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  
•       •       •

29059 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
 
2013-04-02 09:12:21 AM
I think we should make it more intimidating by painting it like a giant eyeball.
 
2013-04-02 09:17:18 AM
+1.

/We even teed it up for you.
 
2013-04-02 09:24:25 AM

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


The Eye of Sauron.
 
2013-04-02 09:25:28 AM

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


Actually, if we did that, they'd just call Giant Robo to defeat it:

i113.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-02 09:58:44 AM

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

Actually, if we did that, they'd just call Giant Robo to defeat it:

[i113.photobucket.com image 600x450]


I hope North Korea knows that if they keep screwing with Japan, they are getting THIS close to being stomped by a giant, radioactive lizard.
 
2013-04-02 10:01:45 AM
and labeling the U.S. mainland a "boiled pumpkin," vulnerable to attack.

Ok, now them's fightin' words. Kim Jong Un will rue the goddam day he called us a boiled pumpkin!
 
2013-04-02 10:03:05 AM
This wouldn't happen to Moses.
 
2013-04-02 10:04:14 AM
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.
 
2013-04-02 10:04:50 AM
The Navy ought to put lasers on it that play anti-Nork light shows on the clouds at night. (Maybe some giant speakers that blare Freedom Rock, too.)

If they're looking to provoke the KJ Un, then that might just do it. Sure, the B-2s and F-22s were attention getters, but parking this thing in international waters right off their coast might just get their goat.

This ought to really get some tiny dicks a'wavin'. Good jorb, Washington.
 
2013-04-02 10:05:10 AM
You know you have air and naval superiority when you're bringing oil rigs to the fight.
 
2013-04-02 10:06:05 AM

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


i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-02 10:07:06 AM

NutWrench: and labeling the U.S. mainland a "boiled pumpkin," vulnerable to attack.

Ok, now them's fightin' words. Kim Jong Un will rue the goddam day he called us a boiled pumpkin!


And all of Best Korea licked its collective lips and murmured "MMmmmmmmm, boiled pumpkin!"
 
2013-04-02 10:08:29 AM

The Snow Dog: If they're looking to provoke the KJ Un...


Why would they be looking to provoke him or North Korea? Think about it - when has provocation ever been necessary for us to invade a country? We've got that whole preemptive strike thing pretty well normalized now, but now, suddenly, we need to wait for NK to fire the first shot?
No, something else is going on here.
 
2013-04-02 10:08:31 AM
Hey Kimmmmmmmmmy boi!
i844.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-02 10:09:49 AM

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


Stay there day in, day out, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a per day cost much, much less than flying multiple aircraft.
 
2013-04-02 10:10:04 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.


Do you mean the E-2's? Going to be kind of tough on the crews to maintain a 24/7 watch. Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.
 
2013-04-02 10:10:30 AM
Yeah, well you're...uh... a carmelized yam! So there.
 
2013-04-02 10:11:08 AM

Old_Chief_Scott: Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.


Are our satellites and long range radar in Alaska not good enough anymore?
 
2013-04-02 10:11:20 AM

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

Actually, if we did that, they'd just call Giant Robo to defeat it:

[i113.photobucket.com image 600x450]

I hope North Korea knows that if they keep screwing with Japan, they are getting THIS close to being stomped by a giant, radioactive lizard.


Also, if they fark with the children, they'll have to contend with a giant flying turtle.  That knows gymnastics.
 
2013-04-02 10:11:29 AM

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

The Eye of Sauron.


This would be AWESOME!  A giant eye of Sauron floating just off the coast of North Korea would be epic!!
 
2013-04-02 10:12:43 AM
Do not taunt happy fun ball.
 
2013-04-02 10:13:55 AM

Theaetetus: The Snow Dog: If they're looking to provoke the KJ Un...

Why would they be looking to provoke him or North Korea? Think about it - when has provocation ever been necessary for us to invade a country? We've got that whole preemptive strike thing pretty well normalized now, but now, suddenly, we need to wait for NK to fire the first shot?
No, something else is going on here.


Shhhh. They don't suspect anything about the lasers or underwater shark pens.
 
2013-04-02 10:14:04 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.


How good are AWACS at missile defense?  You know, tracking warheads and all that.

Not really sure what tags along with the SBX, but having seen it hanging around Pearl, and having friends who've toured it, I'm getting a kick out of this.
 
