Another Malaysian airplane down

[Fern]

-snip-
If Russia is proven to have provided the weapons and training to trigger happy, undisciplined cowboys - then it's no different than a parent giving a child a loaded gun and then claiming no fault when it goes all wrong.

We know operation of that system takes training. However, I've heard numerous estimates as to the required training time. If the longer periods are correct no separatist was trained, rather it was somebody who already had that training. If so, that limits the potential pool of suspects.

Fern

 

[cabri]

Link

Link

Above links have the same quote

“This is a hard system to use, in today’s terms,” said retired US Army Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, a former director of the US Missile Defense Agency, who estimated that each of the SA-11 crew members would have needed at least six months of training.

6 months training yet the fighting has been going on for only 2-3 months at most.
Quick learners, defectors or Russian expertise.

 

[code65536]

6 months training yet the fighting has been going on for only 2-3 months at most.
Quick learners, defectors or Russian expertise.

Or incomplete training. As, well, evidenced by their fuckup.

 

[werepossum]

Or incomplete training. As, well, evidenced by their fuckup.

IFF? We don't need no stinkin' IFF! We shoot 'em ALL down!

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's all an American plot. You dastardly, yet clever, Americans!!!

"Just one day after the horrific tragedy that left 298 people dead, Russia's Channel One ran a package telling its audience that the entire incident was orchestrated by the United States, specifically by the CIA.

A document purportedly showing that the U.S. was planning to do the same thing during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was showing in a full-screen graphic.

Viewers then learned that the "U.S. orchestrated this because Ukrainian government is not sophisticated enough to orchestrate this," according to the broadcast, which was translated from the original Russian by CNBC."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101852656?__...adline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=101852656

 

[Tweak155]

Link

Link

Above links have the same quote


6 months training yet the fighting has been going on for only 2-3 months at most.
Quick learners, defectors or Russian expertise.

Determination is my vote. Fits with quick learners.

 

[cabri]

If the team was defectors; they would have had the training needed to determine/understand the IFF code. Therefore a launch would have been deliberate against the civilian aircraft.

For to be quick/incompetent learners; they would have had to been in training.
If it was a captured Ukrainian SA-11; they only had it for a couple months at the most;
so Russia would have sent trainers in as soon as the system was obtained. Training manuals are not included in fielded systems.

If it was Russian officers trained on the SA-11 in control; then ...

 

[Pens1566]

Actually Europe is also part of the Asian continent.

Europe is part of Eurasia, not Asia.

 

[norseamd]

Europe is part of Eurasia, not Asia.

Eurasia is the Asian continent. Do you say Indoeurasia every time you talk about the continent?

 

[dank69]

Link

Link

Above links have the same quote


6 months training yet the fighting has been going on for only 2-3 months at most.
Quick learners, defectors or Russian expertise.

It doesn't take 6 months to learn anything unless fine motor skills are involved. That claim seems like complete bullshit.

 

[Attic]

A lot of huffing and puffing, not much being done nor will be done. Everyone is doing a good job of looking upset while unforgivably using the tragedy for political purposes/ambitions.

Read between the lines.

ie) The down'd flight is acceptable collateral damage, so get used to it and pick a side if you want to enjoy the theater.

 

[cabri]

It doesn't take 6 months to learn anything unless fine motor skills are involved. That claim seems like complete bullshit.

Working with complicated electronics takes time to learn how to do it properly.
Missile batteries are not just simple turn on power switch,aim/shoot

Why do you think the military sends people for 3-24 months on training on such systems?


Have you experience with weapon systems?

 

[BudAshes]

Working with complicated electronics takes time to learn how to do it properly.
Missile batteries are not just simple turn on power switch,aim/shoot

Why do you think the military sends people for 3-24 months on training on such systems?


Have you experience with weapon systems?

What, you haven't played bf4 yet?

 

[dank69]

Working with complicated electronics takes time to learn how to do it properly.
Missile batteries are not just simple turn on power switch,aim/shoot

Why do you think the military sends people for 3-24 months on training on such systems?


Have you experience with weapon systems?

There is a vast gaping chasm between "turn on power switch,aim/shoot" and 6 months to train. I have no experience with any such system, do you? If you do, please explain what exactly takes 6 months to learn.

 

[Nebor]

There is a vast gaping chasm between "turn on power switch,aim/shoot" and 6 months to train. I have no experience with any such system, do you? If you do, please explain what exactly takes 6 months to learn.

This is a modern Patriot missile battery control panel. It uses weird, proprietary software that's extremely counter-intuitive. You teach the operation of this to people without a college education in 11 weeks.

 

[cabri]

There is a vast gaping chasm between "turn on power switch,aim/shoot" and 6 months to train. I have no experience with any such system, do you? If you do, please explain what exactly takes 6 months to learn.

4 yrs as a weapons officer.
Additional 2 years with working with Russian AA systems.

Everything has to be synchronized. One slip up and you can fry the system at worst case; cause a reset of the system/reboot or at minimum corrupt the sequence of operations causing a restart.

A tech school for the US systems is 3 months; potentially because the manufacturers have been forced to simplify the operations and try to make them more fool proof.

The Russian systems are more complex and not intended to be idiot proof; just work.

Computer simulations are very forgiving and short cut/ignore many procedures that are needed.

 

[code65536]

4 yrs as a weapons officer.
Additional 2 years with working with Russian AA systems.

Everything has to be synchronized. One slip up and you can fry the system at worst case; cause a reset of the system/reboot or at minimum corrupt the sequence of operations causing a restart.

