USS Vincennes documentary question
La N
655 incident. It was a very well done reenactment, very technical as it
depicted the instrumentation and protocol of not only the ship, but also the
Iranian aircraft. I learned some new terminology like "squawk in Mode III".
The film also documented the emotions of the personnel on the ship who were
trying to understand what was happening and what decision to make.
Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without response and
interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers released a missile; however,
kept his finger over a button that said something like "abort" which meant
that he had a few seconds window to change his mind and "kill" the missile
on its way to the target.
How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does its
damage?
The documentary was interspersed with (often emotionally laden) interviews
of the people actually involved, not only on the ship, but family members of
the pilot whose plane was shot down.
- nilita
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without response and
>interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers released a missile; however,
>kept his finger over a button that said something like "abort" which meant
>that he had a few seconds window to change his mind and "kill" the missile
>on its way to the target.
>
>How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does its
>damage?
You don't - you merely issue a self-destruct order to it and it blows
itself up. What we used to jocularly refer to as "button B". God
knows why. I suppose I can try and find out!
Eugene L Griessel
Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.
La N
>
>> Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without
>> response and interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers
>> released a missile; however, kept his finger over a button that said
>> something like "abort" which meant that he had a few seconds window
>> to change his mind and "kill" the missile on its way to the target.
>>
>> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does
>> its damage?
>
> You don't - you merely issue a self-destruct order to it and it blows
> itself up. What we used to jocularly refer to as "button B". God
> knows why. I suppose I can try and find out!
>
>
Thanks Eugene. Does Button B get used very often? I imagine not.
- nilita
Keith Willshaw
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ke05o.10302$Z6.2439@edtnps82...
> Last night I watched a documentary on the USS Vincennes / Iran Air Flight
> 655 incident. It was a very well done reenactment, very technical as it
> depicted the instrumentation and protocol of not only the ship, but also
> the Iranian aircraft. I learned some new terminology like "squawk in Mode
> III". The film also documented the emotions of the personnel on the ship
> who were trying to understand what was happening and what decision to
> make.
>
> Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without response and
> interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers released a missile;
> however, kept his finger over a button that said something like "abort"
> which meant that he had a few seconds window to change his mind and "kill"
> the missile on its way to the target.
>
> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does its
> damage?
>
You don't, you may however be able to cause it to self destruct or
guide it away from the target
Keith
La N
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ke05o.10302$Z6.2439@edtnps82...
>> Last night I watched a documentary on the USS Vincennes / Iran Air
>> Flight 655 incident. It was a very well done reenactment, very
>> technical as it depicted the instrumentation and protocol of not
>> only the ship, but also the Iranian aircraft. I learned some new
>> terminology like "squawk in Mode III". The film also documented the
>> emotions of the personnel on the ship who were trying to understand
>> what was happening and what decision to make.
>>
>> Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without
>> response and interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers
>> released a missile; however, kept his finger over a button that said
>> something like "abort" which meant that he had a few seconds window
>> to change his mind and "kill" the missile on its way to the target.
>>
>> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does
>> its damage?
>>
>
> You don't, you may however be able to cause it to self destruct or
> guide it away from the target
>
Thanks Keith. As I pondered in response to Eugene, I wonder how often
*that* happens. Probably not a lot, eh?
Anyway, what a tough time all round.
- nilita
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
I only know of it being used once (locally) and then it malfunctioned.
The missile was a command guided one and control was lost over it and
it headed off directly for a naval range clearing vessel it should not
have been going for. Luckily due to rapid (who am I kidding the
throttles were thrown flat open and damn the consequences) removal of
the vessel from the impact point it exploded in the sea about 100
metres away with only shrapnel damage to the vessel in question
(ignoring soiled underpants).
Ironically the things had been trialed succesfully for a couple of
days with a fair number fired and functioning perfectly and for this
particular trial a bunch of VIPs had been flown in to watch. Needless
to say they were _not_ too impressed.
I do recall a debate breaking out between the VIPs and the
manufacturer over the use of the term "abort" at the time.
La N
> manufacturer over the use of the term "abort" at the time.
>
Interesting. Who are the main manufacturers of this kind of technology?
- nil
Alan Dicey
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:05:20 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without response and
>> interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers released a missile; however,
>> kept his finger over a button that said something like "abort" which meant
>> that he had a few seconds window to change his mind and "kill" the missile
>> on its way to the target.
>>
>> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does its
>> damage?
>
> You don't - you merely issue a self-destruct order to it and it blows
> itself up. What we used to jocularly refer to as "button B". God
> knows why. I suppose I can try and find out!
In days of yore, Button B was the button you pressed in a coin-operated
telephone call-box to abort the call connection process and get your
money back.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
Plenty of missile manufacturers around the globe. I doubt if "fire
and forget" missiles have a self destruct option - you need some sort
of radio link with the thing to make it blow itself up. If you want
to see a lot of use of the self-destruct mechanism get hold of some
footage of the early test of rockets at Cape Canaveral and elsewhere
(the Right Stuff uses quite a few examples and some other movie the
name of which escapes me currently, does too). The range saftey
officer in that case deciding whether to blow the thing up or not -
depending on which way it was heading and it's potential for damage.
Must be fun to push the button and watch squillions of dollars go up
in a giant firework! In the early trials of the V2 one test example
carrying instrumentation for another missile altogether headed off
towards Sweden and firmly disobeyed the self-destruct command being
frantically given from Peenemunde. Quite a windfall for Allied
intelligence it was, although the electonics were very puzzling.
Eugene L Griessel
Become a Neo-Elizabethan. Treat life as one long hiliarious joke
enlivened by not unnecessary bouts of tragedy.
Eugene Griessel
We did not have that sort of technology out in the wilds of Effrika!
Our phones only required you to drop the cash in once the connection
was made and you could hear the repsondent on the other side.
So I do not know where it came from, but my cousin, one of the very
first missile technicians in South Africa, was using the term pretty
freely in the mid sixties already. Seeing as he was trained in France
I doubt it came from there. Possibly a sci-fi movie used it?
Eugene L Griessel
Doctors, dentists, and lawyers are only on time for appointments
when you're not.
Ray OHara
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:6u69569a4lnj863nv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:49:36 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:23:28 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>> >
>>> I do recall a debate breaking out between the VIPs and the
>>> manufacturer over the use of the term "abort" at the time.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Interesting. Who are the main manufacturers of this kind of technology?
>>
>
> Plenty of missile manufacturers around the globe. I doubt if "fire
> and forget" missiles have a self destruct option - you need some sort
> of radio link with the thing to make it blow itself up.
fire and forget" doesn't mean it can't be commicated with.
a self-destruct link could still work.
Alan Lothian
Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
> We did not have that sort of technology out in the wilds of Effrika!
