See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SCAN060908.xml&headline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Sub-Tracking%20ScanEagle%20Study&channel=defense

I suppose that will allow the P-8A to use MAD while staying
at high altitude. But is the small, disposable MAD gear a
Scan Eagle would carry as good as the tail stinger on a larger
aircraft?

wrote in
:

> See:
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SCAN060908.xml&h
> eadline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Sub-Tracking%20ScanEagle%20Study&channel=defen
> se
>
> I suppose that will allow the P-8A to use MAD while staying
> at high altitude. But is the small, disposable MAD gear a
> Scan Eagle would carry as good as the tail stinger on a larger
> aircraft?
>

Probably. The external magnetic influences would certainly be much smaller.
In addition, using 21st century technology, instead of '70s or '80s, would
likely make a smaller, more efficient package.

Dave in Sandy Eggo
AT1, USN (Ret)

On Jun 11, 12:16*am, Dave > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > See:
>
> >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SCAN060908.x....
> > eadline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Sub-Tracking%20ScanEagle%20Study&channel=defen
> > se
>
> > I suppose that will allow the P-8A to use MAD while staying
> > at high altitude. *But is the small, disposable MAD gear a
> > Scan Eagle would carry as good as the tail stinger on a larger
> > aircraft?
>
> Probably. The external magnetic influences would certainly be much smaller..
> In addition, using 21st century technology, instead of '70s or '80s, would
> likely make a smaller, more efficient package.
>
> Dave in Sandy Eggo
> AT1, USN (Ret)

More on UAV's that might someday be launched from the P-8A:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a145f98ba-d824-473d-82a3-d22a245e68c9

BTW, the article in the original post says the ScanEagle
is supposed to follow a submarine around for up to 24 hrs.
Is that possible with just a MAD?

I thought MAD was usually used to confirm sonar contacts,
and pin down the Sub's locations for a more accurate
torpedo drop.

On Jun 11, 11:14*am, "Boomerang" > wrote:
> That's the basic idea, of course, but once MAD contact is gained, you can
> cloverleaf on it as long as you can hang in there at 2-300' (VP) and the
> contact doesn't haul ass or back down. *Each time you get a "MADMAN," the
> procedure used to be (long time ago for me) to retro out a smoke and if
> everything is working right, you can look aft and see the contact's track in
> the water as marked by your smokes on each pass. *The helo folks had their
> own tactic, but the basic idea is the same. As a former VP CO, I used to
> take crews out to the Andrea Doria wreck which sits in about a six knot
> current part of the year. By cloverleafing over the wreck and marking each
> contact with a smoke, you can simulate what a real one making six knots
> would look and feel like. *Good practice. *Nowadays I guess that's all done
> in the simulator for a lot less money.

I wonder how well this would work against a sub that DOES
"haul ass or back down". Or against a sub with a low magnetic
signature.

The titanium-hulled Alphas may be gone now, but steel-hulled
boats can have their magnetic signatures reduced by modern
magnetic silencing technology:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90956

http://eyeball-series.org/deperm/deperm-eyeball.htm

I wonder if a MAD-only UAV is such a good idea.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

<sinpped for brevity>

>BTW, the article in the original post says the ScanEagle
>is supposed to follow a submarine around for up to 24 hrs.
>Is that possible with just a MAD?

In theory, yes. In practice, why would you want to? The idea of the
MAD system was two fold: first, you up the probability of a sub
contact (although that's not a "for sure"; the wreck of the "Andrea
Doria" was once tracked for two days :-) ); second, you develop VERY
accurate position data for weapons release. If all you want do do is
confirm a contact then a couple of passes will do.

It's possible that you might want to engage in a "hold down" action to
prevent the sub from doing something else. But in that case you WANT
the sub to know you're there and tracking it. So stealth would not be
desired.

>I thought MAD was usually used to confirm sonar contacts,
>and pin down the Sub's locations for a more accurate
>torpedo drop.

Generally, yes.

