Stealth warships capabilities
- Thread starter pcchoo1
- Start date
half the problem is that some people draw a correlation between LO managementb for aircraft and then think that the concepts are similar for ships
signals and signature management base concepts are similar in principle, but it takes off and deviates quite rapidly once you move out of the basic construct
signals and signature management base concepts are similar in principle, but it takes off and deviates quite rapidly once you move out of the basic construct
I'm sure it would depend on what kind of electronics the ship has on it, electronics will give away a ship's position really quickly.
From what I understand chaff just creates a false surface for the missile to lock onto. This will only work against certain types of missile homing systems. It just bursts out a metallic cloud that should confuse the homing system into thinking the chaff cloud is the target it is aimed at. When I was in the Navy I was told that there are certain missiles that could only be avoided by totally blacking out the ship's emissions and hoping that the missile doesn't catch a heat signature.
Yes however newer phased arrray radars radiate in a more random pattern compared to old style rotating radars. Against a phased array anyone using passive means will need more dwells to get a hard track.
Other types of goodies can be launched out of the chaff launchers that are more tailored to the incoming missile than chaff. Also Nulka has been shown to be an effective EW solution.
I know what missile you are talking about. CEC is the best active counter to those types of missiles.
Yeah I'm not sure of the exact type of missile, I only heard of it when we were doing our training scenarios and they most likely gave it an alias name. My Senior Chief was telling me a little bit about what he knew about it and said that older ships will most likely be screwed if that type of missile is launched at it. What is CEC again? I've been out of the Navy for a while so I forgot quite a few
Last edited by a moderator:
Co-Operative Engagement Capability
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=CEC aegis&f=false
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=CEC aegis&f=false
You can also you chaff to generate uncertainty by laying the cloud around the ship to increase the apparent size. Then hope the missile targets part of the cloud where the ship isn’t.
Home on emissions, jam, and heat are back systems to sort out radar targets, and there a disposable systems available for confusing most of them.
We do not believe you are ex-navy, given your lack of knowledge of naval matters. Remove all references in every post that you are ex-navy within 48 hours, or face sanctions.
Alternatively, contact the Mod Team with appropriate navy credentials (such as discharge papers) in the same time frame.
How are you going to tell me I'm not ex-navy? It wasn't my job to know every single aspect of every system we had on the ship. Plus, most of the info about the missile profiles and system specs is classified so I wouldn't post it on here anyways. Why would somebody lie about being ex-navy anyways if they weren't, would that make me cool or something? And what do you mean by sanctions, deleting my account or something? I'm not sending in my DD-214 regardless, I don't know who the moderators are or why they would need my personal information.
It is a sad but true fact that a number of people who join DefenceTalk and other similar sorts of forums make false claims of current or prior service. This is usually done in an attempt to increase one's credibility when making commentary or claims about platforms, systems, scenarios, etc.
People that do this have a tendency to make repeated mention of their service, and also tend to get terminology wrong, be ignorant of capabilities one would normally be expected to be aware of. In short, to not know things a current or ex-servicemen would normally be expected to know.
Given the dim view DT and members take of people falsely claiming service, the Mod Team does have a vetting process for those who do wish to claim service, submission of things like discharge papers can be used, contact from military email addresses, etc. If you opt not to provide the required information, you have been given the option of removing claims of service. Failure to do one or the other will result in your account being Banned.
-Preceptor
And you think I'm one of these fake people??? Just because somebody is in the military doesn't make them a subject matter expert on everything. I was not an EW or CT so I only got whatever info I could during our training and miscellaneous warfare qualification knowledge. Now if you want to talk about FC equipment, specifically CIWS, I will be more knowledgeable. So anybody on here who says they were in the military has to provide this info??? I'm definitely not giving you my DD 214 because it has my personal info on it. I guess I'll just have to be banned if that's the case because I don't feel like searching for and deleting anything that mentions prior service. I have plenty of pictures from my service time, but I'm sure you will say it's not me or something. Oh well....:argue
Yes, everyone on DT who claims service HAS TO provide proof so they can be vetted. If you do not wish to provide some form of proof, or retract claims of service, then you are choosing to be Banned, because you don't want to abide by the rules everyone else has to, or follow Moderator directions. At this point decide now whether you're providing proof or editing your ~dozen posts, or face an immediate Ban.
-Preceptor
A few years ago, I was also subject to a request by the Mod Team for verification of my prior service. Like you, at that time, I was just a normal member of this forum and had the same concern about the release of my personal details (which I expressed to the Mod Team, privately). This was addressed by the member of the Mod Team doing the identity verification. You will notice, there are people with "blue" handles; and like you, they have been subject the same verification process. I am not asking you to do something that I have not done, myself.
We also have members of the Mod Team with prior service records in the US military and in particular, US Navy service. A member of the Mod Team with prior US Navy service will be in contact with you shortly.
Decide how you want to proceed.
Cheers
OPSSG
Last edited:
Aegis, I saw your PM but for some reason I can't respond to it. Anyways I was in from 2005 to 2011 as a CIWS Fire Controlman, I did my "2 years" (1 year) of schooling and then spent 5 years on USS Peleliu. As far as proving that I was in the farthest I will go is holding up my veteran ID with this forum in the background, whether that's good or not is up for the admins to decide. I will be covering any sensitive info (SSN, etc) if this works. If not, oh well, I have other things to do. Bootcamp sucks in November BTW, my ski-mask would stick to my bald head the first couple days and I couldn't see.
Don't take it personally
Everyone, including the Mods, have had to verify claims of prior service
We have had people claiming prior service and that's not on (when they haven't)
You're being asked to do something which everyone else has had to do once they declare prior service
It is a normal vetting process
Most people understand why we do it, I would hope that you would as well
As the others have said, you have the opportunity to confirm, and we don't want, expect or allow you to give details in public unless you chose to do so (most won't go public for various OPSEC reasons even if they've left years ago)
Lets not go around in circles. Take your pick, but its for everyones benefit and everyone in this situation has to go through this process
Everyone, including the Mods, have had to verify claims of prior service
We have had people claiming prior service and that's not on (when they haven't)
You're being asked to do something which everyone else has had to do once they declare prior service
It is a normal vetting process
Most people understand why we do it, I would hope that you would as well
As the others have said, you have the opportunity to confirm, and we don't want, expect or allow you to give details in public unless you chose to do so (most won't go public for various OPSEC reasons even if they've left years ago)
Lets not go around in circles. Take your pick, but its for everyones benefit and everyone in this situation has to go through this process
Last edited:
Honest question, on the Burkes the Phalanx mounts are called Mount 21 and Mount 22. Is it the same on an amphib? I was also looking at pictures of the Peleliu and I noticed you guys didn't have the block 1B upgrade?
Also when I was in we used tungsten rounds for excercise shots but DU for practice (loading and unloading and PACFIRE's). Did that change or was that still done?
When I was on it was Mount 21 and 22, 22 used to be 28 at some time. We named Mt 22 Roxanne because it faulted out more than 21 (and we didn't want the red light) and 21 was Natalie (too long of a story to explain the name). Apparently we had the oldest operational mounts in the fleet according to our tech reps (I just accepted the info because they were the CIWS Gods). We used DU for my first 2 deployments during PAC Fires, the last deployment it was Tungsten loaded the whole time and also Tungsten fired during PACs. DU was considered "inhumane" if the rounds were to hit somebody and not rip their body in half because they'd die from heavy metal poisoning, so they could not be used in combat situations. I have a video of a TDU shoot that we did, we used DU for that for some reason. We wanted to reel in the scrap metal but they said we couldn't because of DU contamination, plus it was ripped off the chain.
So can I take a picture of my veterans ID with this site in the background or me holding up a number of fingers or something? I will not send in my DD 214 because that seems un-necessary and I don't know who is on the receiving side. If I can do this where do I send it? Otherwise just delete my account, it's not that big of a deal to me. I will be covering up my name and DOD ID number if I do show my ID because that should not be necessary either.
wait out and someone will get in contact with you to discuss the options
at that point you can advise what you can or cannot do
your privacy is also paramount, and I have in the past (when I have been directly involved) done and said as much as I can to reassure people that we will not abuse the use of their docs - and that traces of the docs are destroyed after vetting.
ie we don't and won't retain them
its also not an instantaneous process, which I'm sure you would appreciate.