> Our phones only required you to drop the cash in once the connection
> was made and you could hear the repsondent on the other side.
I'm pretty nearly certain Alan is right here, Eugene, and your own
description merely backs the thing up. Your Seffrican phone is exactly
Button B: you press it once you hear the wrong correspondent or no
correspondent at all and you are tired of waiting. Four stalwart pence
fall into coin reject drawer. You press Button A if all has gone
swimmingly (I imagine flooded call boxes more of a problem down your
way than up here in Yrp), you never see the money again, and sometimes
you are connected. Button B v useful for inter-teenager signalling.
Without the expenditure of 4d. That's "d", of course.
> So I do not know where it came from, but my cousin, one of the very
> first missile technicians in South Africa, was using the term pretty
> freely in the mid sixties already.
Goes back long before that in the UK.
> Seeing as he was trained in France
> I doubt it came from there. Possibly a sci-fi movie used it?
You really need the Tardovsky version. Kelvin character (Clooney in the
2002 gringo half-decent dumbaround, but you really need Tardovsky for
proper Solaris flavour) takes coins from pocket. One at a time. Camera
1: slow plan across coins. Camera 2: over Kelvin shoulder. First one,
then two, then all the way to four. Coins inserted. Buzz of silence.
Traffic and lights, different colours for each coin. All inserted. Slow
breathing. More silence, less buzz. Kelvin PRESSES BUTTON B. Jarring
crash. Camera 1 fade, camera 2 very slow pan backward. There is no
telephone, no wall to which it might be affixed. Waves break.
Everything is wet.
That's the savagely slashed post-production version, of course, not the
director's cut.
Soon (Obsmn) to be mimicked by construction videos of Britain's new
aircraft carriers, punctuated by increasingly frenzied pressing of
button B by genial MoD officials, all to no avail.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
Frequent absences due to allure of French nurses
Alex Potter
> What we used to jocularly refer to as "button B". God
> knows why.
The old style GPO pay telephones would give you your money back if you
pressed button B before the call had connected.
--
Alex
Eugene Griessel
As I described, and Mr Lothian has disputed, our pay phones had no
buttons. When you heard the connection make pips would sound at which
you would push the required coins into the slot at the top. However I
concede the terminology may have originated in the UK and been taken
over in seffrika - but hardly know why.
Eugene L Griessel
CAUTION: Don't look into laser beam with remaining eye.
Eugene Griessel
Hardly - they tend to be cheap IR missiles with no radios in them. No
way to send command signals.
Eugene L Griessel
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Andrew Swallow
>
> You don't - you merely issue a self-destruct order to it and it blows
> itself up. What we used to jocularly refer to as "button B". God
> knows why. I suppose I can try and find out!
Telephone boxes used to have a Button A and a Button B.
Andrew Swallow
La N
Do telephone boxes even exist anymore?
I've noticed recently that pay phones are very rare in these parts
(Canuckistan).
- nilita
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Do telephone boxes even exist anymore?
Yes but they are rare.
Andrew Swallow
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>In article <df79569rff449c3dv...@4ax.com>, Eugene
>Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> We did not have that sort of technology out in the wilds of Effrika!
>> Our phones only required you to drop the cash in once the connection
>> was made and you could hear the repsondent on the other side.
>
>I'm pretty nearly certain Alan is right here, Eugene, and your own
>description merely backs the thing up. Your Seffrican phone is exactly
>Button B: you press it once you hear the wrong correspondent or no
>correspondent at all and you are tired of waiting. Four stalwart pence
>fall into coin reject drawer. You press Button A if all has gone
>swimmingly (I imagine flooded call boxes more of a problem down your
>way than up here in Yrp), you never see the money again, and sometimes
>you are connected. Button B v useful for inter-teenager signalling.
>Without the expenditure of 4d. That's "d", of course.
The coin of note here was a thing called a "tickey". A term I thought
universal in the sterling world but later found out was local.
However it lent its name to the pay telephone to the extent that the
things were known as "tickey boxes" for decades after the tickey
became obsolete in the early 1960s when decimal coinage was
introduced. Possession of a "long tickey" was much prized by those
who fraudulently used pay phones and had a device which enabled the
cash mechanism to be fooled into thinking a coin had been dropped in.
It used to fascinate us seeing those foreign pay phones in the movies
where one had to insert coins before one could dial. We thought it a
very bad idea - how could a long tickey work on a stupid system like
that? But our phones worked differently - no coins inserted before
the pips were heard after successful connection, no buttons - although
there was a coin return slot into which rejected coins would fall,
ostensibly rejected non-correct coinage.
OT for SMN - the naval training college I attended had, very stupidly,
a pay phone right outside the electronics workshop. The post office
had given up trying to get money out of the thing as every trainee
there possessed very sophisitciated long tickeys defying all attempts
made by the phone people to armour their system against fraudulent
use. For some odd reason they were loath to actually remove the phone
and despite whining and threats from the post office it remained the
busiest and most unprofitable pay phone in the establishment
throughout my tenure in the place.
When tickeys (I think they were 3d pieces but could have been 2 and
half d) became obsolete in 1962(?) the coin that replaced them in the
phone system was a 5 cent piece. Several concerted attempts were made
to bestow the appellation "nickey" on this coin (it was a nickel coin
- the first non silver coin we had) but none seemed to stick and the
"tickey" faded into history.
Eugene L Griessel
.egassem neddih rof sdrawkcab daer - enilgat cinataS
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
I have, within easy walking distance of my house, at least three
separate sets of the things. We tend to have two phones side by side
at these installations, one that accepts coins and one that accepts
cards. The cell phone companies have their own pay phones - but those
are usually confined to inside buildings - restaurants, etc. The
actual telephone box has been replaced by a glass fibre "hood" on a
plinth which one sticks ones head into to talk. Usually in a lurid
orange colour scheme IIRC. Must look more closely when passing the
ones outside here!
Eugene L Griessel
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens ever dreamed up is that
the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all Universes, wants the
saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and
becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd
fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays the expenses of
the oldest, largest and least productive industry in all history.
La N
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:06:30 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2010 22:20, Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You don't - you merely issue a self-destruct order to it and it
>>>> blows itself up. What we used to jocularly refer to as "button
>>>> B". God knows why. I suppose I can try and find out!
>>>
>>> Telephone boxes used to have a Button A and a Button B.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do telephone boxes even exist anymore?
>>
>>
>> I've noticed recently that pay phones are very rare in these parts
>> (Canuckistan).
>
> I have, within easy walking distance of my house, at least three
> separate sets of the things. We tend to have two phones side by side
> at these installations, one that accepts coins and one that accepts
> cards. The cell phone companies have their own pay phones - but those
> are usually confined to inside buildings - restaurants, etc. The
> actual telephone box has been replaced by a glass fibre "hood" on a
> plinth which one sticks ones head into to talk. Usually in a lurid
> orange colour scheme IIRC. Must look more closely when passing the
> ones outside here!
