hattori

Okay, thanks -- I guess I am personally not very observant, and don't look up too often. I would likely be the sap that eats it on the first day of battle. I also do a ton of work with cameras on moving objects, vehicle mounted, usually going 40 - 100 kmh. What is the difficulty you guys face with drones and getting a good image at speed -- the vibrations in the drone? The drone can't handle the weight of both a camera and good optical stabilization? Or is it purely the distance and the size of lens you can mount? Weight is definitely not an issue for me, so I don't have a good handle on what tiny lightweight cameras are capable of. I personally have thought that we would see a massive increase in drone usage in the future, of all sizes, but perhaps I am totally overestimating their capabilities.

I have zero experience with military drones. However, I was at a crazy Indian wedding this summer, and they had a drone overhead doing some of the filming. I never would have noticed without someone pointing it out to me. Admittedly there was the noise of people talking, but that thing was surprisingly quiet. And I guess most people don't usually think to look up in the sky at any given time. I do know from an engineering perspective that drone noise is due to the airflow over the propellers, and the engine itself. I think quiet electric engines are pretty easy to make, and I'd guess that the military can figure out a propeller shape that will minimize noise to have some really stealthy micro drones. In fact, I would guess they have a lot of experience in that field making their helicopter blades quieter.

Another consideration is that oil prices are predicted to start going up. Since almost half of Russia's fiscal revenue (I could be wrong, I need to crunch Russia's numbers again) comes from oil, this could have a big impact on their priorities or policies. I've seen a prediction of oil increasing up to $10 in 2017, which would be a 20% increase ... this could potentially mean Russia would have an extra 10% more money to throw around next year. I'm not sure how big of an impact it will play, but I would guess Russia would feel increasingly better about it's position, and it's ability to withstand sanctions. Plus they could throw some of that into domestic spending, something that always makes the local populace happy. Try to stay on point with the topic, rather than passive aggressively trying to mock and ridicule someone so as to dismiss their viewpoint.

respecting mods wishes ^^

All forums need regular content and contributors to keep lively and not go stale and die off. JK contributes a lot of content. I personally am not one for checking out all the vids of futuristic military equipment (I'll believe it when I see it, I know too well how things go off track from R&D to final production), but he does promote conversation. I don't say this to be mean, but I generally just scroll past all those youtube posts. JK is also pretty polite and respectful, from the little I have seen. People like that feel others should treat them the same way, and are very hurt when they feel they are attacked for what they see as no wrongdoing. It is okay to go after a wrong claim or assertion, and JK will have to defend any of those, but the attacks have definitely started to feel personal. For example: Sublime suggested to me one time that I just ignore his posts if I don't like them. He should probably follow his own advice on this one. And come on man, seriously, who rips on the guy with a brain injury whose only crime seems to be he believes a lot of this conspiracy stuff or military industrial complex equipment marketing campaigns and then wants to share it with us? It would be like me yelling at the guy in the leg cast for not hurrying up on the subway -- it only makes me look bad for my complete lack of empathy.

No man, that was a good read. You should be proud for coming back from that -- most don't I imagine. Once you give up hope, or can't picture a future ... wow, there's not much left that can bring you back, I am glad you managed to find a way. Actually, you should probably be even more proud of not falling back into the trap, that's so much harder not to when life starts smacking you in the face again.

