Realistically, how much more advanced is the US military than

literally zero

learn how the acquisition process works

>>33175458
Develop your hypothesis

>>33175394
what kind of fucking question is this
yeah man, the jets and satellites they have are way more advanced than the ones I have at home, like fifteen years plus

US military tech is substantially behind civilian tech

The only thing is that they spend billions going down uneconomic development paths, or developing vehicles optimized to a point no private sector company would go

>>33175394

Realistically, not at all. Maybe even behind the civilian world given the state of government computer systems. You have to realize that the super secret tech used by the military is outsourced and developed by private defense contractors. So the better question is how much more advanced are Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrup, and BAE than the rest of the private world.

>>33175394
If you have the financial resources and some engineer friends, then military is behind a couple years.

>>33175394
In terms of cyber warfare, literally a decade behind, the US military is still using older Windows systems for their computers with IT guys who are barely trained or even allowed to do their jobs. Meanwhile some 22 year old at Facebook could run circles around the US cyber warfare abilities.

>>33175394
I read somewhere that the military is at least 50-100 years more advanced but they don't break out that tech for regular conflicts.

>>33175394
500

>>33176014
Compared to other nations, not us civilians. Reread: >>33175394

>>33175394
Compared to the commercial world? Sometimes its like 20 years ahead (eg, scramjets, lasers, neural networks, etc), many other times it's far behind (the general processors on 'cutting edge' jets can be 10 years behind in performance, a lot of western militaries were using Windows XP up until only just recently; some likely still use it).

>>33175394
-30 years.

Look up what OS the F22 uses or how a PRC 117 works and how shitty it's radio range is.

>>33176059
Also US cyber command still thinks anonymous is some deep net hacker group

File: UTTR_Testbeam_web.jpg (21KB, 600x397px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x397px

>>33175394
depends on the area of tech. "digital" tech like computers and such? probably similar to civ or other private company tech like google.

however in areas where there is no real civ application for the technologies like aerospace and weapons, then probably at least 20+ years advanced than what the public knows about or thinks is currently possible.

>>33175876
>>33175879
>>33175998
i think he means cutting edge military tech vs civilian tech

>NRO gives NASA two hand-me-down telescopes

>Now that we know (or don't know) where they came from, let's take a look at the NRO telescopes. As mentioned before, they have 2.4-meter mirrors, just like the HST. Where they differ from Hubble, however, is their focal lengths. Hubble has a focal length of 57.6 meters, giving it a focal ratio of f/24. The NRO 'scopes have focal lengths of 19.2 meters, giving them focal ratios of f/8. Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, called them "stubby Hubbles."

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/jason-davis/nasa-gets-two-hand-me-down.html

>>33176081
the hubble is an old piece of shit, and thats just that they were building large spy sats a while ago
Nothing magic about any of this, its just them spending money on stuff that yields no dollar return so no private company would do it

>>33176081
DARPA throws money at civilians and graft to politicians for a reason.

>>33175478
How about stop being a retard and think about what he said for a fucking second.

The military doesn't develop hardly anything, they pay companies or fund government run research to design shit for them. That means the "civilian world" designs the shit for the military, putting them on more or less equal footing, except that nobody in the "civilian world" can afford the shit the defense industry makes.

Spy agencies are an exception, but even then most of their tech probably comes from the same defense companies. See >>33176081. I'm sure there's nothing radically new or a huge leap in tech between the NRO's telescopes and what NASA could build, it's just the NRO has a basically unlimited budget and NASA doesn't.

>>33175394

Well, I've got an F22 in my backyard, so I'd say about 0

How much more advanced are Boeing tankers than Boeing passenger jets?

Gee, I dunno.

>>33176081
>Hubble has a focal length of 57.6 meters, giving it a focal ratio of f/24. The NRO 'scopes have focal lengths of 19.2 meters, giving them focal ratios of f/8.

This is an almost totally meaningless sentence.

>>33176116
>hubble
>an "old piece of shit"
no. even when the JWST goes into orbit hopefully next year, it will still be one of the best space telescopes in the world. scientists will still eat each other for time on it.

the NRO throwing away HST tier telescopes like they're nothing is huge.

>>33176155
read the article. they're HST tier.

>>33176130
Apartment complexes don't have back yards!