A tech school for the US systems is 3 months; potentially because the manufacturers have been forced to simplify the operations and try to make them more fool proof.

The Russian systems are more complex and not intended to be idiot proof; just work.

Computer simulations are very forgiving and short cut/ignore many procedures that are needed.

Out of curiosity, why are they designed to be so difficult? If you're targeting a fast-flying jet in the heat of battle wouldn't fiddling with the controls for a couple of minutes mean that the jet's already moved on?

 

[cabri]

I can not state why they are so complex.

However, the units that are mobile require setting up the support units; getting the radar unit(s) fired up, synched and stable.

Most "portables' will be setup in advance. Their radars are not sweep radars but targeting radars. The operator/system is fed the coordinates (via electronic transmission or optical slaving) on where to aim their dish. then once they actually have a return; they need to identify that it is their target; slave the radar to track the target; spin up the missile guidance system with the target coordinates/signature.
When the missile acknowledges that it is ready; then the launch can commence.

They can not just point the missile where they think the target is and fire.
Missiles are not optical searching/image comparison/differences; they are radar or heat. Trackers on a missile looks out a narrow cone in front of it; similar to driving down the road looking through a paper tube. Unless that view is properly positioned, you have a miss. If that view is properly positioned, then the missile is able to "lock on" and actively track into what it thinks is the target.

 

[dawheat]

This is a modern Patriot missile battery control panel. It uses weird, proprietary software that's extremely counter-intuitive. You teach the operation of this to people without a college education in 11 weeks.

Jeez that looks like a PITA. However, I imagine a lot of the training is used to cover an endless variety of scenarios and how to handle them (e.g. ECM, incoming ARMs vs. aircraft, X system stops working, interference, and so on).

Basic training on an older system like the SA-11 to handle a couple primary cases and assume your enemy won't have sophisticated countermeasures or be able to fly more than a couple plans at you seems like it could make the training way shorter.

 

[Fern]

Are missile systems like the BUK password protected etc in case they captured by the enemy?

If not, why not?

Fern

 

[cabri]

Self destruct charges at the most.

Password protection would be worthless; capture a system, you usually will get also people that know how to use the system.

also, if time is critical; you do not want mistakes to be made getting the system fired up and having to enter the password. Under pressure, mistakes can happen. What happens if their is a retry count; the system could be locked out until some type of reset is done.

And more than likely, the password would be written done by the new people that start using the system.

 

[Nebor]

Out of curiosity, why are they designed to be so difficult? If you're targeting a fast-flying jet in the heat of battle wouldn't fiddling with the controls for a couple of minutes mean that the jet's already moved on?

In an actual conflict Patriot batteries are actually automated for a few reasons. As you said, because when a fast-flying jet is passing through the Patriots relatively limited effective range, there's typically less than a minute to acquire the target and fire the missile. Without going into too much detail, the ideal Patriot engagement occurs when the target is as close to the battery as it's projected to get, in order to minimize flight time of the missile and early warning to the aircraft (which also presents a danger to the patriot battery via anti-radar missiles.) So everything has to be calculated (aircraft speed, altitude, direction, trajectory, presence of IFF,) and decided in a few a seconds. The only real "control" manipulated in conflict is an "abort" functionality used to stop the computer from automatically acquiring a target and firing at it.

The result of the system being in "combat mode" in OIF was the accidental destruction of a British Tornado & a Navy F/A-18. An Air Force F-16 was nearly shot down but quickly reacted to being painted by the patriot's radar, firing his own HARM missile, destroying the Patriot battery. Fortunately, to increase crew & control pod survivability in a conflict, the control station is located some distance away from the actual missile launcher.

Now that I've typed all that out, I can't believe I know so much about Air Defense Artillery, quite possibly the worst branch in the Army. :biggrin:

 

[werepossum]

This is a modern Patriot missile battery control panel. It uses weird, proprietary software that's extremely counter-intuitive. You teach the operation of this to people without a college education in 11 weeks.

Yep, and the Soviet-era air defense systems are considerably more difficult to operate. There's a reason Soviet and Russian doctrine holds that no aircraft are survivable in their forward air defense envelope, not even their own.

EDIT: If one is interested, one can find free manuals for equivalent Soviet era American air defense systems. Just remember that these are operational manuals, not everything one has to learn before getting to the operational manual, and that these describe how the system SHOULD work. In the real world, things seldom go so smoothly, so the operator also has to learn things like how to make probable IDs without an IFF code and how to interpret nonsensical returns.

 

[dank69]

This is a modern Patriot missile battery control panel. It uses weird, proprietary software that's extremely counter-intuitive. You teach the operation of this to people without a college education in 11 weeks.

Everything looks complicated when you don't know what you are looking at. Hell, put a tribal person into a modern car and it will look the same as that pic to them. Could still have them driving in a few hours.

 

[dank69]

4 yrs as a weapons officer.
Additional 2 years with working with Russian AA systems.

Everything has to be synchronized. One slip up and you can fry the system at worst case; cause a reset of the system/reboot or at minimum corrupt the sequence of operations causing a restart.

A tech school for the US systems is 3 months; potentially because the manufacturers have been forced to simplify the operations and try to make them more fool proof.

The Russian systems are more complex and not intended to be idiot proof; just work.

Computer simulations are very forgiving and short cut/ignore many procedures that are needed.

Good, so you actually know what makes these things so complicated? If operating it is simply pushing X number of buttons in a specific unchanging order then training by someone who can write down that sequence would take a few days at most. If the order changes depending on circumstances, then yeah, I can see it being a bit more complicated, but like I said, if it doesn't require fine motor skills, 6 months seems like bullshit.