2013-04-02 10:14:14 AM

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

Stay there day in, day out, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a per day cost much, much less than flying multiple aircraft.


Spoken like a true ex-squid. CT by any chance?


Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.

Are our satellites and long range radar in Alaska not good enough anymore?


Those are overwatch. We still need to keep an eye one everybody else but this rig brings a great deal of- let's call it "focus" on Best Korea.
 
2013-04-02 10:17:43 AM

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

Stay there day in, day out, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a per day cost much, much less than flying multiple aircraft.


It also operates a giant x-band radar that draws more than a megawatt of power and its plugged into the BMD system.

By the way. An E2D costs almost $200 million.
 
2013-04-02 10:18:21 AM

Old_Chief_Scott: Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.

Are our satellites and long range radar in Alaska not good enough anymore?

Those are overwatch. We still need to keep an eye one everybody else but this rig brings a great deal of- let's call it "focus" on Best Korea.


Oh, piffle. This isn't a "gosh, NK is such a huge threat that we need to bring a great deal of focus on them to watch for ballistic missile launches," this is a "we're going to park a giant honking radar installation just off your coast and blast you with enough RF to make your fillings rattle, because we can."

Or rather, except for the "because we can" part. We have an ulterior motive for this, and it certainly isn't security.
 
2013-04-02 10:18:47 AM
How is that thing not top heavy?

/honest question, wouldn't even a mild storm flip it over?
 
2013-04-02 10:19:08 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.


Sit in one place and monitor 24/7 without refueling, for one thing. It's not a ship; it's a platform that anchors to the bottom.

Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.

Are our satellites and long range radar in Alaska not good enough anymore?


Not good enough for early warning and rough targeting, which is what the SM-3s on an Aegis cruiser/DDG need to shoot down a Nork missile before it gets to Japan.
 
2013-04-02 10:20:11 AM

Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.

Are our satellites and long range radar in Alaska not good enough anymore?


Satellites only provide launch warning, and basic (but not detailed) trajectory information.

The radar in Alaska would only see a missile launched from North Korea when it is hundreds of miles high, and quite likely already half-way to it's target.  A radar much closer to the DPRK can give much greater warning times and better trajectory information earlier, so you know where it's aimed.
 
2013-04-02 10:20:34 AM

maudibjr: How is that thing not top heavy?

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


Most of it is underwater, where you can't see it, and the radar weighs practically nothing compared to the platform.
 
2013-04-02 10:21:23 AM

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.
 
2013-04-02 10:23:40 AM
We need a giant projector on a satellite, that could project this on the NK cloud cover.

i50.tinypic.com

That would freak them the hell out.
 
2013-04-02 10:24:14 AM

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

Stay there day in, day out, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a per day cost much, much less than flying multiple aircraft.

Spoken like a true ex-squid. CT by any chance?


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.
 
2013-04-02 10:24:14 AM
Since we're (presumably) just waiting for something to happen and not looking for something specific, that ship probably covers a huge area against a variety of threats (ballistic, surface-to-surface, aircraft, etc.) with lower cost and greater endurance than running AWACs flights all the time.  Plus it can probably do so from greater distance and is a single target, where the AWACS will have to fly right up to the border in numbers, constantly to do the same job.  They're just lowering the cost and the number of opportunities they're giving any potentially trigger-happy Best Koreans, would be my guess.
 
2013-04-02 10:24:50 AM

mbillips: 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.

Sit in one place and monitor 24/7 without refueling, for one thing. It's not a ship; it's a platform that anchors to the bottom.Theaetetus: Old_Chief_Scott: Bringing this thing into the theater is also going to give a ballistic missile watch capability.

Are our satellites and long range radar in Alaska not good enough anymore?

Not good enough for early warning and rough targeting, which is what the SM-3s on an Aegis cruiser/DDG need to shoot down a Nork missile before it gets to Japan.


The Aegis BMD system is a stand alone system. This provides information to the midcourse interceptors in Alaska and California.
 
2013-04-02 10:25:30 AM

Theaetetus: Oh, piffle.


I've been oh piffled.

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

Damn.
 
2013-04-02 10:26:36 AM

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.
 
2013-04-02 10:26:45 AM

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

[i46.tinypic.com image 600x750]



Ha! Nice.
 
2013-04-02 10:30:05 AM

Theaetetus: The Snow Dog: If they're looking to provoke the KJ Un...

Why would they be looking to provoke him or North Korea? Think about it - when has provocation ever been necessary for us to invade a country? We've got that whole preemptive strike thing pretty well normalized now, but now, suddenly, we need to wait for NK to fire the first shot?
No, something else is going on here.


PNAC isn't running the show anymore?
 
2013-04-02 10:31:18 AM
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.
 
2013-04-02 10:31:42 AM

The Snow Dog: The Navy ought to put lasers on it that play anti-Nork light shows on the clouds at night. (Maybe some giant speakers that blare Freedom Rock, too.)

If they're looking to provoke the KJ Un, then that might just do it. Sure, the B-2s and F-22s were attention getters, but parking this thing in international waters right off their coast might just get their goat.

This ought to really get some tiny dicks a'wavin'. Good jorb, Washington.


Be pulled from surplus?

Radar based planes are harder to upkeep and are needed elsewhere. This thing was sitting around. It's not really used, and it won't be a big loss to the effectiveness of our forces if it's sunk.

That thing was mothballed and the program ended a while back.  I bet it's not even operable. There's a big tennis court and hot dog stand inside that dome instead.

It's a "Gulf of Tonkin" type decoy for the Norks to get all excited and intimidated about.

US Navy: "See, our ball is big. This is just one, the other, and the penis are lurking about."

Norks: "Send Hans Brix for negotiations to beglin"
 
2013-04-02 10:31:44 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.


Not have to have refueling tankers in the sky. Although airborne radar has other advantages.
 
2013-04-02 10:34:53 AM

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

Stay there day in, day out, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a per day cost much, much less than flying multiple aircraft.

Spoken like a true ex-squid. CT by any chance?

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.


Oh snap...  I resemble that remark.

/Put on a uniform, but sitting in cubicle world doesn't FEEL very "military" like
//We still blow the crap out of stuff better than anyone
 
2013-04-02 10:37:25 AM

NutWrench: and labeling the U.S. mainland a "boiled pumpkin," vulnerable to attack.

Ok, now them's fightin' words. Kim Jong Un will rue the goddam day he called us a boiled pumpkin!



encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Concurs...kimchi eating sons of biatches.
 
2013-04-02 10:38:05 AM

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


It can sink in bad weather.
 
2013-04-02 10:38:54 AM
imageshack.us

Fixed.
 
2013-04-02 10:39:46 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.


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.
 
2013-04-02 10:40:45 AM
In case anyone thinks there's a threat that North Korea might pull a 1950-style invasion again, ah, no. Not possible. The ROK armed forces are INFINITELY superior qualitatively, and sufficiently large that the North's superior numbers are meaningless (there's no way the North could supply their standing army in the field, let alone mobilize, feed, supply and transport their supposed 8 million reservists). The North could shoot off some artillery and rockets before the South stomped them into a fine paste, without needing U.S. assistance.

The Nork Air Force mainly flies MiG-21s, designed in the early 1950s, while the South has nearly 200 fully modernized F-16s. 'Nuff said.
 
2013-04-02 10:43:51 AM

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.


He's just lucky he didn't go with "pshaw". If theaetetus had pshawed, you clearly would have been forced to say "Good day sir! ...I said good day!"

/tone it down gentleman we don't need another conflict.
 
2013-04-02 10:45:33 AM

pappy1398: 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.

He's just lucky he didn't go with "pshaw". If theaetetus had pshawed, you clearly would have been forced to say "Good day sir! ...I said good day!"

/tone it down gentleman we don't need another conflict.


That's it! Fetch me my fighting trousers!
 
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.....
 
2013-04-02 01:26:26 PM
farm5.static.flickr.com

That's some 60's technology right there!
 
2013-04-02 01:32:59 PM

The Snow Dog: The Navy ought to put lasers on it that play anti-Nork light shows on the clouds at night. (Maybe some giant speakers that blare Freedom Rock, too.)


Turn it up, man!

v010o.popscreen.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKDk-mg1J9Q  for those that remember...
 
2013-04-02 01:40:08 PM

New Age Redneck: For Sale:
[img39.imageshack.us image 640x480]

God


He's been trying to sell that forever. Even God can't hit a fricken 1 iron.
 
2013-04-02 01:41:03 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: NutWrench: and labeling the U.S. mainland a "boiled pumpkin," vulnerable to attack.

Ok, now them's fightin' words. Kim Jong Un will rue the goddam day he called us a boiled pumpkin!

And all of Best Korea licked its collective lips and murmured "MMmmmmmmm, boiled pumpkin!"


cgraves67: Yeah, well you're...uh... a carmelized yam! So there.


I think  'squash' would be a more appropriate retort. and 'fried' would the right adjective.

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

[i46.tinypic.com image 600x750]


A rotatable cover would really up the effect...
 
2013-04-02 01:41:55 PM

New Age Redneck: The above post should qualify as the most obscure post ever on Fark.....


Seriously? Not even close.
 
2013-04-02 01:48:49 PM

mbillips: In case anyone thinks there's a threat that North Korea might pull a 1950-style invasion again, ah, no. Not possible. The ROK armed forces are INFINITELY superior qualitatively, and sufficiently large that the North's superior numbers are meaningless (there's no way the North could supply their standing army in the field, let alone mobilize, feed, supply and transport their supposed 8 million reservists). The North could shoot off some artillery and rockets before the South stomped them into a fine paste, without needing U.S. assistance.

The Nork Air Force mainly flies MiG-21s, designed in the early 1950s, while the South has nearly 200 fully modernized F-16s. 'Nuff said.


Sigh.  You "this war will be quick and easy" guys are like frakking weeds; you keep cropping up.

I hope you're right, really...but have you read ANY military history?

It's not possible to be "infinitely superior" to a few hundred thousand guys with AK47s, even if they're poorly-led and hungry and you have air superiority.

For a more nuanced look:  http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-doss i er/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-milita ry-balance-on-the-kore/
 
2013-04-02 01:57:38 PM
"It's like inchess.First you strategically positionyour pieces. Then, when the timing's right. You strike."


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
And then the screaming starts..or something..
 "Every man there go back inside or we will blow a new crater in this little moon."
 
2013-04-02 02:00:09 PM

PunGent: It's not possible to be "infinitely superior" to a few hundred thousand guys with AK47s, even if they're poorly-led and hungry and you have air superiority.


Wait a minute:  I've been told repeatedly that gun nuts armed with rifles don't stand a chance against the US military, and now you're saying that they can?

Or does that just apply to dang furriners.

/I'm so confused!
 
2013-04-02 02:05:33 PM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost , The Snow Dog

   Nice to see some old school Lee Trevino fans on the fark....

*adjusts onion on belt*

/off my green
 
2013-04-02 03:04:51 PM
SBX-1
farm9.staticflickr.com
farm9.staticflickr.com
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-04-02 03:09:48 PM

Maul555: SBX-1
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x396]
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x440]
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x366]


Forget everything else, I WANT THAT CHAIR.
 
2013-04-02 03:09:56 PM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-04-02 03:40:55 PM

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


Spend half the year vacationing in Hawaii, apparently.

/I swear I see that thing over in West Loch more and more--and we were making golf ball jokes for four years already, at least.  Painting it like a giant eyeball, though...now THAT's a great idea.
 
2013-04-02 04:08:33 PM

b2theory: 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.


Can only be settled by pong, Rock Bottom, 5:00
 
2013-04-02 04:39:42 PM

Ishidan: Spend half the year vacationing in Hawaii, apparently.


The USN's rules are that whenever possible a ship will be in port 1\2 of the time. Preferably in their home port so the crew can be with their families. For a ship like that which has limited mobility and uses (it sure as hell ain't going on a WestPac) it gets to be in port more than almost anyone else. That it's so unusual looking just makes it more likely that people will take notice of it no matter where it's moored. After all pretty much all of our submarines, destroyers, supply ships, whatever look the same as each other to the casual viewer so nobody really notices if one goes away and another one takes its place.
 
2013-04-02 08:03:19 PM
Could the government please stop issuing press releases about every response we make to North Korea's actions!  Every time we do North Korea does something else to make situation worse.  Just make one more announcement.  "We are now and will continue to be prepared to respond to any hostile actions from North Korea, but we will not be discussing any specific preparations that are being made."  Announcing that we were sending B52s, B2s, F22s, Aegis Cruisers, and floating radar platforms have not reduced tensions the next announcement won't either.  If the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results we are starting to look as insane as "Dear Leader".
 