>
I note that pretty much every man and his dog has a cell phone which pretty
much makes pay phones defunct. Of course, there is the vandalism factor.
Which reminds me. Despite my vow to never have a cell phone, looks like I'm
going to cave soon, as I will be on the road, moving around like a gypsy ...
blah blah blah. Thinking of getting a Blackberry. But I will never text
and drive, and that's a promise! ... :)
- nilita
David E. Powell
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dare I say, similar to "Spies Like Us" where you change the guidance
and send it off somewhere out of the way. (Spies Like Us
oversimplified a bit,but a similar principle. Go to manual and steer
it at away, if that is possible. Not much time to make that choice,
but maybe a few seconds.)
Ray OHara
Harpoon are hardly cheap IR missiles.
Paul J. Adam
<nilita20...@yahoo.com> writes
>Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without response and
>interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers released a missile; however,
>kept his finger over a button that said something like "abort" which meant
>that he had a few seconds window to change his mind and "kill" the missile
>on its way to the target.
>
>How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does its
>damage?
For a typical semi-active radar homing missile, such as the RIM-67
Standards the VINCENNES fired, the firing ship illuminates the target
with a continuous-wave radar - basically, a microwave searchlight - and
the missile homes on the reflected radar energy.
Switch off that illuminator while the missile is in flight, and - if
you've chosen to design it that way - the missile will coast for a short
period trying to reacquire the target (has the illuminator been
distracted by chaff or decoys? has the target flown through a
propagation null?) and then, if nothing is seen, it will self-destruct.
So, there can be an option to shut down the illumination and abort the
engagement: even if the missiles don't self-destruct or don't do so fast
enough, they'll lose guidance and their dead-reckoned "best guess" may
mean they pass far enough from the target that their fuzes don't
trigger.
There's a lot more underlying complexity and detail, but basically for
some anti-aircraft missiles there is indeed an option to abort an
engagement even with birds in the air.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Paul J. Adam
<fjmc...@gmail.com> writes
>Artistic license. You could presumably try to redirect it off target,
>but there's no 'Abort' button that I'm aware of.
We can try to do it with Dart and Viper, I'd be surprised if there's no
US equivalent.
Eugene Griessel
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
>news:4up956d0qla5ihv9e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:10:53 -0400, "Ray OHara"
>> <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
>>>news:6u69569a4lnj863nv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:49:36 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:23:28 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>>> I do recall a debate breaking out between the VIPs and the
>>>>>> manufacturer over the use of the term "abort" at the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting. Who are the main manufacturers of this kind of technology?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of missile manufacturers around the globe. I doubt if "fire
>>>> and forget" missiles have a self destruct option - you need some sort
>>>> of radio link with the thing to make it blow itself up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>fire and forget" doesn't mean it can't be commicated with.
>>>a self-destruct link could still work.
>>
>> Hardly - they tend to be cheap IR missiles with no radios in them. No
>> way to send command signals.
>>
>
>Harpoon are hardly cheap IR missiles.
What part of the "they tend to be" did you not understand?
If a missile has no radio command needs then one does not install
radios in them for reasons of weight and the danger that the enemy may
hijack that radio link and use the missile to it's advantage. The
missiles I knew, several decades ago, with radio command guidance had
very special radio receivers that were capable of receiving a radio
signal only in a narrow arc astern of the missile - something like 6
degrees in one of those - to prevent this sort of thing happening. It
also made it very easy for the controller to lose control if he jinked
the missile too violently so that it flew out of his command signal.
Eugene L Griessel
When the downfall of Western Civilisation comes to be written in the history books of the future
Psychologists will be assigned much of the blame for it.
Jack Linthicum
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 01:01:07 +0000 (UTC), Alex Potter
>
Anyone remember "phone phreaks"? People who could imitate the sounds
of the tones needed to complete the call, naturally without paying.
Jack Linthicum
The scene in one of the "Superman" movies where Clark Kent needs to
change into Supe and spots a telephone out in the open with no box.
Alex Potter
> Anyone remember "phone phreaks"? People who could imitate the sounds of
> the tones needed to complete the call, naturally without paying.
Yes. Here in the UK, up until the 1960s or 70s, before the exchanges were
modernised, you could connect to local numbers[1] by tapping out the
digits on the receiver: one tap for one, two for two, ten for zero, etc,
performed as rapidly as possible with a short pause between digits.
One could get free calls from the old payphones using this method.
[1] STD was not in general use then, so long distance calls had to go via
the operator.
--
Alex
Paul J. Adam
<fjmc...@gmail.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>We can try to do it with Dart and Viper, I'd be surprised if there's no
>>US equivalent.
>
For Dart there's a button on the Sea Dart control panel - marked
"TERMINATE" from memory - that shuts down the illumination.
For Viper, the command is called "HOLD FIRE" or "GLOBAL HOLD FIRE" and
is invoked either through the totes on the LPD, or by a 'button' on the
VC or AAWO's Soft Key Panel.
Ray OHara
most of those you refer too are like sidewinder, LOS weapons that don't
need an abort and attack at ranges so short as to make an abort useless.
the discussion was about larger missiles that could attack targets at a
distance like Standard that shot down the Iranian airliner
William Black
> Anyone remember "phone phreaks"? People who could imitate the sounds
> of the tones needed to complete the call, naturally without paying.
>
> http://www.telephonetribute.com/phonephreaking.html
I remember reading about them.
I also remember seeing 'beige boxes' on sale that imitated the sounds of
tone phones.
That's because you can't actually imitate the sound of a tone phone as
'the tone' is actually two tones...
Somewhere there's a 'military override tone' detailed but nobody ever
implemented because for the first few years after tone phones were
introduced it came onto the line lots of times from phone boxes...
Oh yes, and some countries used different tones from others.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
William Black
> On 01/08/2010 05:06, La N wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>
>> Do telephone boxes even exist anymore?
>
> Yes but they are rare.
>
>
Plenty around here, mainly because the North York Moors National Park
Authority went around and stuck preservation orders on them...
Mark Test
> Last night I watched a documentary on the USS Vincennes / Iran Air Flight
> 655 incident. It was a very well done reenactment, very technical as it
> depicted the instrumentation and protocol of not only the ship, but also
> the Iranian aircraft. I learned some new terminology like "squawk in Mode
> III". The film also documented the emotions of the personnel on the ship
> who were trying to understand what was happening and what decision to
> make.
>
> interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers released a missile;
> however, kept his finger over a button that said something like "abort"
> which meant that he had a few seconds window to change his mind and "kill"
> the missile on its way to the target.
>
> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does its
> damage?
