- Thread starter showcrop
- Start date
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
No doubt that our service men and women are adding personal purchases of sophisticated equipment to aid them in doing their job. Hats
off to them. I'd do it in a heartbeat! Having BTDT I know a lot of protectionism is built into the military procurement system, protection
from unscrupulous vendors and because of the fact that the equipment has to work 24/7 anywhere in the world under the worst of
conditions. Designing is detailed and a lot of money is spent in testing the design to ensure it will do the job intended. Time is money!
off to them. I'd do it in a heartbeat! Having BTDT I know a lot of protectionism is built into the military procurement system, protection
from unscrupulous vendors and because of the fact that the equipment has to work 24/7 anywhere in the world under the worst of
conditions. Designing is detailed and a lot of money is spent in testing the design to ensure it will do the job intended. Time is money!
kcm.MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- NW Minnesota
Well, from what I've seen of other people playing with those Xbox's (I've never touched one!), they MUST hold up pretty well. I mean, if kids can't easily destroy them, then.... :wink:
OK, got a link to what someone would consider a trustworthy news source on this? I find it difficult to believe that and item like that has the same interface, either wired or wireless and the stuff on a sub although it's not impossible, just doubtful. Plus I have a hard time believing that the Xbox controller is hardened against EMP. I did look it up and every source for this story is questionable in my mind. I'm thinking some guy/gal in the Navy got bored and started an internet hoax for fun.
Rick
And look at it a bit more closely? Says LT JG? Really, one LT JG on one sub backed up by a Senior Chief? Both the US Navy and Micro Soft have no comment? But a JG and a Senior Chief are openly talking about it?
Now on to the next topic. Enlisted operating the periscope? Yea right. First place attack subs try not to get anywhere near the surface if possible. Attacks can be launched from deep below the surface now. And that technology started in WWII. Another thing is just who is going to be on the periscope either during surfacing or on an attack? An enlisted person or an officer? Traditionally it been one of the more senior officers on the boat controlling/using it.
Rick
Now on to the next topic. Enlisted operating the periscope? Yea right. First place attack subs try not to get anywhere near the surface if possible. Attacks can be launched from deep below the surface now. And that technology started in WWII. Another thing is just who is going to be on the periscope either during surfacing or on an attack? An enlisted person or an officer? Traditionally it been one of the more senior officers on the boat controlling/using it.
Rick
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Can we still call them bubble heads.
OP
OP
showcrop
Well-known Member
Just google NAVSEA spokesman William Couch. He is speaking for the Navy on many topics. Next topic: Of course seamen operate the periscope. Under the direction of an officer, and the officer does the looking. Next topic: We knew back when we were in grade school that attacks were launched from deep below the surface. If there is never any need for a periscope they wouldn't have them right?
Dan Richardson
Member
Don't blame the Navy. The costs are are after several politicians get a piece of the pie.
OK seamen operate the scope while the officer does the looking? Gee, how's that going to work? Seaman turns the scope left when the officer wants it to go right? On our tanks the commander has an over ride for the gun system so that he can look or direct the gunner. Try talking a gunner onto an item of interest. That would work about the same with an officer looking with a seaman controlling........that makes about as much sense as screen hatches on a sub.
Rick
By the mid-1990's many industrial robots and other factory equipment used X-box controllers as part of the operator's controls. At that time, new employees who were intimidated by big industrial control panels, had far fewer problems using toy controllers. Another plus was the toy controls were cheaper and easy to replace when damaged.