2013-04-02 08:13:26 PM

HK-MP5-SD: Could the government please stop issuing press releases about every response we make to North Korea's actions!  Every time we do North Korea does something else to make situation worse.  Just make one more announcement.  "We are now and will continue to be prepared to respond to any hostile actions from North Korea, but we will not be discussing any specific preparations that are being made."  Announcing that we were sending B52s, B2s, F22s, Aegis Cruisers, and floating radar platforms have not reduced tensions the next announcement won't either.  If the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results we are starting to look as insane as "Dear Leader".


Nope.

That's not the correct way to act, any more than giving in to a child's tantrum is correct.  That just increases the odds that they will do the same thing again in the future when they don't get their way.

Highly publicizing our actions is the best way to proceed.  It shows resolve, and the DPRK leadership knows that they really have no choice but to eventually back down or essentially be destroyed.  They aren't going to push it too far.  They know it, China knows it, and we know it.

We've been down this road before.  This is KJU asserting his leadership for internal benefit.  He's got to show he's a strong leader, able to stand up to the evil Americans and their imperialist running dog lackeys.
 
2013-04-02 08:33:04 PM
This is for Japan and South Korea mostly. I assume we have several AEGIS ships and Patriot Batteries in the area so this gives them some support to try and intercept any SCUDs they might fire.  They have had only one successful test of a multistage long range rocket (that satellite launch a few months back) so chances are a weaponized version of that would take some work.  SCUDs we know work and also that they can be intercepted.

Chances are, there will be a small scale attack of some kind.  Tensions and expectations have been raised too high in NK for them to passively back down. That doesn't mean a large scale attack, North Korea knows it will lose if it comes to that and their leadership doesn't want to lose its privileges. It could be a conventional SCUD launch on South Korea or Japan, or another limited engagement (sub attack, artillery strike, terrorist attack).  However something is coming soon, and its best to be prepared for all contingencies.
 
2013-04-02 08:52:42 PM

vharshyde: Maul555: SBX-1
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x396]
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x440]
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x366]

Forget everything else, I WANT THAT CHAIR.


it is a pretty nice chair...
 
2013-04-03 09:44:23 AM

trappedspirit: 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?


"Never get in a land war in Asia" and "Never go against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!"
 
2013-04-03 04:32:53 PM

Cybernetic: 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 C is for "Cornfield," right? ;)

/Grew up a few miles from that place
//Remember when  it  was a giant golf ball, not unlike this thing
 
Al!
2013-04-03 09:44:51 PM

BigNumber12: 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.



Dear Democratic People's Republic of Korea,

  We, the citizens of the United States of America, take great umbrage at your callous reference to our homeland as "boiled pumpkin."  Should you continue this juvenile sovereign misfeasance, we will be forced, as a nation, to laugh at you.  No, not with you.  At you.

Sincerely,

The United States of America

PS: Yo mama so fat she ate 2 servings of rice yesterday.  TWO SERVINGS HAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-04-05 07:00:47 AM

dittybopper: PunGent: It's not possible to be "infinitely superior" to a few hundred thousand guys with AK47s, even if they're poorly-led and hungry and you have air superiority.

Wait a minute:  I've been told repeatedly that gun nuts armed with rifles don't stand a chance against the US military, and now you're saying that they can?

Or does that just apply to dang furriners.

/I'm so confused!


Heh...the question is how much damage can they do before they go down, and in both cases, the answer is "a lot."
 
2013-04-05 08:33:18 AM

dbirchall: Cybernetic: 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 C is for "Cornfield," right? ;)

/Grew up a few miles from that place
//Remember when  it  was a giant golf ball, not unlike this thing


Did some Googling, and here's the old ball.  Similar in size to SBX-1's, but those were the days of UHF radar, a far cry from X-band.  Similar idea, though - ballistic missile early warning.

jsf1.homestead.com
 
2013-04-06 09:02:33 AM

dbirchall: dbirchall: Cybernetic: 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 C is for "Cornfield," right? ;)

/Grew up a few miles from that place
//Remember when  it  was a giant golf ball, not unlike this thing

Did some Googling, and here's the old ball.  Similar in size to SBX-1's, but those were the days of UHF radar, a far cry from X-band.  Similar idea, though - ballistic missile early warning.

[jsf1.homestead.com image 432x454]


Here's what it looks like now:

i.imgur.com

You can see it has two (of four) SPY-1 arrays.  Not so easy to see are a couple of conventional rotating radars, plus an IFF antenna.
 
Displayed 125 of 125 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report