>
> of the people actually involved, not only on the ship, but family members
> of the pilot whose plane was shot down.
>
Did the documentary show the days and weeks prior to the incident?
VINCENNES had been actively engaging Iranian Naval forces.
So, once an air target was ID'd as Iranian, it would have been
engaged....you don't have a lot of time when ASM's are involved.
Scroll down a bit on this link to "public statements" for the history of
combat engagements
the VINCENNES had been involved with prior to the shoot down.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/shootingdown_iranair_flight655.php
Also, this incident forced Reagan to back down a bit on his
condemnation of the Soviets shooting down KAL 007.
(even though we had been attacked prior to our shootdown
incident and the soviets had not)
Mark Test
news:f4k9561udgjfn3nqm...@4ax.com...
> Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:23:28 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without
>>>>> response and interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers
>>>>> released a missile; however, kept his finger over a button that said
>>>>> something like "abort" which meant that he had a few seconds window
>>>>> to change his mind and "kill" the missile on its way to the target.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does
>>>>> its damage?
>>>>
>>>> knows why. I suppose I can try and find out!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>I only know of it being used once (locally) and then it malfunctioned.
>>The missile was a command guided one and control was lost over it and
>>it headed off directly for a naval range clearing vessel it should not
>>have been going for.
>>
>
> Usually you only have Flight Termination Systems on weapons being used
> on test ranges. Warshot typically don't have them.
>
> After all, would you want the enemy to be able to blow up inbounds
> just from a little successful espionage where they stole the codes?
>
Or just observe what freq we xmitted then radiate that freq whenever
a missile is coming at you. I find it very hard to believe there is an
"abort" button for missiles....without wire guidance, the speed at which
they
travel, the aspect and range from shooting platform...are just a few
major variables that would have to be overcome.
Finally, one has to ask why is it needed? The decision is made to kill
a target...you don't ever abort that.
Target ranges...sure....warshots...doubtful.
Jack Linthicum
Now its two tones, wasn't always.
Peter Skelton
That bit in brackets is not the truth. The truth is that
Vinvennes had been attacking Iranian assets before the shootdown
and the Soviets had not been attacking anything.
Peter Skelton
William Black
> On Aug 1, 12:00 pm, William Black<william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/08/10 11:08, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone remember "phone phreaks"? People who could imitate the sounds
>>> of the tones needed to complete the call, naturally without paying.
>>
>>> http://www.telephonetribute.com/phonephreaking.html
>>
>> I remember reading about them.
>>
>> I also remember seeing 'beige boxes' on sale that imitated the sounds of
>> tone phones.
>>
>> That's because you can't actually imitate the sound of a tone phone as
>> 'the tone' is actually two tones...
>>
>> Somewhere there's a 'military override tone' detailed but nobody ever
>> implemented because for the first few years after tone phones were
>> introduced it came onto the line lots of times from phone boxes...
>>
>> Oh yes, and some countries used different tones from others.
>
> Now its two tones, wasn't always.
Not in the UK...
Andrew Swallow
Launch vehicles are required to have an explosive Flight Termination
System. Even the ones carrying civilian passengers.
Ref
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e11cee34fe5087a8cba8d252ec7327b3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:4.0.2.9.10&idno=14>
FAA regulation 417 Appendix D
Andrew Swallow
Paul J. Adam
<rightwin...@yahoo.com> writes
>Or just observe what freq we xmitted then radiate that freq whenever
>a missile is coming at you.
Shutdown for a MR-SAM is rather harder to fake than that. For some
systems, you turn off the guidance radar (if you can do that to the
enemy, you're winning the battle anyway) otherwise you need to send the
correct message in the right format at the appropriate frequency, into
the wrong end of a directional aerial, with a few other safeguards quite
possible: and if you know the system *that* well, you can just seduce
the seeker for much less effort and probably a great deal more
reliability.
> I find it very hard to believe there is an
>"abort" button for missiles....without wire guidance, the speed at
>which they
>travel, the aspect and range from shooting platform...are just a few
>major variables that would have to be overcome.
Bear in mind that for a long-range shot, time of flight may be measured
in minutes (though you aren't likely to need both hands to count them).
That can be long enough for situations to change and for things to go a
little bit wrong, especially in crowded or complex environments: being
able to at least try to terminate the engagement
>Finally, one has to ask why is it needed? The decision is made to kill
>a target...you don't ever abort that.
Friendly or neutral targets wander into the vicinity of the target is
one possibility, seduction onto an invalid target another.
La N
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ke05o.10302$Z6.2439@edtnps82...
>> Last night I watched a documentary on the USS Vincennes / Iran Air
>> Flight 655 incident. It was a very well done reenactment, very
>> technical as it depicted the instrumentation and protocol of not
>> only the ship, but also the Iranian aircraft. I learned some new
>> terminology like "squawk in Mode III". The film also documented the
>> emotions of the personnel on the ship who were trying to understand
>> what was happening and what decision to make.
>>
>> Anyway, after giving several warnings to the aircraft without
>> response and interpreting it thus as hostile, Captain Rogers
>> released a missile; however, kept his finger over a button that said
>> something like "abort" which meant that he had a few seconds window
>> to change his mind and "kill" the missile on its way to the target.
>>
>> How does *that* work? How do you intercept a missile before it does
>> its damage?
>>
>> The documentary was interspersed with (often emotionally laden)
>> interviews of the people actually involved, not only on the ship,
>> but family members of the pilot whose plane was shot down.
>>
> Did the documentary show the days and weeks prior to the incident?
> VINCENNES had been actively engaging Iranian Naval forces.
> So, once an air target was ID'd as Iranian, it would have been
> engaged....you don't have a lot of time when ASM's are involved.
Yes it did. And that is what compelled Captain Rogers and crew to be on
standby for unfriendlies in the sky. Also, the Iranian flight was delayed
by something like a half hour, which made it incongruent with the Iranian
airline flight arrivals and departies that they had on hand.
>
> Scroll down a bit on this link to "public statements" for the history
> of combat engagements
> the VINCENNES had been involved with prior to the shoot down.
> http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/shootingdown_iranair_flight655.php
>
> Also, this incident forced Reagan to back down a bit on his
> condemnation of the Soviets shooting down KAL 007.
> (even though we had been attacked prior to our shootdown
> incident and the soviets had not)
The film also harkened back to a previous incident in which a ship was
attacked, but the captain didn't fire back costing lives. This captain was
courtmarialed, and there was video footage of a distraught looking (former)
captain in court. I forget which ship and which incident this was.
However, based on this and all other data, including the recent skirmishes
the Vincennes had been having with the Iranian Navy Captain Rogers "erred"
on the side of caution. This documented wasn't a condemnation of his
actions. It just depicted how all the events came together to resultin the
incident.
However, one other aspect was interesting. Some on the ship were
intepreting on their radar screen that the plane was fast descending
approaching towrds them and that contributed to the decision to fire.
However, after that, when an investigation was done, the records were
brought up, and it showed the plane was actually ascending and flying away.
I forgot what the "technical" term for that was, but it has to do with when
you are under stress and you expect actions to happen a certain way, and
that is how you read/perceive them including reading a radar screen.
- nilita
Eugene Griessel
I seem to recall a certain short range IR AA missile, can't remember
which one now, had a self-destruct mechanism if it had not hit the
target within 25 seconds of launch. This was on the seventies. 2
reasons - so that live ordnance does not fall on innocent civilians
and live ordnance does not fall into enemy hands intact.
Eugene L Griessel
Today I will gladly share my experience and advice, for
there are no sweeter words than 'I told you so!'
La N
All of this was based on testimonies of the people on board the ship as well
as resutls of the follow-up investigation.
It was a near exact reenaction of what took place.
- nilita
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>
> there's no 'Abort' button
yes, Fwed, there is
;-)
--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Tankfixer
says...
Blackberries are nice but I dare say any of the smart phones that lets
you do email and all while mobile would suit a persons needs..
I always go play with them in the store a hile to get a feel.
Paul J. Adam
<eug...@dynagen.co.za> writes
>I seem to recall a certain short range IR AA missile, can't remember
>which one now, had a self-destruct mechanism if it had not hit the
>target within 25 seconds of launch. This was on the seventies. 2
>reasons - so that live ordnance does not fall on innocent civilians
>and live ordnance does not fall into enemy hands intact.
Same issue as a self-destruct on AA shells - once they're no longer
useful, have them land as a scatter of fragments rather than functional
fuzed HE bricks.
If this is the MANPADS I'm thinking of (or most others) it's in the
range bracket where second thoughts are too late: it's the medium-range
systems where you want to be able to at least try to 'break engage' when
some fangs-out fighter jock is ignoring the MEZ, closing for a guns kill
and is at risk from your own SAMs.
La N
btw, Mr. Adam, I meant to thank you for your initial post in response to
how this all works. I've read it a few times trying to wrap my mind
round - dare I say it - the physics of it all. I was gonna ask Eugene to
translate and dummy it down for my benefit, but that always ends up in a
fight between us ... :) :) :)
- nil
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>btw, Mr. Adam, I meant to thank you for your initial post in response to
>how this all works. I've read it a few times trying to wrap my mind
>round - dare I say it - the physics of it all. I was gonna ask Eugene to
>translate and dummy it down for my benefit, but that always ends up in a
>fight between us ... :) :) :)
Calumny!
Anyway I can't right now - I am engaged in a top secret national
project of high priority and urgency. I have been engaged by the
Department of Environtmental Affairs to design, test and build an
Anti-Poutine missile with the view to neutralizing Canada should it
ever try and invade us. I am having trouble with the seeker head - it
will home in on the smell of a French Fry at 1000 metres, discriminate
the squeak of fresh curd cheese at 2000 but the damned brown sauce is
giving problems. It's OK on chicken - will pick that up at fifteen
hundred yards but the veal is giving hassles. The veal sauce
discriminator is poor and it does tend to lock in on biltong instead -
with disastrous results. But given time and lots more brib..^h^h^h^h
financial input I'll solve the problem. Poutine today - Big Macs
tomorrow!
Eugene Griessel
Nope it was one of the plethora of AA missiles the SAAF was using at
the time - which could have been a number of versions of Sidewinder,
Magic, Shafrir, Voorslag or Kukri.
I remember my cousin demonstrating the workings of the IR seeker head
to me with a cigarette butt carried back and forth by an erk at the
far end of the hangar.
Eugene L Griessel
History is a damn dim candle over a damn dark abyss.
- W.S. Holt
La N
Sigh ... Eugene ... your way with physics and fine cuisine inspire me to
haiku-you.
**********
On a Night on Quaint Village Beach With Eugene
Throwing rocks at whales
Sipping wine from tin cans
Baboon butt bacon
Eugene flaps those jacks
with all purpose slide rule and
tells tales of the sea
************************
- nilita
Kerryn Offord
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f4k9561udgjfn3nqm...@4ax.com...
>> Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:23:28 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> Usually you only have Flight Termination Systems on weapons being used
>> on test ranges. Warshot typically don't have them.
>>
>> After all, would you want the enemy to be able to blow up inbounds
>> just from a little successful espionage where they stole the codes?
>>
> Or just observe what freq we xmitted then radiate that freq whenever
> a missile is coming at you. I find it very hard to believe there is an
> "abort" button for missiles....without wire guidance, the speed at which
> they
> travel, the aspect and range from shooting platform...are just a few
> major variables that would have to be overcome.
>
> Finally, one has to ask why is it needed? The decision is made to kill
> a target...you don't ever abort that.
>
> Target ranges...sure....warshots...doubtful.
>
>
One remembers the cases of Patriot missiles being fired at Tornados and
F16s (??) in one of the Gulf wars...
The idea is to NOT shoot down your own aircraft...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
Thank you, thank you - don't call us, we'll call you.
I ran this poutine idea past a half dozen South Africans and when the
grimaces and hideous contortions of the facial muscles had abated they
all came back with exactly the same question: "Why do something
terrible like that to a plate of slap chips?" It helped not when I
pointed out that 5 million lumberjacks could not be wrong.
Eugene L Griessel
Everybody lies about sex.
scott s.
news:NiiRS5DC...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
>
> There's a lot more underlying complexity and detail, but basically
> for some anti-aircraft missiles there is indeed an option to abort
> an engagement even with birds in the air.
>
Back in the day there were beam riding missiles with that
capability, required for certain warhead types.
scott s.
.
Mark Test
news:8c8b565iatusodu6e...@4ax.com...
Mark Test
The ship that was hit prior to VINCENNES was the STARK.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Fred J. McCall <fmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robocruiser was *known* for being 'overly aggressive'. If there
> hadn't been so much public outcry and international pressure Rogers
> would probably have lost his command over this.
Rogers didn't lose his command because it would have undermined the
faith *every* ship captain and aircrew in the region had in the
integrity of the rules of engagement. William Crowell, the JCS
chairman, had been hammering home the point that if you follow the
rules of engagement, your ass will be covered. He knew -- and said
openly in interviews -- that there was a lot of skepticism about this,
and one of his main tasks was to provide reassurance that, if you
followed the rules, you wouldn't be scapegoated just because an
engagement went wrong.
As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS system
itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed observer would
maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond when called on
international guard frequencies. You fly into a war zone with guard
turned off, and what happens, happens.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Crowell
> fire and forget" doesn't mean it can't be communicated with.
> a self-destruct link could still work.
Uh, yeah. But it's not likely to be present unless the
bird is specifically wired for it, a la a test shot. Not
many (I'd go so far as to say zero) warshots will have a
self-destruct option installed.
Jeff
--
Never try to win an emotional argument with facts.
Jeff Crowell
>>>>> fire and forget" doesn't mean it can't be commicated with.
>>>>> a self-destruct link could still work.
Griessel wrote:
>>>> Hardly - they tend to be cheap IR missiles with no radios in them. No
>>>> way to send command signals.
Ray:
>>> Harpoon are hardly cheap IR missiles.
Eugene:
>> What part of the "they tend to be" did you not understand?
>> If a missile has no radio command needs then one does not install
>> radios in them for reasons of weight and the danger that the enemy may
>> hijack that radio link and use the missile to it's advantage.
Ray:
> most of those you refer too are like sidewinder, LOS weapons that don't
> need an abort and attack at ranges so short as to make an abort useless.
> the discussion was about larger missiles that could attack targets at a
> distance like Standard that shot down the Iranian airliner
Standard can, in effect, be aborted by shutting off the illumination
(and midcourse updates for versions with that). It won't destruct,
per se, but a miss is virtually assured.
The Harpoon I knew had no facility to receive incoming radio. I'd bet
a great deal that is still true.
Warshots (non test/eval birds, anyway) won't have a destruct signal
capability, for the very reasons Gene mentions.
Jeff
--
Teddy Kennedy killed more people with his car than I have with my guns.
Jeff Crowell
> As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS system
> itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed observer would
> maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond when called on
> international guard frequencies. You fly into a war zone with guard
> turned off, and what happens, happens.
JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such? ISTR that being discussed
at the time.....
I also STR that the verbiage used by the Vincennes crew during those
radio calls was so specific as to have been ignored by the Airbus crew
if they had heard it. Along the lines of "Iranian F-14 descending..."
when of course it was an Airbus climbing, or something along those
lines.
But I may be conflating things, it seems to happen more often as I get
older. :-/
Jeff
--
You will open more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Dennis
>>> As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS
>>> system itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed
>>> observer would maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond when
>>> called on international guard frequencies. You fly into a war zone
>>> with guard turned off, and what happens, happens.
>>
>>JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
>>Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such? ISTR that being
>>discussed at the time.....
>>
>
> They called on military emergency frequencies (which the Airbus
> couldn't hear) and on civilian emergency frequencies (which the
> airliner is required by law to monitor).
>
>>
>>I also STR that the verbiage used by the Vincennes crew during those
>>radio calls was so specific as to have been ignored by the Airbus crew
>>if they had heard it. Along the lines of "Iranian F-14 descending..."
>>when of course it was an Airbus climbing, or something along those
>>lines.
>>
>
> That bit is just not true. In fact, the language used was so general
> that the Airbus may not have realized they were the aircraft being
> called. However, being in a war zone where NOTAMs had been issued, I
> would have expected a pilot with the experience of the Iranian Captain
> to have answered up anyway. All it would have required was a response
> of, "Which aircraft? Over."
>
> However, Iranian aircraft were rather known (and probably still are)
> for ignoring calls from US forces. This incident illustrates what can
> happen when they do that.
ISTR discussion that a ship like Vincennes should really not have been
operating in such confined waters, that its systems really weren't
designed for that. What about that?
Dennis
La N
Also, there was some question as to whether they, during this tense time,
shared the same radio frequency (the documetnary goes into detail how that
works). The film depicted the Captain of Vicennes talking over the radio,
and the pilot not hearing anything.
- nilita
Richard Casady
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This was more than a case of "engagement went wrong". STARK damned
>near got court martialed for poor training and lax execution.
>VINCENNES training was apparently even worse (how else do you read a
>display BACKWARDS that you're supposed to be trained to operate) and
>'lax execution' hardly covers incursions into territorial waters or
>opening fire while his own Combat crew disagreed about what the target
>was doing.
I don't know what gear they had, of course. It would seem that it is
as simple as up doppler and down doppler on the radar return. Take
nothing like the time and attention watching the motion of a target
takes. Immediate word on inbound or the other.
Casady
Jack Linthicum
You can get that in a tropic environment, called ducting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
La N
Interesting.
- nilita
Jack Linthicum
UHF, in WWII it was new and everyone thought it was very short range.
Great for aircraft to aircraft comms. Flight training over Florida
started getting traffic that sounded like U.S. but couldn't identify
them. The other guys were around Hawaii at the other end of the duct.
La N
Interview with the pilot's family members, still grieving after all these
years, reinforced that he was a family man and a really good pilot with many
MANY hours of flying time behind him, who flew this route many times, and
who would never have knowingly compromised his own safety and that of the
passengers.
- nilita
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jeff Crowell <jeff.crow...@hp.com>
wrote:
> > As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS system
> > itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed observer would
> > maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond when called on
> > international guard frequencies. You fly into a war zone with guard
> > turned off, and what happens, happens.
>
> JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
> Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such? ISTR that being discussed
> at the time.....
Gosh, it's been a while, but my recollection is that a shipboard "call
on guard" button transmits on both U- and VHF.
> I also STR that the verbiage used by the Vincennes crew during those
> radio calls was so specific as to have been ignored by the Airbus
> crew if they had heard it. Along the lines of "Iranian F-14
> descending..." when of course it was an Airbus climbing, or
> something along those lines.
I don't think they said "F-14." I do think they said "descending," which
of course matters.
When Vincennes called *me* on guard frequency, I answered right up, I
assure you. Of course, I had the benefit of hindsight ...
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Fred J. McCall <fmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Rogers didn't lose his command because it would have undermined the
> >faith *every* ship captain and aircrew in the region had in the
> >integrity of the rules of engagement. William Crowell, the JCS
> >chairman, had been hammering home the point that if you follow the
> >rules of engagement, your ass will be covered.
> >
>
> allow you to shoot at airliners climbing away from you.
Rogers and his TAO did not know that the airliner was climbing. And
I've never heard anyone assert before that the airliner was moving
"away from" Vincennes. That's a new one; can you support it?
> >He knew -- and said openly in interviews -- that there was a lot of
> >skepticism about this, and one of his main tasks was to provide
> >reassurance that, if you followed the rules, you wouldn't be
> >scapegoated just because an engagement went wrong.
>
> This was more than a case of "engagement went wrong". STARK damned
> near got court martialed for poor training and lax execution.
> VINCENNES training was apparently even worse (how else do you read a
> display BACKWARDS that you're supposed to be trained to operate)
I am not an expert in AEGIS and can't give you a full explanation on
this one, but no credible source has ever concluded that the console
operator made the simple, stupid error you imply here. It had more to
do with NTDS handoffs, I think, than AEGIS or the console itself. (Man,
did I ever hate NTDS. Did they straighten that POS out at all since
1995?)
La N
> In the previous article, Jeff Crowell <jeff.crow...@hp.com>
> wrote:
>>> As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS
>>> system itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed
>>> observer would maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond
>>> when called on international guard frequencies. You fly into a war
>>> zone with guard turned off, and what happens, happens.
>>
>> JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
>> Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such? ISTR that being
>> discussed at the time.....
>
> Gosh, it's been a while, but my recollection is that a shipboard "call
> on guard" button transmits on both U- and VHF.
>
>> I also STR that the verbiage used by the Vincennes crew during those
>> radio calls was so specific as to have been ignored by the Airbus
>> crew if they had heard it. Along the lines of "Iranian F-14
>> descending..." when of course it was an Airbus climbing, or
>> something along those lines.
>
> I don't think they said "F-14." I do think they said "descending,"
> which of course matters.
>
> When Vincennes called *me* on guard frequency, I answered right up, I
> assure you. Of course, I had the benefit of hindsight ...
Interesting. btw, good to see you, JD!
- nilita
Peter Skelton
<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:31:33 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>btw, Mr. Adam, I meant to thank you for your initial post in response to
>>how this all works. I've read it a few times trying to wrap my mind
>>round - dare I say it - the physics of it all. I was gonna ask Eugene to
>>translate and dummy it down for my benefit, but that always ends up in a
>>fight between us ... :) :) :)
>
>Calumny!
>
>Anyway I can't right now - I am engaged in a top secret national
>project of high priority and urgency. I have been engaged by the
>Department of Environtmental Affairs to design, test and build an
>Anti-Poutine missile with the view to neutralizing Canada should it
>ever try and invade us. I am having trouble with the seeker head - it
>will home in on the smell of a French Fry at 1000 metres, discriminate
>the squeak of fresh curd cheese at 2000 but the damned brown sauce is
>giving problems. It's OK on chicken - will pick that up at fifteen
>hundred yards but the veal is giving hassles. The veal sauce
>discriminator is poor and it does tend to lock in on biltong instead -
>with disastrous results. But given time and lots more brib..^h^h^h^h
>financial input I'll solve the problem. Poutine today - Big Macs
>tomorrow!
>
You do realize that poutine is an obsolescent system now used
mostly by the sort of folks who m*te over their AK 47's south of
the great divide, and that our first-line weapon is the beaver
tail?
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<rightwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
reference please
Here, for example is what wiki says:
---
On the morning of 3 July, the Vincennes was passing through the
Strait of Hormuz returning from an escort duty.[3] A helicopter
from the USS Vincennes received small arms fire from Iranian
patrol vessels, as it observed at a high altitude. The Vincennes
moved to engage the Iranian vessels, in the course of which they
all violated Omani waters and left after being challenged and
ordered to leave by a Royal Navy of Oman warship.[11] The
Vincennes then pursued the Iranian gunboats crossing into Iranian
territorial waters to open fire. The USS Sides (FFG-14) and USS
Elmer Montgomery (FF-1082) were nearby.
It was shortly after this gunfire exchange that Iran Air Flight
655 approached to begin its transit of the Straits. The USS
Vincennes fired upon the airliner, destroying it and killing all
aboard.
----
It agrees in all essential respects with the DoD investigation
report which is here
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/172.pdf
Peter Skelton
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
So long as you do not violate the Hague convention by bringing out the
Seal Flipper Pie!
Eugene L Griessel
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
La N
Speaking of delicious cuisine - and we *were* talking about raw seal hearts,
weren't we? ....
For all you non Canucks, I share with you a nice recipe. I imagine
in darkest Africa there are probably no moose, so you can substitute an
animal of your choice:
http://www.foodnetwork.ca/recipes/Game/recipe.html?dishid=9711
Moose Oysters
Ingredients
a.. 4 Moose Testicles/Oysters
b.. 10 shaggy mane mushrooms (or other type)
c.. 2 French grey shallots, minced
d.. 1/4 cup honey
e.. 1/4 cup sherry
f.. 4/5 cup stag or moose stock
g.. 4/5 cup 35% M.F. cream
h.. 25 grams butter
i.. Chives
j.. Pepper
Directions
1.. Boil testicles in water for several minutes. Remove the membrane from
around the testicles, cut in half and flour.
2.. In a pan, brown the testicles in butter. Remove from pan, set aside
and keep warm.
3.. In the same pan, cook the mushrooms and then completely soften the
shallots.
4.. Add honey and deglaze with sherry. Add stag or moose stock and reduce.
Pour in cream and reduce again until it mixture becomes creamy.
5.. Place the testicles in the sauce. Add chives and pepper.
xxxooo
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
> a.. 4 Moose Testicles/Oysters
No wonder moose populations are in decline - and why a lot of bull
moose sound so peculiar.
Eugene L Griessel
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings...they did
it by killing all those who opposed them.
Peter Skelton
<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
That is the traditional weapon of the Newfs, a tribe of
aboriginals which did not succumb to righteous rule until 1949
and is still only somewhat civilized. No real Canadian would
resort to it unless mightily provoked by the alcoholic ramblings
of a demented foreigner.
I am somewhat surprised that you brought this up, as I had,
perhaps optimistically, pegged you as a gentleman. Indeed, I had
hoped for some sympathy as your adored homeland has some mild
examples of the same sort of thing. People who live in. . . .
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:02:11 +0200, Eugene Griessel
>
>
>
> <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
I sometimes frequent a Newfie storm for music, they admonish me to not
order the seal flipper pie, like I would.
David E. Powell
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:17:25 +0200, Eugene Griessel
> >> <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:31:33 GMT, "La N"
Of course they have to be "Shaggy Mane" Mushrooms...
Jeffrey Hamilton
> On 8/2/2010 8:39 AM, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>> As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS system
>> itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed observer would
>> maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond when called on
>> international guard frequencies. You fly into a war zone with guard
>> turned off, and what happens, happens.
>
> JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
> Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such?
Yes. You are correct. The USS Vincennes didn't have the capability to
monitor some signals.
>ISTR that being
> discussed at the time.....
>
> I also STR that the verbiage used by the Vincennes crew during those
> radio calls was so specific as to have been ignored by the Airbus crew
> if they had heard it. Along the lines of "Iranian F-14 descending..."
Exactly, the USS Vincennes crew were confused not only asto what plane they
were dealing with, F-14 vs Airbus airliner. The Airbus crew ignored the
calls for the non-existant, to them, F-14.
> when of course it was an Airbus climbing, or something along those
> lines.
Again exactly, they were a poorly trained crew and were confused asto even
if the plane was climbing _or_ descending.
> But I may be conflating things, it seems to happen more often as I get
> older. :-/
Nope, your spot on, it's Mr Baldwin who is relying on a faultry memory, not
you.
cheers....Jeff
>
> Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>>>> As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS
>>>> system itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed
>>>> observer would maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond
>>>> when called on international guard frequencies. You fly into a
>>>> war zone with guard turned off, and what happens, happens.
>>>
>>> JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
>>> Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such? ISTR that being
>>> discussed at the time.....
>>>
>>
>> They called on military emergency frequencies (which the Airbus
>> couldn't hear) and on civilian emergency frequencies (which the
>> airliner is required by law to monitor).
>>
>>>
>>> I also STR that the verbiage used by the Vincennes crew during those
>>> radio calls was so specific as to have been ignored by the Airbus
>>> crew if they had heard it. Along the lines of "Iranian F-14
>>> descending..." when of course it was an Airbus climbing, or
>>> something along those lines.
>>>
>>
>> That bit is just not true.
That bit _is_ true ! The USS Vincennes crew _were confused not only asto
what plane they were viewing, but also it's status (climbing vs descending)
In fact, the language used was so general
>> that the Airbus may not have realized they were the aircraft being
>> called.
Not true. The USS Vincenes was calling on what they thought was an F-14, the
Airbus ignored the calls to the warbird because they were a passenger liner.
>>However, being in a war zone where NOTAMs had been issued
Oh really ? Iranian waters were a *war zone* ?
Since when ?
>>, I
>> would have expected a pilot with the experience of the Iranian
>> Captain to have answered up anyway. All it would have required was
>> a response of, "Which aircraft? Over."
Apparently it's always easy for _you_ to expect others to answer for
American mistakes !
>> However, Iranian aircraft were rather known (and probably still are)
>> for ignoring calls from US forces.
Gee, I wonder why ? Especially when they are in their own airspace too, eh ?
>>This incident illustrates what
>> can happen when they do that.
Yep, get yourself a confused, ill trained American warship crew and bad
things are likely to happen. But don't you dare blame them though !
Nosirree, give 'em a medal, that's the ticket.
> ISTR discussion that a ship like Vincennes should really not have been
> operating in such confined waters, that its systems really weren't
> designed for that. What about that?
That is accurate Dennis, the USS Vincennes was designed to fight the Russian
navy on the worlds oceans, _not_ confined waterways such as she found
herself in at this time.
cheers......Jeff
> Dennis
La N
The bottom line is that the Airbus pilot did not hear the warnings because
ISTR they were on different frequencies. I do not believe for a minute he
would necessarily put himself and his passengers in deliberate danger by
ignoring warnings, though that is how it may have appeared to the crew of
the Vincennes. Just because the pilot was Iranian does not make him "evil".
Anyway, it was one of these terribly unfortunate (for both sides) incidents,
and this documentary did a very good job of putting the pieces together by
way of reviewing collaborating events, interviews, court records, logs, etc.
- nilita
scott s.
news:8d2f569p5te4cbdse...@4ax.com:
>
> It turns out it was even worse than I thought. At the time, NTDS
> didn't even display altitude on the main screen. You had to go
> digging down through subtables to find it and even there it didn't
> offer a rate of change. However, the AN/SPY-1 is a 3D radar and has
> to offer such information for display.
Small clarification: the system in question is not "NTDS" but rather
Aegis C&D (CDS). This system was developed by RCA/GE and maintenance
was at NSWC Dahlgren. Back in the day NTDS had been developed by
different programs but was maintained by FCDSSALANT (Dam Neck) for
Cruiser/Destroyers and FCDSSAPAC (Pt Loma) for CVs. You also have
to differentiate between the various Aegis baselines and NTDS
model 3, 4, and 5. Consider Vincennes was like baseline I. IIRC on
that baseline C&D was running on like 4 UYK-7s.
Separately you have to consider the tactical data standards for
interoperability such as TADIL A, B, and J maintained by NTISA (Pt
Loma) though I think most of these activities have since been
consolidated in one way or another (obviously there are no
cruiser/destroyer NTDS any more for example).
After Vincennes I think there was a lot of consideration of how
ATCOs deal with SSR (secondary surveillance radar) and now
you have ADS-B which I assume would be incorporated into naval
surveillance to better manage the commercial traffic and ATS
routes. I know since Vincennes operational changes were made to
better track what the civilian ATS is doing. In the Vincennes
era you also had the problem that most ship-shore comms was via
UHF satcom with low data rates. Now with SHF/EHF systems it is
a lot easier to get updates on the civilian ATS status.
scott s.
.
Keith Willshaw
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:HHZ5o.35218$Bh2....@newsfe04.iad...
> Jeff Crowell wrote:
>> On 8/2/2010 8:39 AM, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>>> As for the incident itself, Rogers and his crew (and the AEGIS system
>>> itself) are hardly blameless; no rational and informed observer would
>>> maintain that. But the Airbus failed to respond when called on
>>> international guard frequencies. You fly into a war zone with guard
>>> turned off, and what happens, happens.
>>
>> JD, isn't it true that Vincennes only called on UHF freqs, when the
>> Airbus could only monitor VHF, or some such?
>
> Yes. You are correct. The USS Vincennes didn't have the capability to
> monitor some signals.
>
I find it very hard to believe that a ship tasked with air defence
could not communicate on commercial VHF aircraft channels
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:IYZ5o.28497$F%7.1...@newsfe10.iad...
The airbus was flying along a recognised air corridor for commercial
air traffic squawking its assigned ident.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nj_5o.10527$Z6.9307@edtnps82...
The Airbus pilot was monitoring the frequencies he was instructed
to by the air traffic controllers. Its a pity the Vincennes did not listen
in to that traffic. Even if he had heard the message broadcast by the
Vincennes he would never have thought they applied to him given
that they were asdressed to an unknown military aircraft approaching
a US warship.
The signals did NOT contain vital information that may have been
useful such as the position of course of the aircraft
Keith
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, La N <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The bottom line is that the Airbus pilot did not hear the warnings
> because ISTR they were on different frequencies.
No. This has been settled. The Vincennes broadcast its warnings on
both 121.5 and 243.0 MHz, the former the "civilian" guard frequency,
the latter the "military" one.
> I do not believe for a minute he would necessarily put himself and
> his passengers in deliberate danger by ignoring warnings, though
> that is how it may have appeared to the crew of the Vincennes.
Then you underestimate the laxness with which many international
airlines operate.
> Just because the pilot was Iranian does not make him "evil".
I don't think anyone on the "victim" aircraft was "evil." I think the
people in the Iranian leadership who sent boats out to attack U.S.
warships without taking extra pains to ensure the safety of the
civilians they sent into the war zone they created were "evil," and
then some.
I don't think either Captain Rogers or his crew were "evil," but they
are pretty damned far from blameless in this incident.