| ▲ | schmuckonwheels a day ago |
| Common sense would dictate that a military aircraft conducting military operations off the coast of a hostile nation tend to not want to broadcast their position to the world. So not outrageous, just unfortunate. It's extremely common. |
|
| ▲ | malvim a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’m sorry, which hostile nation? |
| |
| ▲ | xeornet 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The United States. | | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | The jet was not flying right outside the United States though. Did you even read the comment thread before responding to GP? You're just spreading misinformation. | | |
| ▲ | rb666 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | His point is that the United States is the country acting in a hostile fashion. | |
| ▲ | xeornet 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s satire, a hit at global geopolitics where the US is placed as the global police. A joke, if you will. I read about this incident in detail even before it was posted on HN. |
|
| |
| ▲ | testbjjl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What day is it? | |
| ▲ | ihsw a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | perlgeek 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you initiate a military conflict with another nation, the proper thing to do is to declare war first. |
| |
| ▲ | antonymoose 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Even better, we should all wear colorful coats and form a nice big line in an open field before we fight too! There are rules! Are we not gentlemen? | | |
| ▲ | paddleon 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | the redcoats didn't wear colorful coats and form nice big lines because they were stupid. They beat Napolean using similar tactics. And they didn't lose to the US because of these tactics. Maybe you should reflect on why people who have lead others in combat have decided that there should be rules to war before you declare that rules of war are a bad idea. | | |
| ▲ | antonymoose 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Red Coats lost quite a few battles to their aged tactics against the Patriots. So much so that officers complained about the ungentlemanly conduct routinely in their correspondence. As far as our modern, temporary notion of “rules of war,” go, it’s because it suited the victor and gives them what they feel is an edge and an air of superiority. I don’t say this to be smug either, just look at how well the Geneva Suggestions worked out for the North Vietnamese or the Taliban. They ignored the and won. Like it or not, the modern nation-state’s notions of Rules of War are going to quickly become a bygone relic of a simpler time, as was a formal British fighting line. | | |
| ▲ | the_af 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, yes, the USA is the underdog here, they cannot win at war unless they ignore the conventions of war. | | |
| ▲ | antonymoose 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Arguably, yes? Had the US somehow magically lost WWII, the firebombing atrocities would almost certainly have had a few Air Corp generals executed by the victor. We could just as well look at the systemic atrocities committed against the Vietnamese civilian population and yet we still lost that war. Excepting the Gulf War, how far back to we go to find something America has won (somewhat) cleanly? | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your statement presumes that the US fights dirtier than others. Who is this magical war-winning nation that only fights fairly? I'm not saying one can't win without war crimes, I'm saying it simply doesn't ever seem to happen. | |
| ▲ | the_af 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Arguably, yes? No. The USA is the strongest military power in the world. They are not the underdog. If they resort to war crimes or unfairness, it's not because they are the underdogs; it's because this is what top dogs do. Let's not make excuses for them. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fakedang 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You jest, but even in the age of modern warfare, countries still actively declare war and formally notify the other country, even if a bit late, with a formal declaration. The notable exceptions being of course the USA and the USSR and Russia, which like to call their wars "police actions" and "special military operations". | | |
| ▲ | antonymoose 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would contend that we live in an era of “5th Generation” undeclared wars between powers. I don’t personally draw a line between a missile attack and a shipment of fentanyl or cocaine which will kill citizens all the same. |
| |
| ▲ | perlgeek 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you also make fun of people who condemn war crimes? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | trhway a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| On the other side it is perfectly visible on radar (and can be heard (and with jet having its own characteristic signature it can be tracked even by WWII microphone array like they did back then) and visible in binoculars from large distance in nice Caribbean weather), so it is hiding only from civilians. Security by obscurity kind of. That is especially so in the case of a slow large non-maneuvering tanker plane like here. And why would a tanker plane come close to and even enter the hostile airspace?! may be one has to check Hegseth's Signal to get an answer for that, probably it is something like "big plane -> Scary!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUbmJ1-sNs. |
| |
| ▲ | appreciatorBus a day ago | parent [-] | | The information broadcast by transponder is significantly more precise than what you will get with radar, microphone array, or binoculars. GPS Lat & Long
Barometric Altitude
Ground speed & track angle
Rate of climb/descent All updated every second or so. | | |
| ▲ | phantasmish a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I can just about guarantee it has nothing to do with targeting and a lot to do with making Venezuela unsure when strikes are about to start, both for security of the forces launching the eventual strikes (if any) and to harass/wear-down Venezuelan air defenses by keeping them very alert. If our aircaft were flying transponders-on during all these exercises then suddenly went dark, it’d signal imminent attack. This keeps them guessing. Possibly we’re even playing around with having them on some of the time for some aircraft, and off at other times. We don’t do that with AWACS and such near Russia because we’re not posturing that we may attack them any day now, and want to avoid both accidental and “accidental” encounters with Russian weapons by making them very visible. In this case, an accidental engagement by Venezuelan forces probably isn’t something US leadership would be sad about. | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I live near JBLM in Washington. I am routinely overflown by helicopters and planes (C-17s) often with their transponders off (I have an ADS-B receiver running on a VM). These are training flights that are not going anywhere outside of the Puget Sound region. For added fun, I'm also pretty close to several Sea-Tac approaches. |
| |
| ▲ | themafia a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > is significantly more precise than what you will get with radar Is that increase in precision much larger than the plane itself? If it's not then it couldn't possibly matter in this application. Further radar is not a static image. The radar is constantly sweeping the sky, taking multiple measurements, and in some cases using filtering to avoid noise and jitter. > GPS Lat & Long Barometric Altitude Ground speed & track angle Rate of climb/descent You get or synthesize every one of those with radar as well. | | |
| ▲ | inferiorhuman 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, ADS-B is significantly more precise than civilian primary radar returns. That's why the FAA is trying to move away from radar. The JetBlue near miss was about 150 miles from Curacao ATC which is beyond what most ASR systems cover (around half that). Military radar is a different beast, but even then you're still trying to figure out what the returns mean. ADS-B explicitly says hey there are two aircraft in a tiny space. Civilian radar is likely not precise enough to identify two aircraft that close. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Isn't altitude information also one of the important things about ADS-B that radar lacks? Although ADS-B is self reported and "vulnerable" to bad/spoofed info. My CFI and I once saw ADS-B data from one of the startups near Palo Alto airport in California reporting supersonic speeds... at ground level, no less. Edit: still have it in my email, heh. It was a Kitty Hawk Cora, N306XZ, reporting 933kts at 50'. | | |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | trhway a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even good stereopair like a WWI navy guns rangefinder, will give you all that info, of course not precise enough to lock a missile - well, transponder also wouldn't let you to anyway, and thus all that transponder precision is pointless in that context. | | |
| ▲ | baq 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | A missile only needs to get close enough for its sensors to take over for the final approach right? Transponder data should be quite enough for that, especially for a kc-46 | | |
| ▲ | trhway 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Any of the methods i mentioned is enough to get missile close, except may be microphones as limited speed of sound means that the plane would have moved significantly from the observed position, though again even that would have allowed to put missile into the vicinity and in general direction. Watching Ukraine videos there is new game in town though - relatively cheap IR cameras. Using IR, day or night, you can detect a jet plane from very large distances and just guide missile to the plane computer-game-joystick style. |
|
|
|
|