Here we go

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
greasemonkeymann said:
you understand that south korea (our ally and U.N. member) is next to it right?
and you understand that China (the worlds largest army, and also nuclear capable, and more importantly N.Koreas ally)
is probably not going to stand aside and watch.
Just want to make sure you are fully grasping what you are saying here.

I just sometimes feel that people say things that in a perfect world may be great (you don't think that fat lil Kim jong scares me, fuck I live in santa cruz CA, if he gets a ICBM figured out? it's gonna be headed to Los angeles or san Francisco or seattle..)

Simply put, a nuclear capable enemy needs to be treated with VERY cautious kid-gloves.
And a military invasion isn't possible at this time, not without SERIOUS complications.
I know quite a bit about nuclear weapons, fission, fall-out, etc..
would be ugly, verrry ugly
Click to expand...
China is not their ally..China tolerates them- for now..what do you think would happen if something happened to China's #1.. America?

China has more to lose in losing the US than it does in losing N. Korea.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Nah Im sorry but that's bullshit, there's no information whatsoever suggesting that the Russians have that capability.

Source?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I can't remember..it's here somewhere.. @ttystikk?

Check Tty's recent threads I read it (or dreamed it) and my dreams aren't that detailed.

Seriously, I'm not fucking with you. The article went on to suggest Pootie set up this whole thing with chemical to be able to showcase this new capability.

You understand we have a convenient fool for a president who thinks and verbalizes in 140 characters and is mentally 3-5 years old.

IMG_0033.JPG

Edit: it was @heckler73 post.

heckler73 said:
And now for this commercial message from one of our sponsors,

Do you have a problem with obstinate nations launching missile attacks against your territory? Tomahawks ruining your breakfast routine and increasing your pothole repair budget?
Well, look no further, we have just the kitchen utensil you NEED to get your day back on track to victory!

KRET 2.0...the latest in jamming technology from Mother Россия MIC LLC Inc.

Now you may ask, "how does this differ from KRET 1.0?"
I'm so glad you asked that, Jimmy. You see, KRET 1.0 was made for shock troop advancement in attack operations, and meant to be mounted on helicopters, to create a localized blinding effect on radar defense systems.
But the new and improved, KRET 2.0 makes Iron Dome look like Tin-foil Helmet.
With KRET 2.0, you can now create an "A2/AD bubble" to protect your entire coastline from pesky, military-grade mosquitoes, leaving you free to deal with the hordes of cockroaches already in your "house", unmolested by the hands of Neocon puppets.

But does it really work? Well, Bobby-Bob al Ahmedoodi, don't take my word for it, listen to the words of one of our unhappy "customers":

The US destroyer USS Donald Cook, equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles entered the neutral waters of the Black Sea on April 10, 2014. The purpose was a demonstration of force and intimidation in connection with the position of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea. The appearance of American warships in these waters is in contradiction of the Montreux Convention about the nature and duration of stay in the Black Sea by the military ships of countries not washed by this sea. In response, Russia sent an unarmed bomber Su- 24 to fly around the U.S. destroyer. However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare complex. According to this version, Aegis spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded alarm. Everything went normally, and the American radars calculated the speed of the approaching target. But suddenly all the screens went blank. Aegis was not working any more, and the rockets could not get target information. Meanwhile, Su-24 flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turn and simulated a missile attack on the target. Then it turned and repeated the maneuver. And did so 12 times.

So...what are you waiting for? Pick up the NATO Hotline, and call immediately. Call in the next 15 minutes, and you'll receive a free BUK AA missile launcher with your order, but don't delay...stocks are limited, and you know we can't do this all day.

BUY...

NOW!!!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
Honestly, I can't remember..it's here somewhere.. @ttystikk?

Check Tty's recent threads I read it (or dreamed it) and my dreams aren't that detailed.

Seriously, I'm not fucking with you. The article went on to suggest Pootie set up this whole thing with chemical to be able to showcase this new capability.

You understand we have a convenient fool for a president who thinks and verbalizes in 140 characters and is mentally 3-5 years old.

View attachment 3922079

Edit: it was @heckler73 post.
Click to expand...
That's to do with stopping the launching ship from acquiring a firing solution.

Once the birds are in the air with a target designated they use optics to guide to target for the exact reason that it's extremely difficult to jam.

GPS can be jammed, radio comms can be jammed, radar can be jammed...but the optics a Tomahawk use run on a different principle.

Basically most of the time they operate in a "fire and forget" mode but can be remote operated.

Aegis uses radar to detect targets and is mostly used in this context for standard Surface to Air missiles.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
That's to do with stopping the launching ship from acquiring a firing solution.

Once the birds are in the air with a target designated they use optics to guide to target for the exact reason that it's extremely difficult to jam.

GPS can be jammed, radio comms can be jammed, radar can be jammed...but the optics a Tomahawk use run on a different principle.

Basically most of the time they operate in a "fire and forget" mode but can be remote operated.

Aegis uses radar to detect targets and is mostly used in this context for standard Surface to Air missiles.
Click to expand...