Adding geocoding or reverse geocoding combined with a layer of map data has nothing to do with reliability of a GPS system, although you could argue a more accurate map layer is always of some use. Like I was saying, if that civilian GPS model was made within the past few years, you were probably accessing both the U.S. GPS sat system, and the Russian GLONASS sat system at the same time. Double the number of satellites means more accuracy, less signal interruption and noise, multipathing, etc, etc, GPS sats need line of sight to the receiver, so the more sats on different angles, the better. I would guess the Russian military navigation systems only use GLONASS (just like I would guess the U.S. military only access GPS) so they don't become reliant on the other side's data. I am guessing it is cheaper right now to quickly update military navigation equipment with civilian stuff right now that accesses both satellite networks (and will access Galileo when it goes online fully), than updating their military spec navigational system with the latest receivers and signal processing software to bring GLONASS alone up to the required level of accuracy. You also don't need to knock out the satellites to wreck a GPS system. It would be easy to 'spoof' all the messages with slightly different message times and rebroadcast. These systems are super sensitive to timing issues -- I mean if they didn't account for time dilation and time passing slower for the sats than it does on earth, even if that is only 1 second a day difference, that would equal a 10km a day drift. It would also be easy to create enough interference to just block the signal.

I actually do a bunch of work with GPS systems. Glonass is pretty good. In fact, civilian GPS systems are really good these days. It's pricey, but you can buy civilian GPS that will get you centimeter level accuracy on the fly. Also, modern civilian GPS uses GPS and GLONASS satellites these days, so instead of hitting like 8 sats at a time, you're now pinging off 16 at any given time, it's made a huge difference to the entire system, especially in cities. If Russian military 'GPS' only uses GLONASS satellites right now, I guess I could see where weirdly a civilian GPS system listening to both GPS and GLONASS could be better, especially if it was an old receiver in the plane. I still feel GPS is relatively easy to knock out or wreck to the point of uselessness that neither side should count on it in a war.

You will notice when you buy air support, there will be a small comment "air controller needed" on the purchase screen. Binoculars are binoculars, they are good for spotting, but have nothing to do with calling in planes or helicopters. Pretty much if you want to use a plane or helicopter, you also need an air controller to give orders to them.

My head almost exploded trying not to respond to all the ISIS talk. Please for my sake don't bring up Canadian politics on top of that

Sigh, because I wrote it in a rush, and I have no idea wtf I was thinking when I put that line down, which now casts doubt on everything I have written once you get a basic fact wrong, so I will have to bow out. Enjoy, I will keep reading.

Just how it was played at the height of the cold war by both sides. An event to dress up the geo-political decision enough for domestic consumption, and the veneer of just enough of an excuse to not trigger world wide action. It is getting tiresome both sides are pretending this is not what is going on. Canada provides 40% of U.S. oil, among other vital resources. If Russian influence spread in this country to the point where we might break off our exports and absolutely destroy the U.S. economy, I'm 100% certain the U.S. would act and prevent this. Just like Israel has fought and will fight any country that tries to divert any of the Hasbani River -- anyone messing with the Jordan River water supply is a threat to their country, and will be dealt with.

And Vlad, come on. The Russian move in Georgia was purely a response to NATO promising Georgia they would get invited into the alliance in the future at the 2008 Bucharest summit, and Russia flexing it's influence there and basically saying, "ummm, no you're not". Let's not pretend otherwise, it was like 4 months after the summit that that Russia moved into Georgia.

Uggg, too much to comment on over the past few days. I will say I am aware there was no agreement on paper about no NATO expansion eastwards. Again, irrelevant. The line of thought on here seems to be if you apply to NATO, you get in automatically. This is not the case. We have blocked Macedonia for example. We ignored Turkey for the longest time, until we needed them, then invited them in despite our previous concerns -- now that is turning to really bite as as Turkey might suck us into a conflict we want no part of, with a government we are increasingly disliking, but have no way to kick them out. We were under zero obligation to invite those countries to NATO. We had other treaties with them, and could have easily guaranteed independence without a NATO invite. There seems to be this belief that without a NATO invite, a country would automatically ... be annexed by Russia at some point? To Russia, NATO is a threat, regardless of how peaceful we say we are (we in the west have a habit of turning on "allies" on a dime, even Saddam Hussein has (had?) a key to Detroit). I also see (or missed?) no one addressing the building of missile defense systems in the face of all nuclear treaties. You have also been saying Russia was not acting nice -- actually, they were showing all signs of cooperating, until we started talking to those countries about NATO expansion -- we were in discussions years before they actually signed. We basically gave them 3 years before we started pushing east. You talk about Russia acting like a bully ... while America was an even bigger bully at the time. Iraq anyone? How about signing free trade in North America, then refusing to get rid of your corn subsidies because of your powerful corn lobby (because you can because you are the big economic partner on the block) which then in turn wiped out the Mexican corn agriculture industry because they couldn't compete with subsidized corn -- some 15 million people worked in that industry -- and then wondering my Mexicans are coming into your country looking for work. The U.S. didn't care about Mexican complaints, they just stomped all over them, and I'm not even sure a single American noticed what they inflicted on Mexico. Anyways, here's a better third party source about what happened after the cold war (not russian or U.S. sourced which is obviously going to be biased, even if they don't mean to be) It seems other people that like to claim they have amazing google-fu tend to only read links that back up their viewpoint https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-americaine-2009-1-page-37.htm

Well yes, obviously. Put yourself in their shoes. They are really, really, really pissed about the mess in the first place. I think I would need an example where a population was angry America didn't send their army over. Perhaps I'm just thick today. I could see maybe ... not contributing enough to U.N. peacekeeping missions maybe? Not getting involved in Rwanda? A lot of people in the world see America as saying they stand for freedom and democracy and rights for places that mean something to them, but not backing up the talk if they are in places that America has no interest in -- I could totally see people being mad at "you did X for that country, why not me too?"

You say things like it's a statement of fact, when it's not. I actually disagree with this. I think part of Putin's appeal to the Russians was the fact that he stood up to what the Russians perceived as constant disrespect from the West. They are proud, and don't particularly like to be told what to do. Change doesn't come quickly. The Russians were used to being a top dog, and then they weren't overnight. I actually think we blew an ENORMOUS opportunity to extend our soft power by not pushing Russia, but by demonstrating how awesome the west is and how right they were to get rid of their old government. Sometimes it is difficult to be the bigger person. Exactly! So why are you so obsessed with getting Vlad to say you are right, and he is wrong? From his point of view, he is right, you will never convince him otherwise. Your constant battered wife analogies are getting ridiculous as well (and I imagine downright insulting to any Russian reading this). It's utterly simplistic and I expect better of you. Again, I believe you to be totally wrong in this. That would be ignoring all of cold war history. The west is constantly reacting to the east's actions and vice versa. Perhaps an analogy that works for me is giving your kid a ton of candy. While there is no excuse for the likely ensuing hyper temper tantrum, I do have to realize had I not given the candy, there likely would not have been a temper tantrum in the first place. We are not responsible for Ukraine, but we did have a hand in ratcheting up tensions and making Russia feel it's back was against the wall. I dunno. To use your examples, if I go up to the drunk wife beater and say, "hey your wife is cheating on you", I certainly don't have any responsibility for the assault itself, but in a way, I did contribute to it happening.

Please, please, please, I am already in enough trouble to taking us off topic. Immigration is something we should avoid, I really should have thought of a better example.

Okay, let me try again. I am a fiscal conservative, but socially left leaning. I think it was a great humanitarian thing for Canada to accept some Syrian refuges (and also economically it is good to me to grow our tax base, and Canada needs immigration anyways to grow our population). I do understand almost a third of Canadians were really opposed to this policy. I think they are wrong, I don't support them, I will fight them, but I can respect they have their own opinions, and I can see why they have that opinion -- fear of terrorism, fear of Islamification, fear of losing jobs to foreigners, not wanting to pay with their tax money for someone for a year, etc. I understand why they are doing what they are doing, and because I know their concerns, I can attempt to address them. I'm a huge believer in know your enemy, even to the point where can empathize with them so you can figure out what they might do. Does that make sense at all?

