International Aerospace Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16482
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Oct 2014 03:41


Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Gagan » 29 Oct 2014 04:19

Antares rocket explodes shortly after launch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHMmMgdcOSU#t=44
[youtube]jHMmMgdcOSU#t=44[/youtube]

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 29 Oct 2014 04:24

that is bad! it appeared the fuel dumped off at an exponential rate and eventually 1S gave up in few secs!
================
that japanese MRJ looks cool. if things goes well for them, possible candidate to replace /add-on to our embraer needs.

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 29 Oct 2014 04:47

JTull wrote:Prithwiraj, viewing it on Sky?


No I meant I was watching a live feed--and I sensed something wrong for a fraction of a second before the commentators---who were kind of still immersed in joy....then it goes up--- and then "launch team launch team stay on your console"..... CNN has been on a overdrive now showing the same video on loop for last 2.5 hrs....

SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 666
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SSSalvi » 29 Oct 2014 10:06

Rosetta , the ESA spacecraft launched in 2004 to study a comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. It is in its final and most crucial phase to launch a lander Philae which will anchor itself to the comet. In fact even now it is sending high resolution images of the comet from as near as 8 kms ( Yes, you read it right .. eight kms ).

Read about it : http://sssalvi.blogspot.com/2014/10/201 ... udies.html

Image

bharats
BRFite
Posts: 342
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 13:37
Location: India
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby bharats » 30 Oct 2014 19:14

Can Indian Aerospace Companies Think Bigger for the FUTURE….!
Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/feature/indian- ... 49223.html

Time for Indian Aerospace Companies to increase 'Technical Competency'
Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/feature/indian- ... 49223.html

by: Ashok Sanmani

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby sooraj » 30 Oct 2014 23:20

ANTARES EXPLODES!!! Panic at the press site! Orbital's rocket blows up

[youtube]/watch?v=MZ0SgAU9LXI[/youtube]

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby sooraj » 30 Oct 2014 23:22

another view

Antares rocket explodes at liftoff

[youtube]/watch?v=fPHkDc-CwoQ[/youtube]

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby sooraj » 30 Oct 2014 23:24

Orbital Sciences Antares Explosion at Wallops from 3000ft

[youtube]/watch?v=zarWT7H9t54[/youtube]

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 31 Oct 2014 06:49

sooraj wrote:ANTARES EXPLODES!!! Panic at the press site! Orbital's rocket blows up

[youtube]/watch?v=MZ0SgAU9LXI[/youtube]

nice video, except for the last lost focus.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8094
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 Nov 2014 20:04


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Nov 2014 09:51



SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 666
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SSSalvi » 09 Nov 2014 11:53

12th November 2014 is a historic day in Human History.

ESA's spacecraft Rosetta will release a man-made lander Philae on the comet 67P/C-G.A first time event in the history of mankind.

Read about the event with time tags here.

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_28756 » 09 Nov 2014 12:48

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Virgi ... s_999.html

Virgin Galactic could resume test flights in six months
by Staff Writers
London, UK (AFP) Nov 08, 2014

Virgin Galactic could resume test flights with a new spaceship within six months, the company said Friday, a week after the fatal crash of SpaceShipTwo in the Californian desert.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16482
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Nov 2014 16:08


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 12 Nov 2014 05:46


Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 Nov 2014 15:45

NRao wrote:

Dunno. How do I shut that window to get a litlle shut eye?



I believe you just shutoff your panel (window). The overhead cameras are switched off by the crew just as they do with lights.

The really interesting part of this is to ask whether the JSF pilot also has this kind of view supplemented by sensor fusion. Sure beats those rear view mirrors on the MKI don't it?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 Nov 2014 15:49

On another topic:

Fearing Bombs That Can Pick Whom to Kill

"On a bright fall day last year off the coast of Southern California, an Air Force B-1 bomber launched an experimental missile that may herald the future of warfare.

Initially, pilots aboard the plane directed the missile, but halfway to its destination, it severed communication with its operators. Alone, without human oversight, the missile decided which of three ships to attack, dropping to just above the sea surface and striking a 260-foot unmanned freighter."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/scien ... tions.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16482
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2014 00:53

Just when you think you have run out of ideas:

Pentagon wants ideas for flying aircraft carrier

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16482
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2014 00:55

Sure beats those rear view mirrors on the MKI don't it?


