Posts by Gman

    That's one of the 30 or so defense sites I read every morning Razer, I read that too and thought it wasn't a bad article.


    There need not be a "war" to push Iran over the top in terms of having their BS Ayatolla/etc government fall. As I said, punitive action for this drone and the others they've shot at and threatened (their F4s were lining up to shoot a Predator or Reaper a few years back when they noticed F22s right up their ass, who began taunting them on the radio remember), need only be smoking their Navy such that it is, and some of their coastal oil production facilities. Not a whole lot more missiles than were used to punish Syria/Russia for the whole chemical weapons attack deal would be needed.


    I know some Iranian people here in Western Canada that love Canada and also America, and they say there are many, many others there who would much prefer to be a friend of the USA and the West. We'll see, but it'd be nice for it to revert to how things were under the Shah in the 70s, instead of what they have now.

    Vids being released from other ISR assets in the area show the Global Hawk/equivalent being shot down well into international waters. As I said, many in the news on TV are reporting right now that it could have been an S300 variant as well, including military/x military, as the drone was so far out over water that it'd be pushing into the very outside of the range envelope of the 3rd/Khu Iranian SA17 system.


    Going to get interesting fast, something is going to get smoked in Iran, in the next day or so IMO, as a response.

    Norway is a great country, my favorite in the entire "Europe" area. Canada and Norway have had very close military ties dating back to the cold war, so much of my family and relatives back in those days had great times in Norway during exercises where Canada's 1 Brigade was to do a Refor-Nor (get it, not Reforger) type deal there to help hold Nato's Northern flank.


    Lots of shooters and very pro firearm people there, and it wasn't long ago where the laws were pretty good (Gscholz can give more info on current laws, I'm not up to date at all).


    Road trips - I've always loved them, the first sports cars I had hold many happy memories of blasting down the roads here in Western Canada, through the Rockies to BC, the badlands out near Drumheller, etc etc. Nothing better for me while driving. Love doing it in cars, on bikes, and even sometimes in RVs or trucks/vans. Had a 73 VW Camper van when I was 16 until I was 21, drove it from Calgary to Van then down to Portland and back twice. Great times. The missus and I just took our Lexus we bought last year on a 1500 km road trip, about 550 miles each way, with the glass roof sushade open and windows down almost the entire time, last week. With sat radio now, it's even better hitting the open road IMO.

    This was just updated, it was a tech demonstrator rushed into service as it turns out. Much of what is said here is what I thought and was alluded to as well regarding it's flight path/etc, so I'm not alone in this opinion.


    Quote

    Keep in mind, BAMS-D, like the Global Hawk and the MQ-4C to a degree, has a zero penetration mission. It doesn't fly into contested airspace. It is literally a sitting duck. The only reason it would do so would be if it was off the leash or there was a major navigational malfunction. It is far more likely Iran just shot it out of international airspace as the Pentagon states.

    Pic of the 3d/KH Iranian system, as Gscholz said, this one vehicle does have a phased array radar by the looks of it.


    D9ffmjwXkAIsJV5?format=jpg&name=medium

    Unlike in Hollyweird movies, in real life governments are horrible at keeping secrets...

    There are some major exceptions to this. The F117 program to use a familiar a/c in this threat. It was designed in the 70s, and flew until the mid/late 80s in squadron service without anyone the wiser, in a pretty blacked out program. Certainly it can be said that the late 70s to early/mid 80s the public didn't have a sniff about this. That's an aircraft that had thousands develop and build it, along with an entire BASE of hundreds if not thousands of support staff, and hundreds of pilots for an entire wing of 70+ in service fighters. Nobody talked to the press, or anyone else that could have leaked it. I'd say the gov, or perhaps the military at least, is VERY good at keeping secrets when it wants to be, and puts sufficient threat behind breaking that silence...

    Quote

    And as I said, the S-300/400 has a 150kg warhead. That damaged drone picture would have looked like confetti...

    If it contact detonated, yes, but if it didn't, perhaps not. Look up some vids of S300 missiles hitting smaller targets than this, depending on how its fuzed, there is a lot of the airframe left over in some vids I've seen. I do agree if the missile contact detonated, it'd be raindrops of metal coming down, other than the engines probably. From what I've read nearly all of the S300/400 missiles have both proximity and contact fuze options avaiable.

    It's even capable of shooting down Malaysian triple 7s flying at 33,000.

    Heh, I was thinking about that about 20 minutes ago myself. Against undefended aircraft (no ECM or other counter measures/etc), it has a kill% of over 95%.


    It's going to be interesting to see where they find the wreckage of this drone. If it's in international waters by a ways, Iran is going to be giving the US a lot of ammunition to make a case for giving them an ass kicking. Even with just the assets we know about that are in place, the USA could destroy a lot of Iran's navy and oil production facilities, easily, and that alone would leave Iran in a tough spot without having to actually "go to war" with Iran per se.

