SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:40 pm

L & J, your discussion is way off topic. How bout taking it over to "General" where it belongs?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:29 pm

Kite,
You are correct.
I think I am done with it here. If anyone else wants to pick at it with me, they can start up a thread in General.

Joseph, you (once again) do not know what you are talking about.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:50 am

ladajo wrote:You want to try and argue the russian road mobile systems are unfindable, blah blah blah. I want you to look up "Reverse Synthetic Aperture Radar" and also "JSTARS" and related technology. Then ask yourself, if the US has had this type of kit for as long as it has, as well and "Ground Moving Target Indicator" technology. Do you think that those "invisible" road mobile systems are that "invisible" if we want them to be?

I think that you are too optimistick on ability of USA to track Russians mobile launchers. Recall that in real scenario Russians quite can to use more TELs with missile mullages. I am sure that they do not use this trick but any time they can if your real ability of tracking would be improved.
as well how are you going to track their submarines?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:20 am

I think you do not know what you are talking about, while I know that I know what I am talking about.

Move it to General Joseph.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:03 am

ladajo wrote:You want to try and argue the russian road mobile systems are unfindable, blah blah blah. I want you to look up "Reverse Synthetic Aperture Radar" and also "JSTARS" and related technology. Then ask yourself, if the US has had this type of kit for as long as it has, as well and "Ground Moving Target Indicator" technology. Do you think that those "invisible" road mobile systems are that "invisible" if we want them to be?

ladajo wrote:I think you do not know what you are talking about, while I know that I know what I am talking about.

At least I know that accuission of ground targets is quite difficult tasks.
If that would be easy, US would destroy all moving targets before they will not touch US ground forces with the help of Air Forces and artillery.
For what you have tanks, anti-tank missiles. etc.
I have not any intend to go on this discussion neither here nor in another thread.
Thanks.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:57 am

Why answer? Because "Duty Calls"

http://xkcd.com/386/

At least until you do get tired...

CaptainBeowulf · Post by **CaptainBeowulf** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:08 am

At least I know that accuission of ground targets is quite difficult tasks.
If that would be easy, US would destroy all moving targets before they will not touch US ground forces with the help of Air Forces and artillery.
For what you have tanks, anti-tank missiles. etc.
I have not any intend to go on this discussion neither here nor in another thread.

I suspect this history lesson will be lost on you, Joseph, but as just pointed out, duty calls:

The fact that the Americans were developing the types of systems Ladajo talks about scared the crap out of the Soviet army. It scared them enough that they started calling it a "Military Technical Revolution" sometime in the mid to late 1970s, and kept talking about it through the 1980s. This was part of the reason that they had trouble telling if Reagan's "star wars" was bluff or real: they were already shocked by what the West, primarily the U.S., was coming up with.

The American military services got hold of the concept and changed the phrase to "Revolution in Military Affairs" around 1993 or 1994, and produced a lot of discourse on it over that whole decade. You might say some sub-departments within each service got rather obsessed with it.

Of course, a few people saw the drawbacks. First, acquiring targets on the ground while you're on the ground is not as easy as acquiring them from the air or sea: ground is a "complex environment." It's hilly, it's covered with obstacles like forests and cities, and it's possible to dig underneath dense ground and be harder to detect than through water. Basically, there are lots of places to hide. Individual people and smaller vehicles can hide, and mines or improvised explosive devices can also be hidden. Insurgents or possibly organized state-backed enemy ground forces - who know your strengths well and are determined to negate them - can try to keep dispersed and hidden until your ground units get close enough for them to engage directly. For those that didn't see the drawbacks, the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns re-educated them. That's why you still need tanks etc.

Big missile road launching mobile systems are much more obvious. They are, in fact, much hider to hide than a tank, which is actually pretty hard to hide. But anyway, I agree, we can go to General to discuss this further.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:48 am

CaptainBeowulf wrote:They are, in fact, much hider to hide than a tank, which is actually pretty hard to hide.

You are too optimistic on ability of USA to see everything anywhere: Russian army inflates itself with fake tanks http://www.rt.com/news/sci-tech/russian ... ake-tanks/

Now see this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUS-JfZx ... re=related

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:27 pm

Joe, the image you posted is way too big for this forum, and is throwing off the formatting.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:31 pm

Plus, this is several pages now of discussion that has nothing to do with the current work by SpaceX. A few Comments is one thing. Hijacking the thread is another. Why not give this interesting conversation its own thread?