Situational awareness of another kind. It works to the extent it is supposed to.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_28722 » 13 Nov 2014 02:52

NRao wrote:Just when you think you have run out of ideas:

Pentagon wants ideas for flying aircraft carrier

How about something like Avengers1 :P :D

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16482
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2014 03:13

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:
NRao wrote:Just when you think you have run out of ideas:

Pentagon wants ideas for flying aircraft carrier

How about something like Avengers1 :P :D


Pentagon is awaiting your call.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4397
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby srai » 13 Nov 2014 08:08



Very improved and modernised Mi-8/17 series! IMO, India should do a MKI on it and license produce it to replace around 200+ Mi-8/17 medium helicopter fleet in service over the next 20-30 years.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4736
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 13 Nov 2014 10:51

Australia formally requests extra C-17s

Australia has formally requested “up to four” more Boeing C-17A Globemaster III airlifters from the US government, a notification by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) posted on 12 November shows.

The notification states that up to four C-17s and associated equipment, parts and logistical support have been requested for an estimated $1.6 billion. The extra equipment includes 19 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines, four AN/AAQ-24V Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) sets, and various other electronic warfare, communications and navigation systems. It also includes unspecified spares and repair parts, supply and test equipment, training and training equipment, technical documentation, logistics, and technical support services.
..


habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6821
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby habal » 13 Nov 2014 18:04

As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer. In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up - or about to be - with the defense systems installed on NATO’s most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.


http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft - unarmed - repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.

After that, the 4th generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.
..

Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8094
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Nov 2014 18:39

habal wrote:
As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer. In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up - or about to be - with the defense systems installed on NATO’s most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.


http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft - unarmed - repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.

After that, the 4th generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.
..

Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny.



Isn't this the story which was ridiculed by even Russians? Did it also not talk about all the people serving on the US ship resigning on the spot ..LOL

Edit:

According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.

Some specialized media this :), seems this blogger/reporter/nobody had some inside source on the AEGIS ship...


Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Victor » 14 Nov 2014 09:32

srai wrote:


Very improved and modernised Mi-8/17 series! IMO, India should do a MKI on it and license produce it to replace around 200+ Mi-8/17 medium helicopter fleet in service over the next 20-30 years.

Agreed. It should also find a place in some challenging civil areas like NE and the islands etc.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6821
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby habal » 14 Nov 2014 18:13

brar_w wrote:
Isn't this the story which was ridiculed by even Russians? Did it also not talk about all the people serving on the US ship resigning on the spot ..LOL

Edit:

According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.

Some specialized media this :), seems this blogger/reporter/nobody had some inside source on the AEGIS ship...


easy there

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Donald Cook is the first of our permanently forward-stationed ballistic missile defense (BMD) warships,

which we’ve been planning to put in the European theater as part of the Obama “substitute” for the Bush 43 missile defense plan.
Obama cancelled the Bush plan in 2009, and changed the scope and purpose of the overarching missile defense mission in his revision. Instead of defending both Europe and the United States against missiles launched from South Asia, Obama’s plan defends only Europe, at least until 2018 and probably until well after. (There is no concrete schedule for deploying a defense capability against ICBMs launched on this axis.)

Going on the assumption that Iran is the only source of a medium-range missile threat, the Obama plan stations BMD-enhanced Aegis warships in Europe, to rotate through routine patrol positions in the Black Sea and Mediterranean. Four Arleigh Burke destroyers (see Stars and Stripes link) are destined to be permanently stationed in Rota, Spain to conduct most of these patrols.
BMD is a wholly defensive mission. But Russia has always insisted on interpreting it as a means of improving the U.S. posture for offensive attack. This is a key philosophical difference between our two nations. Americans recognize viscerally that we want missile defense to protect our people – not to make our military invulnerable so that it’s more feasible to attack Russia. But Russia’s leadership has almost invariably refused to accept the American evaluation of our purpose. (There was a brief window of potential, if never realized, agreement on principle during the early Yeltsin years.)