    That's what drones are for... Probing.


    Well, the cheap ones anyway.

    Yep, losing them is what they were built for, to not have to put U2s and SR71s at risk as much, or even regular fighters with recon pods on board, that and better loiter time. Even losing an expensive one is better than a crew, becuase if Iran had just killed a pilot or a larger crew, we'd be flipping rounds at one another right now in all likelihood, with no chance for time/diplomacy. Although, I rate the chance of diplomacy working on Iran as slim personally.

    Again, I know that, and that's an Russian variant SA17, NOT an SA11, which a variant of which (SA11) is what all the media was saying was responsible for the shootdown. It wasn't, at least according to Iran, like I said, their 3rd/Khor SA17 type system is their version, and some of their vehicles in that system DO have phased array, but some also have a similar radar to the SA11 Buks first gen with the Iron Dome radar. The BukM2(And BukM1-2, and others) is an SA17, not SA11, and the first versions that had a phased array radar date back to 1998 when they were first deployed, over 21 years ago.

    It was likely a Navy drone which was using unused USAF Global Hawk airframes that weren't used by the USAF, if it was in fact not an RQ4, but a Navy drone. How do you know what sensors are on board, they could have all kinds of advanced sensors on it, especially if it's the tech demonstrator that was pushed into service, as per the plane trackers/route data, and what's being leaked out of the DoD to defense sites.


    I wonder if the Iranian copy of the SA11 (that's what they've said shot down the drone) has the same specs as the Russian SA11. Also, the SA11 doesn't have phased array radar, that's the SA17, which is a much more advanced and recent system, which while based on the SA11 platform, isn't the SA11 at all, with regards to the radar/systems or the missiles. Iran's version doesn't have the SA17's capabilities, it more closely matches the SA11 - not that it matters, I didn't say that the SA11 couldn't have shot down this drone, just that based on the ranges and where it was operating, particularly the altitude these drones operate at (65k+ feet that's declassified, it's higher than that), it's probably at the very edge and most likely outside the SA11 envelope. That's unless for some reason as I said it was a NAV system or human NAV error and it was at lower altitude and off course. If it was over Iranian territory intentionally, I can't imagine why it would be at low alt in the envelope of smaller and more prolific SAM systems, unless something happened to cause it to drop altitude, which could also be a reason for it being off course. Again, all the sensors on these things are optimized for side scan, not look down.


    edit - The Iranian SAM they are claiming used, 3rd of Khordad system, has some launchers that are using phased array radars like the SA17, and some that are using radars that are similar to the Iron Dome/SA11 radar. Most of the defense sites I've read are saying the system is similar to the SA11, when it's not, it's much closer to the SA17 in capability. Again, it's the altitude ceiling of the SA11 and even SA17 that made me think it was likely the S300 version that hit the drone, but it's possible that if the drone was under 75k feet or so, that the Iranian 3rd/Khor system is what was used.


    91238016970680731333.jpg

    More on Razer's link/story


    Iran shot down a large US drone, lots of varying opinions on what it was, RQ4, MQ-4C, or a tech demonstrator based on plane spotters flight tracks from fr24. US says it wasn't in Iran's airspace, but the picture that Iran released of the drone burning and crashing to earth makes one wonder where that was taken from. It could have been from a ship/boat outside Iran's territorial waters/land, but it could be from land, we'll have to wait and see if any more pics/vid are released. Iran is claiming it was in their airspace - if, IF it was, I wonder why, IMO it would be some kind of navigational mistake, as that drone systems is known to have its sensors optimized for sideways scans, specifically so it can stay out of the territorial waters exclusion zones, to avoid this sort of shoot down.


    It also shows that Iran has systems that can detect, track, and kill low observable drones. I know the RCS/LO capability of these drones is nothing like the fighters (I mean, look at those long ass square wings for example), but still, not the best news. Iran is claiming it was an SA11 type system, I'd bet it wasn't and they are just saying that to make it look better. IMO it was more likely to be the new S300 systems the Russians gave them. Not great if Iran gets their hands on the wreckage of this, especially if some of the sensor tech survives...


    https://www.thedrive.com/the-w…-s-rq-4-global-hawk-drone


    wf2ulrgt8nwemwwdmjqk.jpg

    Two more tankers attacked hours ago, Iran media is claiming attacks came from their forces. Claims of torps in the water prior to the hits. Also pics of the previously 4 tankers already hit by limpet or other magnetic mines, pics in the second link. Funny that one of the ships hit today was on the way to Japan as their PM just got to Iran for "talks". Hah.


    https://www.foxnews.com/world/…-incident-in-gulf-of-oman


    https://www.thedrive.com/the-w…n-the-sea-of-oman-reports

    The Chinese new high freq long wavelength radars CAN "track", but they can't as of yet develop "a track", at least in terms of one accurate enough for what would be considered a "lock", which is precisely what's needed to guide weapons.