>>33176127
NRO has a smaller budget than NASA
The only thing is that they operate in secret, so don't have a dozen different congressmen turning things into a bureaucratic mess
Also up until recently they were launching stuff on shuttles, which cost like 500+ million a launch

>>33176173
>read the article. they're HST tier.

Read my post. I'm not talking about what "tier" they're at, I'm criticizing the idea that the "focal ratio" (a fictional idea that means nothing) is some sort of important indicator of what these satellites are capable of.

It's as absurd as trying to calculate the performance of two cars by dividing the size of their wheels by the volume of their gas tank. There are some real standards that we can use to determine relative performance, and "focal ratio" is not one of them.

>>33176194
>Apartment complexes don't have back yards!

Let me guess, you live in a cuck state.

In a free state, apartments have backyards.

The meme of the military being so far advanced.... Is a pervasive myth from the 50s/60s....truth is, our technology is weak

>>33176219
yes, i picked a random quote so idiots who wouldn't read the article would at least get some clue of what the telescopes are like. calm your autism.

>>33176219
Are you trying to imply that f/# isn't an important characterization of an optical system?

File: nonsense.png (142KB, 360x332px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 360x332px

>>33175394
>u2
>advanced
its whole shtick was "if we fly higher, we wont get shot down" and then it got shot down

>>33175394
Irrelevant, The US military as well as the other 'old' nuclear powers have global-scale desolation second strike capability. Every minuteman detonating on target or even in its silo would produce a radioactive cloud that would end life on earth 'as we know it'.

Technological sophistication is certainly a thing, and sure the civilian world may be ahead, but if you're in a mexican standoff on an airplane flying through the air, and you've got a laser gun and one of the other guys has an old fashioned dynamite vest; you don't really have any substantial advantage.

How will we advance once aircraft reach the limit of speed and maneuverability?

>>33176256
>yes, i picked a random quote

Yeah, don't do this. It makes you look like an idiot.

It also makes me not want to read your article, since the only part you quoted is dumb and nonsensical.

>>33176277

No, dumbfuck. Read what I actually said and respond to that, don't come at me with this "implying" garbage.

Let me guess, what you're trying to imply by your post is that you fuck dogs, is that right? Must be, because that's what I assumed you're implying.

Discussion over. I win.

>>33176440
jesus christ mate, if you're going to act like a cunt at least buy a skirt.

>>33176462

Go fuck a dog.

>>33176440
>There are some real standards that we can use to determine relative performance, and "focal ratio" is not one of them.
F/#, the ratio between focal length and entrance pupil diameter, is directly proportional to the diffraction-limited spot size of an optical assembly, disregarding the sensor. Therefore, the donated satellites are capable of obtaining a resolution three times higher than the Hubble.

Before you go off being a cunt, try to learn something about the information you're criticizing. Considering who donated the satellites, it's possible that F/# is the most descriptive metric to compare performances that can be released publicly. F/# is not a "fictional idea that means nothing", and calling it that demonstrates that you have no place arguing the point.

>>33176522
>F/#, the ratio between focal length and entrance pupil diameter, is directly proportional to the diffraction-limited spot size of an optical assembly, disregarding the sensor. Therefore, the donated satellites are capable of obtaining a resolution three times higher than the Hubble.

Complete bullshit.

>>33176634
why are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? he's right.

>>33176055
This.

There surely are some USAF SAP's out there that resemble something out of science fiction, mostly in terms of propulsion systems and materials/stealth coatings.

Meanwhile, the computer systems on most of our carriers and subs resemble something out of early 80's science fiction and are barely more advanced than simple command line programs, etc.

>>33176080
Nothing makes me more erect than what that image implies.

I know a guy who claimed his friend had a vehicle with a carburetor marked "for government use only" that he got 70mpg with. He also claims that two people he knew with Cadillacs had to take their vehicles to the local dealer for recall work. They were getting insanely high gas mileage prior to whatever was done at the garage. After the work was done, they were getting standard MPG. I can't verify any of these claims, but he's a trustworthy person.

>>33176693
Bullshit, government vehicles run on liquid gold. How else do you think we spend so much money?

>>33176639

Simply repeating "I'm right" over and over again is not an argument.

"Focal ratio" is a fake term. It doesn't exist. It does not describe anything of any consequence and it cannot be extrapolated into anything concrete or important about these cameras. It means nothing. It's just a descriptor of a physical property which has next to zero effect on the product.

The diffraction limit argument is simply ridiculous. The HST can see objects with razor-sharp clarity 15,000,000,000 light-years away, and yet this idiot seriously thinks that the diffraction limit is so severe that the only way you can fix it to look at objects 100 miles down is to redesign the lens to a new focal length? Even shitty-ass prosumer DSLR cameras have lenses that far out-strip their sensors in terms of resolution. Diffraction is not a serious concern when you're building an optical system like this.

Look, the straightforward reality is that the HST looks out into space. The NRO sats look down at the ground. You need two different kinds of lenses to look at these two different kinds of subjects. That's why they're different - it has nothing to do with diffraction or focal ratios or anything else.

>>33176116
This. The KH-11 that the Hubble was a derivative of first flew in 1978.

>>33176173
The real disparity is quantity, not quality. The Hubble is technologically the equal of your average NRO optical ISR asset, but you just stated the Hubble's key weakness right there:

There's only one of them, and that's why MIT and Caltech astronomers would kill each other, thunderdome-style, for time on it.

My dad worked for the company that sold the industrial lifting/moving system that Perkin-Elmer used to move the Hubble's mirror assembly during construction/grinding.

He always remembered that while they were mum about what they were being used for, the Perkin-Elmer guys weren't afraid to acknowledge that they were building/moving over 2 dozen of those 2.4m primary mirrors.

basically, the NRO orbited as many Hubble equivalents over the past three decades as there are land-based telecopes with 2.4 meter+ primary mirror assemblies, TOTAL.

And that's before we start talking about the fact that the NRO has multiple space-based SIGINT assets with primary antennas the size of Jodrell Bank.
Jodrell.
Fucking.
Bank.

Let that sink in for a moment.

>>33176779
you do realize the main limitation on looking at ground based objects is not anything to with the lenses, but everything to do with the tracking mechanism, right? you can give a space telescope a well calculated firm nudge and it will track some galaxy 6 million light years away, if you do the same to a spy satellite it will just give you a picture of some blurry brown bullshit.

>>33176783
I'm assuming that shit folds up to fit in the rocket?

>>33176240
It's a joke, Autismo.

>>33176391
Anon, stop being dramatic. Yeah, shit would change, but not catastrophically so.

>>33176424
The way we are doing now, better sensors, stealth, and weapons.

File: sigintadvancedoriontrumpet.jpg (181KB, 800x924px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x924px

>>33177038
Exactly. Picture one of those compact umbrellas, only this one is made of gold mesh/mylar and deploys to over 100 meters.

>>33176693
nice urban legend

I remember when they showed fact or fiction in tv

>>33176155

It's saying that the NRO scopes have a much larger numerical aperture, meaning that much more light is diffracted onto the camera resulting in a wider image at greater magnification.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture

>>33177631

>diffracted

*refracted, sorry m80.

>>33176219
For applications, their different apertures is relevant. Wider apertures on the ground observation telescopes increase their light gathering ability for terrestrial imaging.

>>33177264
Beautiful. That right there is a true marvel. Here on Earth such a thing would probably collapse under its own weight.

>>33175394
look at the disclosure project. bunch tinfoil hats, but some points they make are worth noting. If there is some tech sufficiently advanced then it gets snapped up unless published on open source nets.

A lot of speculation about paperclip scientists and what the germans could do post WWII.

If the nuts are to be believed then the tech our government has is indistinguishable from magic....

Seriously, the pentagon "lost" $36 trillion last year....not all of it went to bribe hajis.....

Also look at NRO mission patches. So much occult symbolism its creepy

>>33175394
If the video John Oliver pit out describing the nuclear missile crews using 7.5" floppy disks wasn't a hint, I'm aware of at least one system which still uses MS-DOS. So, it depends on what you're talking about.

>>33178488
The Pentagon sixty times the budget for the entire DoD in one year?! This is why we need Trump!

>>33175876
>>33175998
This.
Of course, "the financial resources" is usually in the literal billions, so....

File: m7.jpg (10KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 600x440px

ayeee you called?


>>33178545


This is for security reasons. Older computers aren't filled with botnets.

File: Paul MacReady.jpg (56KB, 400x319px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x319px

>>33176330
Not to mention some geeky civilian engineer/mathematician BTFO it's records on a shoestring budget.