If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Dear God: We found your golf ball in the water hazard. Sincerely, The U.S. Navy   (wtkr.com) divider line 125
    More: Interesting, North Koreans, Air Force bases, russian foreign ministry, Christiane Amanpour, Russia Today, United States and South Korea, Defense Department, navies  
•       •       •

29061 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2013 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-02 10:45:34 AM

GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't?  Besides float.

You know that ship isn't going out without a carrier group for protection, is all I'm saying.  The AWACS already come with the carrier group.


It's stealthy. Nobody will know it's there. Anyone who does see it will think it's an innocent fishing boat... err rig. Less likely to be seen as a provocation.

Wait, what?
 
2013-04-02 10:47:26 AM
Lots o foreign relations/military 'sperts in here already.  I'll just kick back and absorb some of this vast sea of tactical wisdom and conspiratorial musings.
 
2013-04-02 10:48:01 AM
Also stealthy:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WqX4ILMCxEE/TJceAg4ZMJI/AAAAAAAAAK0/LvqwrVZ 8 S2M/s1600/RAF+Fylingdales+Perimeter+Detection.gif

/ see my mobile site HTML skillz.
 
2013-04-02 10:56:10 AM

Cybernetic: GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't?  Besides float.

You know that ship isn't going out without a carrier group for protection, is all I'm saying.  The AWACS already come with the carrier group.

You can bring a LOT more power to bear, for one thing.

As an example, the SPY radar on the Aegis ships is an S-band radar in the 5 MW range (IIRC). That radar has a published range of "100+" nautical miles. Exact performance is classified, but back in the 1990s, I saw diagrams that showed how much of the eastern seaboard was covered from the Aegis CSEDS test facility in southern NJ, and you could safely say that it was more than 100 nautical miles in radius.

The SBX-1 radar is X-band, which is higher frequency. That allows finer target resolution. For increased range, I would assume that they're pumping serious megawatts through that antenna, and the machinery required to generate that kind of power is tough to fit in an aircraft.


So we can pretty much monitor the number of houseflies there are in every house in every village along the N Korean coast.  Got it.

Almost like we're daring them to try come out and blow it up, eh?  Note I said try...we'd splash anything before it got remotely near it.
 
2013-04-02 10:56:57 AM
Afa stability, it looks like it's got a water line about 1/2 way up all its legs...can it partially submerge?
 
2013-04-02 10:57:08 AM
dittybopper:

Ex-Army SIGINT weenie.  I knew a few CTs in my day though, the facility I worked in hosted all 4 services.  Well, all 3 military services, plus the Air Force.

Well, somebody has to get the coffee, right?
 
2013-04-02 10:59:36 AM
good thing So Lonely Jr. doesn't have teh internets.
 
2013-04-02 10:59:36 AM
Generals aren't going to be happy until it's a shooting war.
No promotions in peacetime so . . .
Who's going to be honest and start a Military Industrial Complex Mutual Fund?

www.biography.com
 
2013-04-02 11:00:04 AM

Theaetetus: maudibjr: How is that thing not top heavy?

/honest question, wouldn't even a mild storm flip it over?

Consider the fact that it's floating, and realize that that means it must be displacing an amount of water equal to its weight... Or, in other words, it's got massive underwater hulls you can't see.


Or maybe that it is NOT a giant golf ball of dense rubberbands? Did you click through the article? There is more than a single image. What's inside there? Huh?
 
2013-04-02 11:00:27 AM

GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't?  Besides float.

You know that ship isn't going out without a carrier group for protection, is all I'm saying.  The AWACS already come with the carrier group.



AWACS refers to the Air Force E3 Sentry.   Navy uses the E2-C Hawkeye.
Hawkyeye people get offended when called  AWACS.
 
2013-04-02 11:07:26 AM
It's okay, he's got plenty of spares.
i2.mirror.co.uk
 
2013-04-02 11:08:17 AM

Cybernetic: GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't?  Besides float.