It would require a whole separate post to argue the ins and outs of this point. For now, what matters is that Russia officially interprets our actions in this way. The party line taken in this Russia Today report, when Donald Cook entered the Black Sea a few days ago, is typical. The Russians see our destroyers in the Black Sea fairly often; what they’re reacting to is the presence of Donald Cook, the inaugural token of the dedicated BMD mission, to which they strenuously object.

The timing, of course, makes it possible for the Russians to argue that the U.S. is not just following a long-planned deployment schedule, but is ratcheting up our NATO defense profile as part of a plan to have a military face-off with Russia. The point isn’t whether they’re right or wrong about that (all kinds of arguments can be made about Obama’s vacillating demeanor as a geopolitical leader, NATO’s general passivity at this moment, and so forth). The point is that a ship with a special mission has actually moved into the Black Sea, and Russia can point to that, and has every intention to.

The “half-McNamara”

Why go through the drill of this analysis? Because Russia, seeing the “correlation of forces” and its meaning differently from the way we do, is likely to see escalation where we don’t, or exploit pretexts that we don’t agree are there. That doesn’t mean we should pull back. It does mean this whole situation is crying out for an actionable statement from the U.S. and NATO about our policy. “Everybody back up or there will be consequences” is not a policy statement. What we should be doing is declaring what our inviolable interests are, making our power moves (including military actions) suit those interests, and clarifying for Russia what Russia has to do to talk us down, if she’s feeling insecure.
Instead, Obama seems to be doing what I have come to call the “half-McNamara”: deploying some military force here and there, mainly according to a long pre-existing schedule, and coyly waiting to see if such moves “send a signal” that makes any sort of impression on the other team.

Robert McNamara, then secretary of defense, spent the early Vietnam War years thinking it was a brilliant plan to “send signals” with militarily useless but provocative activities. The Obama administration has ratcheted the operational profile of this practice down somewhat, so I call it the “half-McNamara.” (I’ve written at more length about it before, such as here and here.) A key feature of the half-McNamara is that it’s intended to impress the folks at home, and our allies, as much as it is the other guy. (McNamara delighted more in having “secret” activities.) But the Obama gestures tend to be tokens, not actual changes in posture or intent. It’s less about military or strategic logic in our choice of actions than it is about political appearance.


Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/04/14 ... 2UvqeY3.99

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8094
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Nov 2014 18:36

habal wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Isn't this the story which was ridiculed by even Russians? Did it also not talk about all the people serving on the US ship resigning on the spot ..LOL

Edit:

According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.

Some specialized media this :), seems this blogger/reporter/nobody had some inside source on the AEGIS ship...


easy there

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Donald Cook is the first of our permanently forward-stationed ballistic missile defense (BMD) warships,

which we’ve been planning to put in the European theater as part of the Obama “substitute” for the Bush 43 missile defense plan.
Obama cancelled the Bush plan in 2009, and changed the scope and purpose of the overarching missile defense mission in his revision. Instead of defending both Europe and the United States against missiles launched from South Asia, Obama’s plan defends only Europe, at least until 2018 and probably until well after. (There is no concrete schedule for deploying a defense capability against ICBMs launched on this axis.)

Going on the assumption that Iran is the only source of a medium-range missile threat, the Obama plan stations BMD-enhanced Aegis warships in Europe, to rotate through routine patrol positions in the Black Sea and Mediterranean. Four Arleigh Burke destroyers (see Stars and Stripes link) are destined to be permanently stationed in Rota, Spain to conduct most of these patrols.
BMD is a wholly defensive mission. But Russia has always insisted on interpreting it as a means of improving the U.S. posture for offensive attack. This is a key philosophical difference between our two nations. Americans recognize viscerally that we want missile defense to protect our people – not to make our military invulnerable so that it’s more feasible to attack Russia. But Russia’s leadership has almost invariably refused to accept the American evaluation of our purpose. (There was a brief window of potential, if never realized, agreement on principle during the early Yeltsin years.)

It would require a whole separate post to argue the ins and outs of this point. For now, what matters is that Russia officially interprets our actions in this way. The party line taken in this Russia Today report, when Donald Cook entered the Black Sea a few days ago, is typical. The Russians see our destroyers in the Black Sea fairly often; what they’re reacting to is the presence of Donald Cook, the inaugural token of the dedicated BMD mission, to which they strenuously object.