It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
at surface targets too:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0a5fba13-96ba-4be5-8245-6ca2d4b9d24d

Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
expensive after awhile.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:09:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
>at surface targets too:
>
>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0a5fba13-96ba-4be5-8245-6ca2d4b9d24d
>
>Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
>expensive after awhile.

For routine missions you wouldn't.

wrote:

:It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
:at surface targets too:
:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0a5fba13-96ba-4be5-8245-6ca2d4b9d24d
:
:Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
:expensive after awhile.
:

Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> :at surface targets too:
> :
> :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> :
> :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> :expensive after awhile.
> :
>
> Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively
inexpensive.
Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
I deleted the entire post.
I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out
of me.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.

BlackBeard ha scritto:
> On Jun 27, 7:42 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
>> :at surface targets too:
>> :
>> :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>> :
>> :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
>> :expensive after awhile.
>> :
>>
>> Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
>> the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
>>
>> --
>> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
>> -- Charles Pinckney
>
> I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively
> inexpensive.
> Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> I deleted the entire post.
> I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out
> of me.

How I must parse this ?

"I was writing ramblings on 'how things must be done' theme"

or

"I was on the verge of talking too much in a public place"

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

In article <caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> > :at surface targets too:
> > :
> > :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController....
> > :
> > :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> > :expensive after awhile.
> > :
> >
> > Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> > the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
> >
> > --
> > "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney
>
> I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively
> inexpensive.
> Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> I deleted the entire post.
> I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out
> of me.
>
It would probably have been an interesting discussion. As for making
it work---there might be people out there to do that. However, I
suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
ideas. From my semi-insider point of view, there are more ideas
than engineers, scientists, and research dollars in the US now. That
balance may be different in China and Iran. They may have some
different set of ideas, funding and engineers. The ideas are
probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
stingy with those!


Mark Borgerson

On Jun 28, 4:32*am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> BlackBeard ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 7:42 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> >> :at surface targets too:
> >> :
> >> :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController....
> >> :
> >> :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> >> :expensive after awhile.
> >> :
>
> >> Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> >> the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
>
> >> --
> >> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney
>
> > I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> > what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> > serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
> > inexpensive.
> > Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> > I deleted the entire post.
> > I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> > see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> > playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> > might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
> > of me.
>
> How I must parse this ?
>
> "I was writing ramblings on 'how things must be done' theme"
>
> or
>
> "I was on the verge of talking too much in a public place"
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

Number two...

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.

On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson > wrote:
> In article <caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> > On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > > wrote:
>
> > > :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> > > :at surface targets too:
> > > :
> > > :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController....
> > > :
> > > :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> > > :expensive after awhile.
> > > :
>
> > > Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> > > the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
>
> > > --
> > > "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney
>
> > I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> > what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> > serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
> > inexpensive.
> > Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> > I deleted the entire post.
> > I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> > see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> > playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> > might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
> > of me.
>
> It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making
> it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I
> suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
> ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas
> than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That
> balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some
> different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are
> probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
> stingy with those!
>
> Mark Borgerson

The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
group.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.

BlackBeard > wrote:

:On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson > wrote:
:> In article <caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
:> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
:> >
:> > On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> > > wrote:
:> > >
:> > > :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
:> > > :at surface targets too:
:> > > :
:> > > :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
:> > > :
:> > > :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
:> > > :expensive after awhile.
:> > > :
:> > >
:> > > Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
:> > > the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
:> > >
:> >
:> > I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
:> > what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
:> > serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
:> > inexpensive.
:> > Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
:> > I deleted the entire post.
:> > I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
:> > see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
:> > playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
:> > might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
:> > of me.
:>
:> It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making
:> it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I
:> suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
:> ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas
:> than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That
:> balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some
:> different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are
:> probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
:> stingy with those!
:>
:
:The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
:knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
:group.
:

And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer.

I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't
derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check -
Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of
positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or
facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says
and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for
the same reason.

If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments
based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place...