You know that ship isn't going out without a carrier group for protection, is all I'm saying.  The AWACS already come with the carrier group.

You can bring a LOT more power to bear, for one thing.

As an example, the SPY radar on the Aegis ships is an S-band radar in the 5 MW range (IIRC). That radar has a published range of "100+" nautical miles. Exact performance is classified, but back in the 1990s, I saw diagrams that showed how much of the eastern seaboard was covered from the Aegis CSEDS test facility in southern NJ, and you could safely say that it was more than 100 nautical miles in radius.

The SBX-1 radar is X-band, which is higher frequency. That allows finer target resolution. For increased range, I would assume that they're pumping serious megawatts through that antenna, and the machinery required to generate that kind of power is tough to fit in an aircraft.


The SPY-1 has a range much greater than 100 miles, plus it can do a complete volume scan in short order.  It's resolution isn't quite a good as I think it could be, but it's awfully good at spotting and tracking things.  In addition to US ships in the region, there are also South Korean ships equipped with the SPY-1.  So, while I'm not sure just exactly the purpose of the SBX-1 in the area, we have about enough radars over there to puff Kim Jr's bap for him.
 
2013-04-02 11:08:54 AM

Marcus Aurelius: It can sink in bad weather.


See those big fat legs? They can be filled with water once it gets on station. That makes it rock solid (but less maneuverable of course). Toss in some thrusters for station keeping and the only thing that's a concern is that it makes for a pretty easy target. You can bet good money that there's a boat hanging around that thing keeping an ear out for anything with a "Made in Best Korea" sticker on it.
 
2013-04-02 11:09:49 AM
That is the sittingest duck that ever sat.  What does it cost to defend that thing?
 
2013-04-02 11:11:14 AM
Her comments came after North Korea rattled off fresh volleys of bombastic rhetoric over the weekend, declaring that it had entered a "state of war" with the South and labeling the U.S. mainland a "boiled pumpkin," vulnerable to attack.


Can we not hire a few unemployed English Majors to work at the State Department and write equally bombastic responses? There must be a hundred potential candidates on Fark alone.
 
2013-04-02 11:12:14 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Sybarite: I think we should make it more intimidating by painting it like a giant conch eyeball.

[i46.tinypic.com image 600x750]


Piling on....

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-02 11:13:27 AM

Cybernetic: As an example, the SPY radar on the Aegis ships is an S-band radar in the 5 MW range (IIRC). That radar has a published range of "100+" nautical miles. Exact performance is classified, but back in the 1990s, I saw diagrams that showed how much of the eastern seaboard was covered from the Aegis CSEDS test facility in southern NJ, and you could safely say that it was more than 100 nautical miles in radius.


The range for something like that to any reasonable size target is entirely dependent on how high the target is.

If you are flying at 40,000 feet, an Aegis radar will be able to detect you at about...

(whips out my newly acquired Pickett N200T Pocket Trig slide rule)

....something like 290 miles away.

If you are flying at just 50 feet over the surface, it won't be able to detect you until you are just about 20 miles away.

The range of any conventional VHF, UHF, or microwave radar is total dependent on how high the radar is, and how high the target is.   Over-The-Horizon radars use HF frequencies, which are bent back down over the horizon by the ionosphere, but you pay for the privilege:  You can't detect small objects, and the position information isn't as accurate.  Plus you piss off us hams, who might decide to fark with you.
 
2013-04-02 11:15:03 AM

BarkingUnicorn: That is the sittingest duck that ever sat.  What does it cost to defend that thing?


Nothing extra except perhaps fuel for any conventionally powered craft (and that's assuming that they would be sitting at the pier instead of out training or whatever).. You pay for those assets whether you use them or not.
 
2013-04-02 11:15:39 AM

BarkingUnicorn: That is the sittingest duck that ever sat.



We're not touching you! We're not touching you! We're not touching you! Don't you want to hit us? Huh? Huh?
 