The timing, of course, makes it possible for the Russians to argue that the U.S. is not just following a long-planned deployment schedule, but is ratcheting up our NATO defense profile as part of a plan to have a military face-off with Russia. The point isn’t whether they’re right or wrong about that (all kinds of arguments can be made about Obama’s vacillating demeanor as a geopolitical leader, NATO’s general passivity at this moment, and so forth). The point is that a ship with a special mission has actually moved into the Black Sea, and Russia can point to that, and has every intention to.

The “half-McNamara”

Why go through the drill of this analysis? Because Russia, seeing the “correlation of forces” and its meaning differently from the way we do, is likely to see escalation where we don’t, or exploit pretexts that we don’t agree are there. That doesn’t mean we should pull back. It does mean this whole situation is crying out for an actionable statement from the U.S. and NATO about our policy. “Everybody back up or there will be consequences” is not a policy statement. What we should be doing is declaring what our inviolable interests are, making our power moves (including military actions) suit those interests, and clarifying for Russia what Russia has to do to talk us down, if she’s feeling insecure.
Instead, Obama seems to be doing what I have come to call the “half-McNamara”: deploying some military force here and there, mainly according to a long pre-existing schedule, and coyly waiting to see if such moves “send a signal” that makes any sort of impression on the other team.

Robert McNamara, then secretary of defense, spent the early Vietnam War years thinking it was a brilliant plan to “send signals” with militarily useless but provocative activities. The Obama administration has ratcheted the operational profile of this practice down somewhat, so I call it the “half-McNamara.” (I’ve written at more length about it before, such as here and here.) A key feature of the half-McNamara is that it’s intended to impress the folks at home, and our allies, as much as it is the other guy. (McNamara delighted more in having “secret” activities.) But the Obama gestures tend to be tokens, not actual changes in posture or intent. It’s less about military or strategic logic in our choice of actions than it is about political appearance.


Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/04/14 ... 2UvqeY3.99


So how does that verify the account which no mainstream media anywhere took seriously?

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6821
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby habal » 14 Nov 2014 19:34

do you have specific information that such even didn't take place ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18824
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Nov 2014 19:57

if we apply some basic awareness of military protocol and also EW and the above report is bogus.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Lisa » 14 Nov 2014 20:34

brar_w,

Its as true as she says but for one fact. First deployment occurred off the coast of Alaska and 2 more ships thereafter to Sea Of Japan on permanent rotation, ie six ships available for CDRUSPACOM. All this started happening some 5 years ago. You will now probably understand why North Korean threats come to nothing.

Also try to recall shooting down of dysfunctional satellite some 5 years ago over the north pacific. same class of ship off the coast of Alaska, just with code change to missile software. You may of-course chose not to believe.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8094
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2014 03:38

habal wrote:do you have specific information that such even didn't take place ?


So the burden of proof is on me and not the Unknown blogger who wrote the article? Its been discussed all around the www months ago when it was first reported on some blogs (perhaps it was this blog) and was ridiculed by pretty much everyone, including those that could be considered as "russian centric".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8094
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2014 03:40

Lisa wrote:brar_w,

Its as true as she says but for one fact. First deployment occurred off the coast of Alaska and 2 more ships thereafter to Sea Of Japan on permanent rotation, ie six ships available for CDRUSPACOM. All this started happening some 5 years ago. You will now probably understand why North Korean threats come to nothing.

Also try to recall shooting down of dysfunctional satellite some 5 years ago over the north pacific. same class of ship off the coast of Alaska, just with code change to missile software. You may of-course chose not to believe.


True as in whether this ship exists or not? or whether this was completely blacked out by some whizbang Electronic jamming, spoofing work by the russians forcing the sailors to offer resignation? What does that have to do with a sat shutdown?

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6821
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby habal » 15 Nov 2014 09:14

brar_w wrote:
habal wrote:do you have specific information that such even didn't take place ?


So the burden of proof is on me and not the Unknown blogger who wrote the article? Its been discussed all around the www months ago when it was first reported on some blogs (perhaps it was this blog) and was ridiculed by pretty much everyone, including those that could be considered as "russian centric".


it was first reported in AP as per this report. Ofcourse mainstream media (western media) will not report anything that shows USS Donald Cook in poor light. But in light of this sentence, the reasoning behind the interception of that ship seems sound. Let us keep aside the specifics.