    I realize they have been developing this tech for years, if you look on the old FW site I was the first one banging the gong about Chinese defense and weapons tech/proliferation many years ago.


    Regarding the new radars specifically, their newer ships have this new high freq/longwave radar aboard, the Type 52C and 52D have both been confirmed to have it (their DDGs), and some of their latest FFG class ships as well, like the 054A. Their new cruisers, 055 class, for certain will have it, along with the new HHQ9 S3/400 class VLS SAMs.


    China obviously wants to fight on its own turf, it's entire strategy is built up around the South China Sea and it's own coast lines, and now its string of built up reef bases such as the Sprats/etc. The majority of its navy is designed to fight in their backyard, not "ours", as is their air force, and to a certain extent its army. They've built their own SOSUS type network, but only in the South China Sea - I think that fact alone speaks volumes as to what they plan, and where they plan on engaging us eventually.


    I do completely agree that China will have to be the aggressor to get what they want, and it'll likely be Taiwan that it'll be over. So few people understand that Taiwan territory is within visual range of the Chinese mainland, there are Islands owned and occupied by Taiwanese forces within just a handful of miles from China (Kinmen for example). So, despite what the media espouses about China not having the capability yet, they really don't need much of an amphibious capability to take these parts of Taiwan back, they could do it with row boats probably so far as landing troops go, it's so freaking close.


    The US gov recently referring to Taiwan as a "nation" (this has been a line declared by China that they won't "allow"), as well as offering over 2 bil in arms to Taiwan, is raising the stakes for certain.


    China has stolen a ton of US tech, and then applied what they've stolen to their own needs and doctrines, and then built weapons as such with that info. They ARE rapidly closing the gap. No time in human history has a nation increased its military capability so fast and so far in only 15 or 20 years - and they did it by stealing for the most part. Clinton selling them rocket/space tech helped a lot too. Fuckhead.


    The Chinese navy has been outbuilding the US Navy recently, it has nearly 150 modern DDG, FFG, and cruisers. Add in over 100 (it'll be 150 total) 022 Stealth 36knt catamarans, that have 8 ASM each. These can rush in and fling so many ASM at us that we don't have enough ammo to kill them all. Hence them wanting to fight in their backyard. Also, as an example, the PLAN commissioned 32 new ships in 2016-2017. The USN built and commissioned 13. Yes, the USN is way ahead in CVNs, and overall tonnage, but the threat is obvious, and presenting an ever increasing problem for the US/Nato in the South China Sea. Big time.

    This is not new tech, or new news. Long wavelength radars like this have always been able to compromise L/O tech, but in order to be actually useful in terms of combat, they need to be an effective part of the kill chain vs Gen 5/stealth a/c. They aren't. These radars can't maintain a track - at all - let alone be accurate enough for targeting weapons. So at best they'll be like a perimeter sensor you have around an acreage being tripped type deal: you'll know something is out there somewhere, you just won't be able to do much about it.


    These "new" long wavelength VHF radars have added new tech like AESA/etc, and will improve peer threat air defense networks/systems. This will primarily allow for faster cuing of higher freq/shorter wavelength targeting radars, but they aren't some revolutionary "anti stealth/low observability" magic solution, as those cuing/targeting radars still have to track the F22/F35/whatever, and these are the types that these aircraft have specific tech to degrade and/or defeat.

    I'll be buying this tomorrow morning, and be playing it all weekend. Looks great, vids look great, and that post ^^ is the sort of thing that I love about intelligently made games. Need a break from the Rift S /VR anyhow, my eyes are tired.

    I believe Trump knows little about guns or the long ongoing attacks against them. He is open to education in this and it is up to us to educate him as needed.

    This is exactly where I come down on this, exactly. Trump just isn't educated on the subject is all, the points Redwing makes are what he needs to be taught.


    Also, regarding suppressors tightening up groups - in my experience the primary reason this happens is that the startle response/flinch that commonly happens is greatly reduced due to the lower report of the shot, and this helps a lot with accuracy. There ARE some technical reasons why a can can affect bullet stability and accuracy, but this is very minimal, and again, in my experience the greatest effect cans have on groups is the better trigger/fire control that happens due to less startle response.

    Ya, I know some CH users have had similar issues. Let me do some searching on the ED forums about this, IIRC there are fixes for DCS not recognizing CH stuff properly. Just needed to be sure you had done all the hoop jumps first and that your CH stuff was working right.


    Is your Game Avionics mode switched to OFF in DCS?


    Also have you tried calibrating/etc with the CH Control Manager first before loading DCS?