2013-04-02 11:16:06 AM

PunGent: Afa stability, it looks like it's got a water line about 1/2 way up all its legs...can it partially submerge?


According to wikipedia it is semi-submersible,

Also says the radar range is 2km, 1200 miles.
 
2013-04-02 11:16:39 AM

GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't?  Besides float.

You know that ship isn't going out without a carrier group for protection, is all I'm saying.  The AWACS already come with the carrier group.


I suspect it might have a larger receiver.
 
2013-04-02 11:20:27 AM

Theaetetus: maudibjr: How is that thing not top heavy?

/honest question, wouldn't even a mild storm flip it over?

Consider the fact that it's floating, and realize that that means it must be displacing an amount of water equal to its weight... Or, in other words, it's got massive underwater hulls you can't see.


Actually, in the above pictures you are seeing most of it. Here's a pic of it completely out of the water:
www.naval-technology.com
You see about halfway up the "legs" where the paint changes color? I'm pretty sure that once it gets to location they'll take on some ballast and sink it until most of the bottom color of paint is submerged. That weight will keep it from being too top heavy. Likely anchors will help too.
 
2013-04-02 11:21:26 AM

Sybarite: I think we should make it more intimidating by painting it like a giant eyeball.


That recommendation should be forwarded to JSOC immediately
 
2013-04-02 11:30:40 AM

RatOmeter: Cybernetic: GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't?  Besides float.

You know that ship isn't going out without a carrier group for protection, is all I'm saying.  The AWACS already come with the carrier group.

You can bring a LOT more power to bear, for one thing.

As an example, the SPY radar on the Aegis ships is an S-band radar in the 5 MW range (IIRC). That radar has a published range of "100+" nautical miles. Exact performance is classified, but back in the 1990s, I saw diagrams that showed how much of the eastern seaboard was covered from the Aegis CSEDS test facility in southern NJ, and you could safely say that it was more than 100 nautical miles in radius.

The SBX-1 radar is X-band, which is higher frequency. That allows finer target resolution. For increased range, I would assume that they're pumping serious megawatts through that antenna, and the machinery required to generate that kind of power is tough to fit in an aircraft.

The SPY-1 has a range much greater than 100 miles, plus it can do a complete volume scan in short order.  It's resolution isn't quite a good as I think it could be, but it's awfully good at spotting and tracking things.  In addition to US ships in the region, there are also South Korean ships equipped with the SPY-1.  So, while I'm not sure just exactly the purpose of the SBX-1 in the area, we have about enough radars over there to puff Kim Jr's bap for him.


The Navy also has CEC.  Impressive and effective.

/Worked this program for many years
 
2013-04-02 11:41:19 AM

Marcintosh: Generals aren't going to be happy until it's a shooting war.
No promotions in peacetime so . . .
Who's going to be honest and start a Military Industrial Complex Mutual Fund?

[www.biography.com image 402x402]


That's not how military promotions work.
 
2013-04-02 11:49:14 AM
We sure are moving a lot of hardware in that direction.  With all our other conflicts dying down the military seems to be jonesing for a fight.
 
2013-04-02 11:53:29 AM
Would've been much cheaper to put a number of dancing, jumping middle-finger-shaped sign twirlers dressed like the Statue of Liberty anywhere along the border of N. K.

/if Fact, isn't Dennis Rodman already over there? so... yeah...
 
2013-04-02 11:55:50 AM

DubtodaIll: We sure are moving a lot of hardware in that direction.  With all our other conflicts dying down the military seems to be jonesing for a fight.


The military doesn't move squat without the president's go ahead first.
 
2013-04-02 11:55:58 AM

Radioactive Ass: Marcus Aurelius: It can sink in bad weather.

See those big fat legs? They can be filled with water once it gets on station. That makes it rock solid (but less maneuverable of course). Toss in some thrusters for station keeping and the only thing that's a concern is that it makes for a pretty easy target. You can bet good money that there's a boat hanging around that thing keeping an ear out for anything with a "Made in Best Korea" sticker on it.