I understand that you disagree with what I say, and that you are riled up, but you do need to clearly read what I write. At no point am I ever saying Russia's actions are okay. In my opinion, they aren't. What I am saying is Russia isn't doing this out of the blue, they have reasons why they are acting why they are acting. To them, they feel they are justified. Vlad is Russian. He feels justified with his country's actions. If he has his opinion, so be it. I don't have to like it, but if I'm going to deal with it, I better sure know why the Russians are acting the way they are, and what their reasoning might be. I certainly don't approve of ISIS, but I can understand why some of them believe they are fulfilling prophesy and acting the way they are acting. How else do you combat something if you don't understand it? Probably, but if I were a Chinese nationalist, I would probably want Russia to win this one. A weaker America only helps China. It also I'm sure gives them an excuse for their actions in Tibet. I fully, fully agree, and these articles are so much more fun and insightful when everyone is respectful. Lots of smart people here. Unfortunately, this thread turned into attack Vlad and Russia because we don't agree. I felt obligated to stand up for him -- free speech and all, even if the person is spewing stuff that really makes you mad. And yes, there were some good reasons for us to get involved in former eastern bloc countries. But equally, there were a ton of not altruistic reasons we acted the way we did there. Missile shield was a very bad deliberate provocation. And sorry, you can't actually deal with other countries and people with "TOUGH" and expect everything to be A-OK afterwards. It sucks, but the world doesn't revolve around the west, and we actually have to deal with these people. Keep telling China "TOUGH" and see how they treat us in 50 years.

Wow, you are going way off here. Not putting a missile defense system in Russia and not inviting Poland into NATO are in no way whatsoever letting a husband beat a wife and standing idly by. Come on. Even you should see the ridiculousness of that statement. You also keep thinking I'm defending Russia's actions. I'm not. What I am trying to provide is there are reasons why Russia is acting the way it is. Russia isn't some evil entity that is just messing with Ukraine for the fun of it. They have their own concerns and priorities, and as much as we don't like it, are perfectly valid for them. It seems most people here completely dismiss them, if they acknowledge them at all. Since to me this is a Russia-U.S. geo political issue (do you think the average Indian or Chinese citizen really cares what happens to Ukraine? Is this even on the radar in Africa?), if we are going to criticize Russia (which is what this thread has turned into), criticizing the other half of the equation is totally fair game, whether you like it or not. And come on! Are you really naive enough to believe we invited those countries into NATO and put up the missile shields in those locations because of the goodness of our hearts, that we were only concerned that those people could vote? You're as bad as Vlad for buying into government propoganda lol.

I have no doubt Poland wanted it, Poland is very anti Russia, with good reason. Again, that is irrelevant. Poland is a minor player, the real power brokers are the U.S. and Russia, and the U.S. did not care any longer what Russia might think or how they might react. If you remember, the U.S. did not take too kindly to Russia planting missiles in Cuba, even though Cuba wanted them there. It's not nice, it's not fair, it's not right, but it is the world as it is. Russia 100% sees Ukraine as in their sphere of influence, and a key strategic piece of real estate. To think they were going to take this lying down is ridiculous. I do think their choice of action was their own doom though, long term it is impossible to keep people in your country that don't want to be there. We have enough trouble in Canada keeping Quebec happy enough to stay, I HOPE we have finally put that one to rest.

I never said Russia had any right, that is irrelevant. What does matter is how Russia would perceive it and react to it. We knew exactly what we were doing to Russian when we accepted former Eastern bloc countries into a military alliance geared towards opposing Russia so quickly.

I personally don't see the U.S. collapsing at all, unless we are hit with something globally that takes all of us down. What I do see is a setting of the sun on the American empire down the road though. There are a few long term economic trends working against them (and I do believe the main factor is any country's soft and hard power is their economic strength) -- namely population. America has around 4% of the world's population, China and India have 20% each, and both countries are catching up economically. I do see the tensions in the U.S., but I am not too worried. You guys have had some really rough patches in your past -- I think the 60s and 70s might have been worse for you, but I have faith you'll pull through this. Sometimes a little sand in the system is needed to make the pearl, I'm sure you guys will eventually settle your differences. I personally think part of the problem is you had a scary common enemy (Russia) for so long that somewhat united your right and left wings that you didn't have to deal with it as much until now. I also think looking at Ukraine and Russia without taking into account this is really just an extension of the cold war is a little silly. The west thought Russia was finished in the 90s. We figured we could start acting unilaterally, and honestly, we started to completely ignore Russia whereas before we always had to take into account what they were going to do. We wanted to ensure western dominance (hey, I'm not against this, it is in my best interests, and I'm biased enough I think the western way is pretty good) so we pushed NATO east towards Russia, we completely tore up nuclear treaties and started building missile defense systems near their border. There were very good reasons the treaties said we couldn't build those systems before -- MAD crazily ensured some peace as Russia knew whatever happened, the U.S. could never completely stomp all over Russian interests. Don't underestimate how many of America's ... non-friends worry about an American invasion -- they have done it repeatedly in the past to countries, it's a big reason Iran and North Korea want a nuke so badly. Now we were completely changing the equation, turning this into a clear U.S. global nuclear domination. I really don't think Americans appreciate what this turn must have felt like to the Russians. We poked the bear, and it was going to get a reaction. Russia is actively working to protect it's interests and project it's power again, since to them, we're going to disregard what they want anyways whenever they try to play nice. Long story short, we can argue the moral rights and wrongs until we're blue in the face, but it's irrelevant. The reasons provided by the Russian government for their actions in the Ukraine and the reasons provided by the U.S. for Iraq are done purely to increase domestic support and to give the veneer of just enough of a legitimate reason to prevent triggering a bigger war. It is all a part of the geo political game by the big powers to jockey for position -- and understandably so, I personally want the west to come out on top over Russia and China in the future, I prefer our societal structure. I do apologize for my aggressiveness. Unfortunately to me, at times it comes across that Vlad is being bullied. I used to work with a coder who was ex Russian airborne, and while he immigrated to Canada, he was clearly a Russian patriot. As irritating as he was, and the arguments we got into, he did make me for the first time see things from a non western perspective. To us, it seems incredulous and ridiculous at times, but that is our personal point of view, and we all always see things through the lens of our self best interest. As for the U.S. being the world's policeman ... hmmm. The U.S. gets involved where it is in their interest to be involved. They "bring democracy" to countries where a change in government suits their interest (I believe for democracies to work, they have to be won the hard way, by the locals, they have to want it badly across the board -- "giving" democracy doesn't seem to work too well). They tend to ignore countries -- looking at you African nations -- where there is nothing to gain for them. I still think the reason we are so interested in the Ukraine is because we all know if we can totally shear them off from Russian influence, a western aligned Ukraine is a constant knife to Russia's throat. Okay, I honestly could talk forever about a lot of these topics, I have to cut things off somewhere.

Cry me a river about having to put up with Vlad having a different opinion than you. I had to put up with MURICA!!!! for like a decade after 2003 before the majority of you guys finally started coming around to your senses and realized, "oh crap, maybe we were in the wrong there". I also suppose you don't see the irony of followed by you trying to excuse and justify the actions of your country in an equally comical manner. Perhaps even more ridiculous.

It would be a tool of distraction if I was bringing up Iraq as a way to justify Russia's actions -- I am not. I am bringing it up because people are starting to go crazy attacking Vlad for Russia's actions. As a Russian patriot, he has no choice in his head to defend his homeland. Trying to convince him otherwise is a waste of time and effort. I'm sorry, but when I start reading, " but it won't stop those kleptocratic c#nts in the Kremlin from trying.", " Your nation is a corrupt autocratic bully", " Congratulations on your Hitler-esque justification", that's starting to really cross a line, especially when it is directed at one person. This adds nothing to the conversation, and is actually a bigger distraction than anything else.