cited it in 2 separate sources. Go back and listen to the Navy's lecture on the matter.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If the Russians had gotten that right

The Russians refitted the hull with an entirely new flight. So I'm not sure what you're claiming? 

The Kirov from the Soviet Union no longer exists. They pulled the hull. Refurbished it. Gutted all its hardware and weapons.

About the only thing still Soviet on it is the Horse Jaw Sonar.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

China ( where they turned out to be crap and almost unuseable

China is currently using the Liaoning just fine. Maybe you need to stop watching Military Defense News YouTube channel.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Did you forget to mention that the Kirov never actually made it out of the Mediterranean Sea, where, during tis second deployment, it suffered reactor damage ?

Would be hard to do since the Peter the Great is in the Arctic Sea.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It has basically been mothballed since the 90s, and although the Russians announced plans to overhaul the whole Kirov class nuclear missile cruiser fleet, the Kirov itself ( sometimes known as Admiral Ushakov ), and its sister ship, Admiral Lazarev, were beyond repair. 

The Peter the Great wasn't launched until 1996.

I guess you reveal your massive ignorance not realizing that Kirov is a class of ship and I'm not talking about the eponymously named of the class.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Get your military analysis from Jane's, not YouTube

I'll continue to get my analysis from experts. Not from Jane's which is just pulp fiction.

If we think Navies are trash because their ships catch fire what does that say about your views of the US navy then?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53450469.amp

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Are you a deuterostome? 

You think my Citation of the US Navy's own rear admirals should be rejected because it's on YouTube?

Citations:

Kirov class capabilities:

Future USN Fleet composition. Increase of SSGN capacity with VPN replacement and increase from 12 to 40 cruise missiles:

Dunno how more plain I can be.

Edited by IDNeon
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

I literally cited it in 2 separate sources. Go back and listen to the Navy's lecture on the matter.

The Russians refitted the hull with an entirely new flight. So I'm not sure what you're claiming? 

The Kirov from the Soviet Union no longer exists. They pulled the hull. Refurbished it. Gutted all its hardware and weapons.

About the only thing still Soviet on it is the Horse Jaw Sonar.

China is currently using the Liaoning just fine. Maybe you need to stop watching Military Defense News YouTube channel.

Would be hard to do since the Peter the Great is in the Arctic Sea.

The Peter the Great wasn't launched until 1996.

I guess you reveal your massive ignorance not realizing that Kirov is a class of ship and I'm not talking about the eponymously named of the class.

I'll continue to get my analysis from experts. Not from Jane's which is just pulp fiction.

If we think Navies are trash because their ships catch fire what does that say about your views of the US navy then?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53450469.amp

You think my Citation of the US Navy's own rear admirals should be rejected because it's on YouTube?

Citations:

Kirov class capabilities:

Future USN Fleet composition. Increase of SSGN capacity with VPN replacement and increase from 12 to 40 cruise missiles:

Dunno how more plain I can be.

AFAIK you tube videos are not citations, your mileage may vary.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

AFAIK you tube videos are not citations, your mileage may vary.

I'd say the Navy telling you what it's going to do and how it's going to do it is a citation.

You know that CSIS is a highly reputable source. Right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IDNeon said:

I guess you reveal your massive ignorance not realizing that Kirov is a class of ship and I'm not talking about the eponymously named of the class.

yet you are the one who brought up the Kirov battlecruiser, not the Kirov class of battlecruisers.
As for 'ignorance', this is common knowledge and has been for 20 years.

See here for a fairly good read of all the problems this class of ship has had

Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia

Even the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky ( Peter the Great ) has had many difficulties

"Construction of the fourth ship, Yuriy Andropov, encountered many delays; her construction was started in 1986 but was not commissioned until 1998. She was renamed Pyotr Veliky (after Peter the Great) in 1992.[7] She currently serves as the flagship of the Russia's Northern Fleet.

On 23 March 2004, English language press reported the Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroedov said Pyotr Veliky's reactor was in an extremely bad condition and could explode "at any moment", a statement which may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy.[11] The ship was sent to port for a month, and the crew lost one-third of their pay."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MigL said:

See here for a fairly good read of all the problems this class of ship has had

Lol. Welcome to all Navies on Earth.

The US has just as many continuous problems with its own operations.

But please continue to cherry pick.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Construction of the fourth ship, Yuriy Andropov, encountered many delays; her construction was started in 1986 but was not commissioned until 1998. She was renamed Pyotr Veliky (after Peter the Great) in 1992.[7] She currently serves as the flagship of the Russia's Northern Fleet.

Jesus it's almost like you weren't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Yeah no wonder a ship whose keel was laid in 1986 didn't get finished until 1998.

Who cares?

The finishing and the refitting is what's important.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

On 23 March 2004, English language press reported the Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroedov said Pyotr Veliky's reactor was in an extremely bad condition and could explode "at any moment", a statement which may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy.[11] The ship was sent to port for a month, and the crew lost one-third of their pay."

What a bunch of trash. 

From the primary source:

"Some naval and environmental experts, including Bellona, were extremely skeptical of Kuroyedov's actions and suggest that his ordering of the ship back to port was the result of ulterior motives. The Bellona foundation as a whole considers that Kuroyedov is "dramatizing the situation" and that there is no danger that the 'Peter the Great' is in any immediate danger.

"You can say that any ship is capable of exploding at any time," said Alexander Nikitin, Chairman of Bellonas St Petersburg office and a former naval captain first class."

Why do you throw that selective trash at me?

Wikipedia quotes a website whose article literally says the Admiral is dramatizing and lying about the situation.

The site Wikipedia cites even says "

8 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Bellona foundation as a whole considers that Kuroyedov is "dramatizing the situation" and that there is no danger that the 'Peter the Great' is in any immediate danger.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.