I see your point.  30 foot seas would still be no fun on that thing, regardless.
 
2013-04-02 12:00:21 PM
Ahh, the old Gulf of Tonkin Gambit.

The old lies are the best lies.
 
2013-04-02 12:00:34 PM
Marcus Aurelius:

I see your point.  30 foot seas would still be no fun on that thing, regardless.

Perhaps. It is a proven platform. It is a converted fifth generation CS-50 twin-hulled semi-submersible drilling rig.  I would guess it is quite stable in bad weather.
 
2013-04-02 12:01:49 PM
And back in the 'Nam they called the bait camps, what else, base camps.
Good times.
 
2013-04-02 12:06:04 PM

Sybarite: I think we should make it more intimidating by painting it like a giant eyeball.


Paint it like a giant clown face.
 
2013-04-02 12:07:34 PM

Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Theaetetus: Oh, piffle.

I've been oh piffled.

It's not even f*cking Wednesday yet and I've been oh piffled.

Damn.

At least I didn't bosh or twaddle you.


Language, Sir....
 
2013-04-02 12:10:48 PM

Archie Goodwin: after North Korea rattled off fresh volleys of bombastic rhetoric over the weekend, declaring that it had entered a "state of war" with the South and labeling the U.S. mainland a "boiled pumpkin," vulnerable to attack.

So paint the radome orange and call this whole thing Operation Glass Slipper just to really annoy Un.


What do free prom dresses for poor kids have to do with North Korea?
 
2013-04-02 12:12:12 PM

mainsail: Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Theaetetus: Oh, piffle.

I've been oh piffled.

It's not even f*cking Wednesday yet and I've been oh piffled.

Damn.

At least I didn't bosh or twaddle you.

Language, Sir....


You will note that I have de-escalated.
 
2013-04-02 12:20:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I see your point. 30 foot seas would still be no fun on that thing, regardless.


Probably not as bad as one might think. Some rocking and rolling for sure but with that wide of a beam and that much ballast weight in the legs the biggest worry would probably be if the waves got high enough to slam into the underside of the deck and putt excessive stress on where the legs meet the platform. Tipping over would be damn near impossible in that thing though. Ive been in 30' seas where the CG and CB were only a few feet apart and while we rolled a good bit (having a round hull and all of that didn't help, I think the worst one was close to 60 degrees from one side to the other) there was no way that we were ever going to ever come close to flipping over. Maybe 10 or 15 degrees tops for that platform. There might be some coffee spills but that's about it.
 
2013-04-02 12:24:28 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: We need a giant projector on a satellite, that could project this on the NK cloud cover.

[i50.tinypic.com image 850x638]

That would freak them the hell out.


Wait, that reminds me of something ....

www.jonathanrosenbaum.com

/hot hot hot
//but surely not obscure?
///oy, slashies.
 
2013-04-02 12:27:22 PM

Radioactive Ass: DubtodaIll: We sure are moving a lot of hardware in that direction.  With all our other conflicts dying down the military seems to be jonesing for a fight.

The military doesn't move squat without the president's go ahead first.


*takes note*

Ok, so far I've got "Russians don't take a dump without a plan" and "The military doesn't move squat without the president's go ahead."  Anything else I need to know?
 
2013-04-02 12:31:57 PM

GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't? Besides float.


1. Operate continuously;
2.  Have much more power, which gives a clearer picture.  Against more sophisticated enemies (China has been known to help NK, you know), an increase in power can actually defeat some stealth technology;
3.  Look-up radar is always better than look-down radar, unless you're fighting against things like low-flying cruise missiles that NK simply doesn't have;
4.  Supplement the AWACS that they'll keep in the air anyway, because multiple radars are always better and because we can't be entirely sure what NK does have so going at them from every angle is the smart thing to do.

That's about it.  It's superior in every way, basically, plus it'll supplement the AWACS that they won't take away simply because they moved this one closer.
 