--
"I know Slayers. No matter how many people there are around
them, they fight alone."
-- Spike, the vampire

In article >,
says...
> BlackBeard > wrote:
>
> :On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson > wrote:
> :> In article <caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
> :> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
> :> >
> :> > On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> :> > > wrote:
> :> > >
> :> > > :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> :> > > :at surface targets too:
> :> > > :
> :> > > :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> :> > > :
> :> > > :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> :> > > :expensive after awhile.
> :> > > :
> :> > >
> :> > > Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> :> > > the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
> :> > >
> :> >
> :> > I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> :> > what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> :> > serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
> :> > inexpensive.
> :> > Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> :> > I deleted the entire post.
> :> > I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> :> > see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> :> > playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> :> > might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
> :> > of me.
> :>
> :> It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making
> :> it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I
> :> suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
> :> ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas
> :> than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That
> :> balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some
> :> different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are
> :> probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
> :> stingy with those!
> :>
> :
> :The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
> :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
> :group.
> :
>
> And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer.
>
> I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't
> derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check -
> Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of
> positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or
> facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says
> and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for
> the same reason.
>
> If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments
> based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place...


Age and temporal distance from the subject are also a factor.
There are a lot of declassified documents available now covering
operations I was part of in the 1970s. There are also semi-official
sources like "Body of Secrets" covering sigint ops. Rather
than base my statements solely on my memories of the 1970s, I try
to find an online reference to any classified projects I might have
worked on.

OTOH, I feel reasonably free to speculate on possible
military uses of unclassified technology I've worked with. If some
of the government R&D I've worked on has slid into classified projects,
they're not telling me about it!


Since I last had a clearance in 1974, any remnants of classified
knowledge I might dredge up probably come under the "Top Secret
Embarassing" heading, rather than being a revelation of sensitive
technology. Technology we thought was hot in the 70's is now $1.95,
qty 1 in the DigiKey catalog (microprocessors with 1MHz clock rates,
etc.).

Mark Borgerson

In article <c24e0219-f846-4d01-a3d3-
>, says...
> On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson > wrote:
> > In article <caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
> > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> > > > :at surface targets too:
> > > > :
> > > > :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> > > > :
> > > > :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> > > > :expensive after awhile.
> > > > :
> >
> > > > Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> > > > the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney
> >
> > > I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> > > what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> > > serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
> > > inexpensive.
> > > Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> > > I deleted the entire post.
> > > I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> > > see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> > > playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> > > might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
> > > of me.
> >
> > It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making
> > it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I
> > suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
> > ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas
> > than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That
> > balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some
> > different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are
> > probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
> > stingy with those!
> >
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
> knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
> group.

I suppose there are lots of seemingly-insignificant operational
and technical details that could add up to a risk to our
submariners. Something as simple as "You know, the bojimbo
always clicks against the frammistan when we go from 400 to
450 ft." may sound insignificant in itself. But if you
fill a notebook with observations like that, it probably
shouldn't leave the boat.

Simple observations about recurring patterns, mixed with
bright minds can get you to something like Ultra. When it
comes to subs or other military operations, the biggest
leaks often start with "We always....". Part of the
problem for submariners is that the training may
emphasize "Before conducting procedure X, you will always
do procedure Y." If either X or Y has a physical manifestation
outside the boat, you could have a security problem.

Here's my own totally-made up version of an operational detail
that might be a security problem:

"When initiating TMA on the Seawolf Class submarine, it is
always best to make the initial turn to starboard and use
the port side lateral array between the hours of 1300-1500
and 1900-2100. During these hours, the galley
dishwasher, mounted against the starboard outboard bulkhead,
causes a 2.3dB reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio in the
forward half of the starboard lateral array. SUB_NAV_FIXEM
has issued a modification order to resolve this problem, and
parts are estimated to be sub qualified and available in
early 2011."

It gets even worse when a new mess crank arranges the plates
so that they clink together as the spray head rotates! ;-)

Mark Borgerson

BlackBeard ha scritto:

> Number two...