Donald Cook is the first of our permanently forward-stationed ballistic missile defense (BMD) warships,


which means, that it is the first naval vessel to be deployed with anti BMD system and deployed in baltics.

this threatens Russia's offensive calculus for mutual destruction. So is there any doubt that would have intercepted this ship through a very public gesture such as the above.

as corroborated here, Obama follows a policy of pinpricks (half-McNamaras) to check if the opposition, viz China or Russia takes offence or is capable of retaliating, if they don't retaliate then USA takes that space for granted and it means that option is open or the space is vacant.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8094
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2014 09:32

Lets get a few things straight. US Ships, or aircraft being overflown by russian aircraft is not unheard of. No one is denying that the US ship was overflown by Russian aircraft, and that was reported and a protest filed. What the blog is stating is that all of a sudden, as a consequence, the systems aboard the USS D Cook stopped working and shut down (and this was somehow measured by the crew, and communicated to the blogging/underground shady reporting media that is littered around the www), and the ship affectively became paralyzed. Not only that, the blog goes even further to sort of assert that some or all of the sailors immediately wanted to be relieved of command suggestive that they were "ashamed" of the entire event. Classic propaganda, that was dismissed by most forums on the world wide web at the time it appeared. The blogger sites absolutely no source that "told him" the exact chain of events, and how he came to know of the specific number of soldiers, that actually said that " please relieve us of our command"..No one is doubting the possibility that a russian aircraft overflew a US ship in the region. That would be sort of expected. But the "alien technology" through which the entire ship was paralyzed and apparently the crew even figured out the exact number of US sailors and officers that offered to resign etc. Its a BIG FAKE (not that the ship was not intercepted by aircraft but everything in between)..but carry on believing if you wish.

The AP reported that an incident had occurred which no one is denying. However, the original link that claimed, that AEGIS was totally shut down, and going as far as stating that the algos failed to perform and even going further in claiming the number of officers that wanted to be relieved of command is nothing but a whole lot of unsubstantiated BS, which any sane person reading would demand some proof on, rather then shift the burden of proof of a fictitious account of events on the person calling the entire thing as it is (BS). If you remove that from the blog story, all that is left is a US ship in the region being followed closely by a Russian ship and having been buzzed by a russian aircraft. Those of us that have been around for a while aren't really surprised upon hearing that :)

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6821
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby habal » 15 Nov 2014 10:13

there is absolutely no way we can claim to know the specifics. What reports say is that AEGIS system was jammed. It sounds like no big deal to me. Was the AEGIS system tested against Russian jammers ? It may have a weak link, which they would have worked to set right by now. AEGIS is anti-ballistic missile defence network, don't you think there would exist a counter to that atleast theoritically. So if there exists a counter in theory, then there exists a possibility, however remote that such a counter could work.

Sailors wanted to go, maybe. If their morale is shaken enough then they may wish to go. How can we know.

You are arguing now on specifics, which you didn't do earlier. And there is no way as laymen, we are privy to the specifics of such incidents. Either we develop an algorithm to chart out what part of the rumors are true or else we pick and choose depending on which side of the fence we stand on. Which is what you are doing now and as per your claims everything that supports a Russian upper hand in that incident is BS.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Lisa » 15 Nov 2014 11:57

brar_w wrote:
Lisa wrote:brar_w,

Its as true as she says but for one fact. First deployment occurred off the coast of Alaska and 2 more ships thereafter to Sea Of Japan on permanent rotation, ie six ships available for CDRUSPACOM. All this started happening some 5 years ago. You will now probably understand why North Korean threats come to nothing.

Also try to recall shooting down of dysfunctional satellite some 5 years ago over the north pacific. same class of ship off the coast of Alaska, just with code change to missile software. You may of-course chose not to believe.


True as in whether this ship exists or not? or whether this was completely blacked out by some whizbang Electronic jamming, spoofing work by the russians forcing the sailors to offer resignation? What does that have to do with a sat shutdown?


My apologies in that I did not make myself clear. The BMD ship/s do very much exist and their capability is not a matter of fiction. It is their deployment that has to some degree changed in a big way the plans to install ABM related systems on continental Europe. With regards to the incident as described, who knows.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests