https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspa...sts-and-party-balloon-shoot-down-sources-say/

The unexpected but brief airspace closure in the Texas border city of El Paso stemmed from disagreements between the Federal Aviation Administration and Pentagon officials over drone-related tests, multiple sources close to the matter told CBS News.

 

My understanding is that the shutdown was triggered by protocol as the above-the-horizon laser shots were not coordinated with the Laser Clearing House. When I was involved with anti-drone systems development about a decade ago, the laser systems had to secure specific time windows for operations and then operate within very clearly defined aiming windows. Sometimes those windows were only a few minutes in duration. For some of the shots, they had to coordinate 30 days in advance to ensure that no satellites were at risk.

This is one of the things that makes the use of laser systems for counter-UAS work tricky. To engage an adversarial drone, you pretty much need to be able to shoot where and when you see it, but any shot that can disable or take down a drone also has the ability to affect other operations on the line-of-sight of the shot with effectively unlimited range, including out into space.

 

... but any shot that can disable or take down a drone also has the ability to affect other operations on the line-of-sight of the shot with effectively unlimited range, including out into space.

How far into space would that be considering modern technology?

 

I worked (overhaul in Bremerton) on the old USS Truxtun, the nuclear powered one.

 

How far into space would that be considering modern technology?

Depends on a number of factors, such as the power of the laser, the wavelength of the beam, the angle above the horizon, and the specific vulnerability of the satellite. The Laser Clearing House takes all of that into account when deconflicting systems.

 

​

 

 

Neither of them stopped at the intersection but the 'cage' wins.

 

 

Has a cause been determined? Is the Truxton captain still captaining?

 

Has a cause been determined? Is the Truxton captain still captaining?

I'm sure that cause had been determined (looks alike a mechanical failure of one of the dual props), captain might be in clear (keep his hat) if contractors found responsible. I spent a week onboard a USNS oiler in the IO heading back to my ship in GONZO station, those guys make it look easy.



We had our own cargo crew for the Marines.

 

I'm sure that cause had been determined (looks alike a mechanical failure of one of the dual props), captain might be in clear (keep his hat) if contractors found responsible. I spent a week onboard a USNS oiler in the IO heading back to my ship in GONZO station, those guys make it look easy.

View attachment 363590

We had our own cargo crew for the Marines.
View attachment 363591

In cases like this, is the captain temporarily relieved of duty as the investigation proceeds?

 

In cases like this, is the captain temporarily relieved of duty as the investigation proceeds?

Very possibly. It depends on the specifics of the case and, for better or worse, the general political environment and also their reputation and relationship to their superiors. But being relieved pending the outcome of the investigation would not raise any eyebrows nor would it be likely to have a major negative impact on their career if they are cleared. If the initial evidence strongly indicates that the captain did nothing wrong and could not have reasonably foreseen the factors that led to it, they they will likely remain in command. But the Navy (military in general) tends to err on the side of caution and is hesitant to leave a commanding officer in place if there is any real likelihood that they contributed to the incident. If it turns out to be human error (say, a helmsman getting confused and steering the wrong way), the captain is likely to have quite a bit of that splash onto them for failure to properly train the crew.

 

"Left full rudder, full astern on port engines only!"

 

"Left full rudder, full astern on port engines only!"

Does everyone on that bridge have a job? Or do they invite random crew up to observe/gawk (like a kid invited into the cockpit of a 747)?

 

Does everyone on that bridge have a job? Or do they invite random crew up to observe/gawk (like a kid invited into the cockpit of a 747)?

It's a shakedown cruise, so the bridge is filled with sand-crabs (contractors) and brass. It's usually about 9 or ten people during normal operations.



For comm guys, we hung-out on the signal bridge on top.

 

I was amazed when I learned how long sea trials last for carriers.

 

I was amazed when I learned how long sea trials last for carriers.

One way to put it in some perspective is imagine that you designed and built a small city intended to a population of about five thousand people, so something about the size of Telluride, Colorado or Key West, Florida. That means all of the businesses, stores, and homes. It also means all of the utility infrastructure from electrical, gas, and water/sewer. to traffic lights and communication lines. Then there's the radio stations, the repair shops, the laundries, the restaurants, the libraries, the recreation facilities, the hospitals, the fire and police departments, and everything else. The Air Force Base I was stationed at had a permanent party complement of about 2,600 people, or about half that of a modern carrier, yet we had all of those things and more.

Now, after you finish building it and before you let anyone move in permanently, you need to test that everything works. All the phone lines, all the traffic lights, every burner on every stove in every restaurant, every washer and dryer, every light switch. A lot of that you can do as you build the individual buildings, but a lot of things can only be evaluated as to whether they actually work or not once everything is in place and operating (that's where the analogy really starts to break down, because a carrier is a highly-integrated set of systems with a set of clearly defined core capabilities that can be tested, whereas a city is more of a happening, no matter how tight the central planning is).

That's basically a sea trial.

 

and this is after you tried to blow the first one up.

 

and this if after you tried to blow the first one up.

Jeezus. How many whales did they kill?

I'm not an environmentalist, but it's too bad they can't do these tests with simulations.