OK I acknowledge; a year or so on the Italian military/Naval NG we have
haved a similiar incident.....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> BlackBeard > wrote:
>
> :On Jun 29, 12:01 pm, Mark Borgerson > wrote:
> :> In article <caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
> :> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, says...
> :> >
> :> > On Jun 27, 7:42 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> :> > > wrote:
> :> > >
> :> > > :It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
> :> > > :at surface targets too:
> :> > > :
> :> > > :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> :> > > :
> :> > > :Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
> :> > > :expensive after awhile.
> :> > > :
> :> > >
> :> > > Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
> :> > > the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.
> :> > >
> :> >
> :> > I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
> :> > what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
> :> > serious threat to Submarines. It was really cool and relatively
> :> > inexpensive.
> :> > Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
> :> > I deleted the entire post.
> :> > I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
> :> > see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
> :> > playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
> :> > might have found a way to make it work. And that scared the hell out
> :> > of me.
> :>
> :> It would probably have been an interesting discussion. As for making
> :> it work---there might be people out there to do that. However, I
> :> suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
> :> ideas. From my semi-insider point of view, there are more ideas
> :> than engineers, scientists, and research dollars in the US now. That
> :> balance may be different in China and Iran. They may have some
> :> different set of ideas, funding and engineers. The ideas are
> :> probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
> :> stingy with those!
> :>
> :
> :The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
> :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
> :group.
> :
>
> And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer.
>
> I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't
> derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check -
> Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of
> positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or
> facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says
> and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for
> the same reason.
>
> If you're looking for classified or 'sensitive' data or arguments
> based upon them, you're looking in the wrong place...
>

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> :The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
> :knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
> :group.
> :
>
> And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer.
>
> I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't
> derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check -
> Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of
> positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or
> facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says
> and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for
> the same reason.

In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best
"no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's
Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War
thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be
extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain
facts, classifying it it's useless"

Hence my original question. Aside the issues on the (perceived or not)
excesses of classification by the current US (and other) administration
& gov't, I guess that a balance with Occam's razor in classifications is
what current state of scientific & military research needs, to be
restarted after the many SNAFUs in the procurement (even civilian)
worldwide.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Mark Borgerson ha scritto:

> Since I last had a clearance in 1974, any remnants of classified
> knowledge I might dredge up probably come under the "Top Secret
> Embarassing" heading, rather than being a revelation of sensitive
> technology. Technology we thought was hot in the 70's is now $1.95,
> qty 1 in the DigiKey catalog (microprocessors with 1MHz clock rates,
> etc.).

I guess that you have actually read, and also read between the lines, of
the my post on geeks & engineering :) Indeed the issues around the first
microprocessor and the F-14 CADC was in my mind when I wrote said post...

It's a pity that sometimes my posts are apparently ignored, albeit I
acknowledge that lately the quality of my English is a bit wandering, to
say the least.....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

dott.Piergiorgio ha scritto:
> Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> BlackBeard > wrote:

<snip>

Sorry for that post; I don't get how and why ends posted.... -_-

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

"dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:

>In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best
>"no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's
>Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War
>thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be
>extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain
>facts, classifying it it's useless"

I'd rate that claim as 'questionable' myself - because the mere facr
that something _can_ be extrapolated does not mean it _has_ or _will
be_ extrapolated.

Nor is it always possible to predict what can be extrapolated from
widely seperated data points.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons ha scritto:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:
>
>> In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best
>> "no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's
>> Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War
>> thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be
>> extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain
>> facts, classifying it it's useless"
>
> I'd rate that claim as 'questionable' myself - because the mere facr
> that something _can_ be extrapolated does not mean it _has_ or _will
> be_ extrapolated.
>
> Nor is it always possible to predict what can be extrapolated from
> widely seperated data points.

Mh... I admit that I have difficulties to parse your reply; you can
explain better, perhaps with a practical (non-classified) example ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.