US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
Oh, so you are a qualified ICBM operator? Wow!
Naah.
I am computer engineer with focus on data mining & machine learning. I know i ain't from armed forces, but the tag of "qualified ICBM operator" really sounds interesting. Is that a thing?.
I didn't know it's "operators" who do this. I thought this was job of engineering corps & job of operators are to follow instructions.
I don't need to be ICBM operator to do that. All i need to do is issue order to fire an ICBM in my pre-defined parameters. And then fire the interceptor again in my per-defined parameters.


It's not job of ICBM, but job of maths.

Can you share a list of missiles that you have intercepted in your career?

0.00

I don't have a career as "qualified ICBM operator"
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know i ain't from armed forces, but the tag of "qualified ICBM operator" really sounds interesting. Is that a thing?.
I didn't know it's "operators" who do this. I thought this was job of engineering corps & job of operators are to follow instructions.
I once saw a person on Quora who listed "former ICBM operator" as his credentials.

I don't need to be ICBM operator to do that. All i need to do is issue order to fire an ICBM in my pre-defined parameters. And then fire the interceptor again in my per-defined parameters.

It's not job of ICBM, but job of maths.
As for your claims of this being an unrealistic test ... where is your evidence?

The published video shows the following:

1. ICBM launched from Kwajalein in the Marshall islands.
2. ICBM detected in boost stage by EW satellites
3. Target track data relayed to Schriever, AFB C2BMC
4. C2BMC relays target tracks to AEGIS BL9 ship positioned between Hawaii and US mainland via OTH Link 16 including BOA (IR satellite) data
5. The surprising part: AEGIS ships computes firing parameters based solely on remote track data. It does not appear that it uses SPY-1 to track the target.
6. 4-stage SM-3 IIA missile fired and mid-course guided via AEGIS ship. I guess this is done via AEGIS link, and this uses SPY-1 to send the data.
7. SM-3 IIA ICBM warhead discrimination and terminal guidance using high resolution IR
8. Target kill

Video:
 
Last edited:

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Categorization of select aircraft by readiness issue (as of 2018):

1605837822001.png

Categorization of select aircraft by total average operation and support cost (sustainment, maintenance, etc.) (as of 2018):

1605837885963.png
 
Last edited:

Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
I once saw a person on Quora who listed "former ICBM operator" as his credentials.


As for your claims of this being an unrealistic test ... where is your evidence?

The published video shows the following:

1. ICBM launched from Kwajalein in the Marshall islands.
2. ICBM detected in boost stage by EW satellites
3. Target track data relayed to Schriever, AFB C2BMC
4. C2BMC relays target tracks to AEGIS BL9 ship positioned between Hawaii and US mainland via OTH Link 16 including BOA (IR satellite) data
5. The surprising part: AEGIS ships computes firing parameters based solely on remote track data. It does not appear that it uses SPY-1 to track the target.
6. 4-stage SM-3 IIA missile fired and mid-course guided via AEGIS ship. I guess this is done via AEGIS link, and this uses SPY-1 to send the data.
7. SM-3 IIA ICBM warhead discrimination and terminal guidance using high resolution IR
8. Target kill

Video:
Wow. Never knew it happens like that. Nice Animation movie. Though i laughed a lot watching the missile maneuvering part. Like it was on some kind of allergy.

Now that they have "succesful intercept" , i suppose they are now confident that they can defend against North Korean retaliation in case they try to bring democracy there.

Waiting for it to happen eagerly.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wow. Never knew it happens like that. Nice Animation movie. Though i laughed a lot watching the missile maneuvering part. Like it was on some kind of allergy.
Yeah, that part of the animation was not well done.

Raytheon did a far better job 7 years ago. Take a look at this:
 

Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yeah, that part of the animation was not well done.

Raytheon did a far better job 7 years ago. Take a look at this:
Lol, it doesn't really have anything except the loud advertising part "Raytheon....protecting the earth & mars....."

From both video, one thing you can conclusively derive that they are trying to use every ship, frigate possible to track a missile from enemy's doorsteps right at the moment of launch all the way to possible destination. It's concept of dense networking. But old idea, though the more the data, the accurate the hit will be.
However, regarding hitting a ballistic missile with interceptors, how much that data will matter is subjected to severe scrutiny because of several reasons. First of all , your enemy can take out the very system you are dependent on to track the threat. There are technical & severe financial constraints.

None of the video mentions anything about the test environment.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
According to the US Navy the Nimitz Class displaces ~88,000 metric tonnes and the Ford-class displaces ~102,000 metric tonnes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It looks like someone mistook the 97,000 long tons figure for short tons. With very few exceptions, the USN lists full displacements of its vessels in long tons. Follow on ships in the class displaced more and nowadays even USS Nimitz displaces >100,000 long tons. For example, USS George Washington is 104,000 long tons full displacement.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
It looks like someone mistook the 97,000 long tons figure for short tons. With very few exceptions, the USN lists full displacements of its vessels in long tons. Follow on ships in the class displaced more and nowadays even USS Nimitz displaces >100,000 long tons. For example, USS George Washington is 104,000 long tons full displacement.

Yea makes sense. Also I've seen conflicting US military reporting on the Ford-class.

Some saying its 100,00 metric tonnes, others saying its 100,000 long tons, and then others still saying its 110,000 metric and/or long tons.

4 different conflicting numbers, its ridiculous. Is the total displacement of Ford-class not known publicly yet?
 

Top