She "dreamed it".

:roll:
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
That's to do with stopping the launching ship from acquiring a firing solution.

Once the birds are in the air with a target designated they use optics to guide to target for the exact reason that it's extremely difficult to jam.

GPS can be jammed, radio comms can be jammed, radar can be jammed...but the optics a Tomahawk use run on a different principle.

Basically most of the time they operate in a "fire and forget" mode but can be remote operated.

Aegis uses radar to detect targets and is mostly used in this context for standard Surface to Air missiles.
Click to expand...
So why did 1/3 miss to hit anything?
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
That's to do with stopping the launching ship from acquiring a firing solution.

Once the birds are in the air with a target designated they use optics to guide to target for the exact reason that it's extremely difficult to jam.
.
Click to expand...

Optics can be jammed well with a laser and a diffuser (or plano-convex lens?), especially if something is tuned to "look" in certain wavelengths. In essence, the 'field of view' can be 'saturated'. Result: blind fireworks.

BUT but but but...That 'ad' I made earlier was based on something I read on the KRET system, and its upgrade to coastline defense. I can't source it for you right now, but I'm fairly certain you could find out plenty using your own talents, if so inclined. It may very well be little more than an overblown, GPS-fucker...an EM 'noise-maker'.

Meanwhile, check out how the Israeli MIC managed to convince India to buy weapons from them. :lol:


That is some serious marketing talent.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Optics can be jammed well with a laser and a diffuser (or plano-convex lens?), especially if something is tuned to "look" in certain wavelengths. In essence, the 'field of view' can be 'saturated'. Result: blind fireworks.

BUT but but but...That 'ad' I made earlier was based on something I read on the KRET system, and its upgrade to coastline defense. I can't source it for you right now, but I'm fairly certain you could find out plenty using your own talents, if so inclined. It may very well be little more than an overblown, GPS-fucker...an EM 'noise-maker'.

Meanwhile, check out how the Israeli MIC managed to convince India to buy weapons from them. :lol:


That is some serious marketing talent.
Click to expand...
I figured they could be jammed optically but also figured if you had a laser capable of that you'd probably just be able to destroy the missile instead by using it to destroy/deform control surfaces.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
I figured they could be jammed optically but also figured if you had a laser capable of that you'd probably just be able to destroy the missile instead by using it to destroy/deform control surfaces.
Click to expand...
Lasers and Optics don't quite work that way. You need surprisingly little light intensity to blind a CCD, if that's the core. It depends heavily on the filters/lensing. To which, 'light' can be spread effectively with relatively even intensity, thereby eliminating the need to be so fine in targetting. However, I don't know very much about the specifics involved with the Tomahawk.
I presume their optics are not in the visible spectrum, though. Really, one could stretch the definition of optics to include things like these:


That's a microwave "lens" from World War II. Yes, it's essentially a metal grill.

Also, there are laser weapons of the burning type. I believe the US Navy are big fans of them, but they may not be the most practical. A lot of energy is required for those, along with serious heat management.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Lasers and Optics don't quite work that way. You need surprisingly little light intensity to blind a CCD, if that's the core. It depends heavily on the filters/lensing. To which, 'light' can be spread effectively with relatively even intensity, thereby eliminating the need to be so fine in targetting. However, I don't know very much about the specifics involved with the Tomahawk.
I presume their optics are not in the visible spectrum, though. Really, one could stretch the definition of optics to include things like these:


That's a microwave "lens" from World War II. Yes, it's essentially a metal grill.

Also, there are laser weapons of the burning type. I believe the US Navy are big fans of them, but they may not be the most practical. A lot of energy is required for those, along with serious heat management.
Click to expand...
I don't think Tomahawks can be jammed with a powerful filtered flashlight ;)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Lasers and Optics don't quite work that way. You need surprisingly little light intensity to blind a CCD, if that's the core. It depends heavily on the filters/lensing. To which, 'light' can be spread effectively with relatively even intensity, thereby eliminating the need to be so fine in targetting. However, I don't know very much about the specifics involved with the Tomahawk.
I presume their optics are not in the visible spectrum, though. Really, one could stretch the definition of optics to include things like these:


That's a microwave "lens" from World War II. Yes, it's essentially a metal grill.

Also, there are laser weapons of the burning type. I believe the US Navy are big fans of them, but they may not be the most practical. A lot of energy is required for those, along with serious heat management.
Click to expand...
i can't take anything you spew seriously considering what an idiot you are on so many other grounds.

for example, you claim that CO2 is not a climate driver. not even the nuttiest of climate denying fuckheads would claim this. even the climate deniers call that premise "nutty".

i don't build anything on top of a poor foundation.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i can't take anything you spew seriously considering what an idiot you are on so many other grounds.

for example, you claim that CO2 is not a climate driver. not even the nuttiest of climate denying fuckheads would claim this. even the climate deniers call that premise "nutty".

i don't build anything on top of a poor foundation.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he has his own theory.

Some of us can see the forest for the trees rather clearly.

Where'd your Social Media stalker thread go Buck? Experiment over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top