You move, no you move! (the US-Navy)

[TT]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[gucom]

lol, id like to c a lighthouse move 15degrees to the noth, lol

[graywolf624]

It is funny but it couldn't really happen. It couldn't due to the nature of their sensor system. Much of it is based on movement.
Then of course you have the relay between the sensor system and lookouts.

I've heard similar jokes about both the polish and french navys.

[scubywrxr]

thats very fucking funny :lol:

[Fleischmann]

Hilarious, I almost pissed my pants !! Great link dude :)

[graywolf624]

I think its just a joke, but it can happen there have happend stranger things in the world than a ship hitting the shore unintended.


Of course there has been. In terms of an american military ship mistaking a light house for a ship though. It can't happen the way their system is setup.
A light house doesn't move. Thus some of their sensors would report this as a stationary object.

[graywolf624]

Well we had a russian submarine stuck on a swedish shore in the 80`s, and last year we had a Norwegian MTB ontop of small Island both would be considered a stationary object. This wessel was fitted with brand new state of the art radar systems.

However, both are navigation rather then targeting issues.
The video in question has him calling an object which he feels is non stationary. Aka a friend or foe targeting. That is different from navigation.

Aka it is very much possible to miscalculate in situations of storm and crash. It isn't very possible to misconstrue a lighthouse for a boat.

In other words they could hit the light house due to navigation errors. However, they would not construe if for a boat.

[graywolf624]

Your missing what I am saying. I am telling you that the targeting and navigation systems are autonomous systems. A navigational failure does not equal a targeting failure. The ships identification of other ships is done by the targeting system(think awacs). Thier navigation is done by other systems.

[graywolf624]

" know that, but this is a navigation failure!!!! If you mistake a lighthouse for another boat you have done a serious navigation error, cuz light houses are on the maps you know, and maps are the basic of all navigation. "

Yes but a navigational system failure would mean they didnt see the object. To confuse it for another boat would mean a failure in both systems. The awacs system and other targeting determine other vessels. Meanwhile, they have a seperate navigational system. The navigational/mapping system would have to fail and so would the targeting/awacs system. In theoretical experimentation that hasn't happened.

"We find alot of stuff to argue about graywolf......"

Not really. The only person I see myself continuously arguing with is zevlov.:)

[graywolf624]

" hence it have to be a moving object from what information they got. "
There is a problem with this though.

Many of those targeting systems can only see moving objects. The targeting systems are a conglomeration of a few systems. As such both systems would have to either be off or fail. In US navy navigation and targeting doesn't work the same as most systems. It is a conglomeration of awacs/radar/reconnisance air craft pictures/ect.

In recent years the worst targeting failures they have experienced were related to whales and other large fish.

I'm actually reading a book on the air power/navy of the gulf war. Very interesting technology.

[graywolf624]

"and can you stop posting, and then wait awhile before editing your posts so I can reply to the whole post not just the first parts of it....
"

k.

"Well that is all fine, but the screen they watched was the radar screen, I dont have the knowledge of what targeting system they use on the "uss Montana" and I`m not sure you do either......... "

I know the nonclassified information on bigger us navy boats. I also know that radar is not the focus of US targeting and navigation systems. They do use it. However, for the most part almost all US navy ships travel in groups and use a combination of about 15 different systems. Things used include radar, infared, sonar, ect. Most of the land and water based systems are setup to filter out things that dont move unless one of the otehr systems picks up something special. It isn't fail proof but the numbers I have heard in terms of failure is in the 0.0001 probability range.

[coloradosilver]

I have been on a US Coast Guard Ship off the coast of Alaska and much of the time the weather is for shit and the only way to tell where you're going is by using the maps they have on hand. They have the coastline marked very clearly and have the location of each coastal marker. By using these markers (beacons), they are able to EXACTLY pinpoint their position offshore by using triangulation between two of these markers and the ship it's self. Sometimes in bad weather, it's the only way the ship can navigate . Unless the lighthouse had one of these beacons inside it, it would never show up on a radar or other location finding device.

[FerrariKiller]

graywolf624,
I don't think you need to prove the sophistication of the US military forces. We've proven our power many times before and if we have to can do it again. It's like Hyndai making fun of Ferrari, who cares.

[graywolf624]

Don't look at me.. I didn't say it. Though I can see the connotations of the commercial.

[hemi_fan]

who cares, thats a funny video. lol

[AlienDB7]

I believe in a survey conducted by some scientists in canada last year, that joke was voted as #1.

[Ghostbat]

What can i say. Americans always think they are the biggest and the best..