2013-04-02 12:34:16 PM

snocone: Ahh, the old Gulf of Tonkin Gambit.

The old lies are the best lies.


You do know that US naval forces were actually attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, don't you?

There were two seprtate incidents. An attack on August 2 and a suspected attack on August 4. The Aug 2 attack happened and was admitted to by the Vietnamese. The August 4th incident was most likely sailors under great stress getting confused.

While I am not defending the use of the attack on Maddox to get the US involved in the Vietnamese civil war, it is a common misconception that the event was a complete fabrication that should be corrected.
 
2013-04-02 12:37:37 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: GORDON: What can a $200m radar ship do that a couple of $20m AWAC planes can't? Besides float.

1. Operate continuously;
2.  Have much more power, which gives a clearer picture.  Against more sophisticated enemies (China has been known to help NK, you know), an increase in power can actually defeat some stealth technology;
3.  Look-up radar is always better than look-down radar, unless you're fighting against things like low-flying cruise missiles that NK simply doesn't have;
4.  Supplement the AWACS that they'll keep in the air anyway, because multiple radars are always better and because we can't be entirely sure what NK does have so going at them from every angle is the smart thing to do.

That's about it.  It's superior in every way, basically, plus it'll supplement the AWACS that they won't take away simply because they moved this one closer.


You have great points.... However, the posters original comparison is flawed. E2s don't cost $20 Million. Their unit cost is $176 Million.
 
2013-04-02 12:39:30 PM

DubtodaIll: We sure are moving a lot of hardware in that direction.  With all our other conflicts dying down the military seems to be jonesing for a fight.


Well, hey, without a war or two going on we might have to cut our bloated defense budget a bit. Can't have that, now.
 
2013-04-02 12:41:31 PM

b2theory: You have great points.... However, the posters original comparison is flawed.


No big deal.  I'm just talking out of my butt anyway, too.
 
2013-04-02 12:44:07 PM

b2theory: snocone: Ahh, the old Gulf of Tonkin Gambit.

The old lies are the best lies.

You do know that US naval forces were actually attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, don't you?

There were two seprtate incidents. An attack on August 2 and a suspected attack on August 4. The Aug 2 attack happened and was admitted to by the Vietnamese. The August 4th incident was most likely sailors under great stress getting confused.

While I am not defending the use of the attack on Maddox to get the US involved in the Vietnamese civil war, it is a common misconception that the event was a complete fabrication that should be corrected.


With all due respect, bullchit. "Attack" is a fabrication.
Believe whatever version of Revised History you like, no big dealeo.
 
2013-04-02 12:46:54 PM

lobotomy survivor: Sybarite: I think we should make it more intimidating by painting it like a giant eyeball.

Paint it like a giant clown face.


As you wish.......

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-02 12:53:36 PM

snocone: b2theory: snocone: Ahh, the old Gulf of Tonkin Gambit.

The old lies are the best lies.

You do know that US naval forces were actually attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, don't you?

There were two seprtate incidents. An attack on August 2 and a suspected attack on August 4. The Aug 2 attack happened and was admitted to by the Vietnamese. The August 4th incident was most likely sailors under great stress getting confused.

While I am not defending the use of the attack on Maddox to get the US involved in the Vietnamese civil war, it is a common misconception that the event was a complete fabrication that should be corrected.

With all due respect, bullchit. "Attack" is a fabrication.
Believe whatever version of Revised History you like, no big dealeo.


If you are content with your fantasy it doesn't bother me. I just assumed you hated being wrong as much as I do.
 
2013-04-02 01:13:53 PM

lobotomy survivor: Sybarite: I think we should make it more intimidating by painting it like a giant eyeball.

Paint it like a giant clown face.


Nah, paint Kim Jung Un's face on it with a real pouty expression and tears welling up in his eyes.
 
2013-04-02 01:16:18 PM
For Sale:
img39.imageshack.us

God
 
2013-04-02 01:18:15 PM
The above post should qualify as the most obscure post ever on Fark.....
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report