OK in the first place we are not talking about boomers (missile boats) we are talking about Virginia-class submarines or fast attack boats. These are the ones that that hunt down other subs and or try to take on an enemy surface fleet. They seldom use a periscope using instead both active and passive sonar and listening devices to set up and launch attacks with. The closer they are to the surface the easier they are to find. When it gets to the point that they have to use a periscope things are pretty bad. So I really doubt some seaman is operating the scope. both out attack subs and our boomers are supposed to carry out their respective missions without ever coming close to periscope depth unless they are launching SEALS for a mission. And they still do that while being submerged. They may do a shore reccon with the periscope but there is going to be an officer on that scope, not some seaman. Our Navy in WWII developed a torpedo that could be fired from 300 feet IIRC without ever raising the scope. The weapon was designed to home in on the noises made by a ships propeller. That torpedo was also used by hunter killer groups going after the German Uboats. Things have greatly advanced sense then. Us and the Russians and maybe the Chinese have all experimented with nuclear depth charges. Who knows what we have of don't have. So yea, almost every piece of military electronic equipment is hardened against EMP. What happens if the boat is in port tied up to a dock if hit with EMP? All contingencies have to be factored in.
Look, the JG talking about this makes it fishy. Something like that and most things involving US subs is/are classified. They don't talk about on board systems. Heck the US Navy won't even tell you how fast that sub is nor how deep it will operate. Sure they give you numbers but so does the Air Force. Most often the AF gives data that isn't correct too. So now all of a sudden a JG and Senior Chief have loose lips?
Rick
Look, the JG talking about this makes it fishy. Something like that and most things involving US subs is/are classified. They don't talk about on board systems. Heck the US Navy won't even tell you how fast that sub is nor how deep it will operate. Sure they give you numbers but so does the Air Force. Most often the AF gives data that isn't correct too. So now all of a sudden a JG and Senior Chief have loose lips?
Rick
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
It has very little to do with saving money and everything to do with usability. After all, the Navy has already sunk a bunch of money into developing and procuring the existing controllers. But operators find the gaming controllers to be much easier to use than the existing ones, hence the switch.
Also, it is very unlikely that the Navy will actually use off-the-shelf gaming controllers. Every piece of tactical electronic gear aboard a naval vessel has to meet various specifications, and those controllers are no exception. The Navy will probably contract with a supplier to produce a mil-spec version of the Xbox controller (which might be nearly identical to the off-the-shelf version, but certified). It costs a lot of money to deploy a new weapons system component: Manuals have to be updated, it has to be assigned a National Stock Number, spares have to be provisioned, etc. By the time that's done, using the gaming controllers could very will be just as expensive as the old controllers.
Washington Post on Xbox controllers in subs
Also, it is very unlikely that the Navy will actually use off-the-shelf gaming controllers. Every piece of tactical electronic gear aboard a naval vessel has to meet various specifications, and those controllers are no exception. The Navy will probably contract with a supplier to produce a mil-spec version of the Xbox controller (which might be nearly identical to the off-the-shelf version, but certified). It costs a lot of money to deploy a new weapons system component: Manuals have to be updated, it has to be assigned a National Stock Number, spares have to be provisioned, etc. By the time that's done, using the gaming controllers could very will be just as expensive as the old controllers.
Washington Post on Xbox controllers in subs
OP
OP
showcrop
Well-known Member
OK Rick here's the deal. All of our armed forces do a lot more that fight the enemy. After all we are not that much of the time at war right? What do you mean they won't even tell top speed and deepest depth like those are casual numbers. They can tell the public all kinds of things before they would give away the most important stats like those, right? of course. It isn't that our subs are in deep do do if they need to use the periscope, it comes into play in every day getting along with the rest of the world. It is very bad press for the Navy when a sub comes up under a fishing tour boat like they did off Hawaii 15 years ago. So it is always good for the duty officer to say: "Hey Xbox kid want to put the periscope up please?"
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
Over my head on that one Billy....you mean the GPO purchasers? If so, don't know.
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
When I was in 1968-1972. Bubble Head was an insult to sub crews. One pulled into Mayport with a problem. That night at the EM club. Some one yeld bubble head. Got a fight started. Several ships had to kick in repair money.
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
Well the brawl was all part of shore leave wasn't it, especially between the different services. Just what GI's do. Grin
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy