hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 317 of 327 FirstFirst ... 217267307314315316317318319320 ... LastLast
Results 6,321 to 6,340 of 6524

Thread: Warships - Armchair Admirals ahoy!

  1. #6321
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    30,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    Plus let's be real here, there is no combat warship with stealth technology worth a damn right now, so what's all this about "optical sensors"? The Zumwalt is a four billion dollar barge that will break down the second it's put into a combat situation, and everything else you can spot with conventional sensors to some extent (since we don't know exactly what the capabilities of these ships/radar are)
    Not that it's any stealthier than a rusty soviet missile frigate. It's ten times the displacement, sure, but phased arrays don't care.

  2. #6322
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    Plus let's be real here, there is no combat warship with stealth technology worth a damn right now, so what's all this about "optical sensors"? The Zumwalt is a seven billion dollar barge that will break down the second it's put into a combat situation, and everything else you can spot with conventional sensors to some extent (since we don't know exactly what the capabilities of these ships/radar are)
    Missiles. Missiles you optical sensors. Though they do so in combination with other sensors as well.

    As for unguided torpedos. I suppose best Korea still has them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  3. #6323
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    It looks fucking cool though.


  4. #6324

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    4,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    time to bring back dazzle camo imo.

    Although the last time a ship was sunk by an unguided torpedo was nearly 40 years ago, given the development of countermeasures and sensors should dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors and unguided torps?


    not quite 40 years

  5. #6325
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    time to bring back dazzle camo imo.

    Although the last time a ship was sunk by an unguided torpedo was nearly 40 years ago, given the development of countermeasures and sensors should dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors and unguided torps?


    not quite 40 years


  6. #6326
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    time to bring back dazzle camo imo.

    Although the last time a ship was sunk by an unguided torpedo was nearly 40 years ago, given the development of countermeasures and sensors should dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors and unguided torps?


    not quite 40 years
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type...tack_Craft.JPG

  7. #6327
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    Plus let's be real here, there is no combat warship with stealth technology worth a damn right now, so what's all this about "optical sensors"? The Zumwalt is a seven billion dollar barge that will break down the second it's put into a combat situation, and everything else you can spot with conventional sensors to some extent (since we don't know exactly what the capabilities of these ships/radar are)
    Missiles. Missiles you optical sensors. Though they do so in combination with other sensors as well.

    As for unguided torpedos. I suppose best Korea still has them?
    Best Korea has ships?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Guns make the news, science doesn't.

  8. #6328
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    Plus let's be real here, there is no combat warship with stealth technology worth a damn right now, so what's all this about "optical sensors"? The Zumwalt is a seven billion dollar barge that will break down the second it's put into a combat situation, and everything else you can spot with conventional sensors to some extent (since we don't know exactly what the capabilities of these ships/radar are)
    Missiles. Missiles you optical sensors. Though they do so in combination with other sensors as well.

    As for unguided torpedos. I suppose best Korea still has them?
    Best Korea has ships?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It has a number of old submarines approximately that age, so it is very well possible that they still have unguided torpedoes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  9. #6329
    Crystalline Entity's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    5,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Unguided torps? Seriously?
    Falklands War, the Conqueror sank the Belgrano with a dumb unguided torp
    "I think we could all do with sitting back a bit and detaching ourselves from the situation to really think about how these issues reflect on our future and how we discuss them here and be a bit less aggressive or defensive because everyone has a complicated set of circumstances that has led the to place importance on particular issues and it doesn't meany any of them is less valid, we just need to look at the broader picture"

    Smuggo - Brexit Thread

  10. #6330
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Unguided torps? Seriously?
    Falklands War, the Conqueror sank the Belgrano with a dumb unguided torp
    Yes, thank you, we got that.

    And, yes, we also know that happened 40 years ago.

    Point is, 40 years is a very long time for a military that's not best Korea's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  11. #6331
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Unguided torps? Seriously?
    Falklands War, the Conqueror sank the Belgrano with a dumb unguided torp
    Yes, thank you, we got that.

    And, yes, we also know that happened 40 years ago.

    Point is, 40 years is a very long time for a military that's not best Korea's.
    Even Best Korea uses guided torpedoes.

    http://res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb...20001222_0.jpg

    "The CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods."

  12. #6332
    Darkening's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Crystalline Entity View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Unguided torps? Seriously?
    Falklands War, the Conqueror sank the Belgrano with a dumb unguided torp
    Yes, thank you, we got that.

    And, yes, we also know that happened 40 years ago.

    Point is, 40 years is a very long time for a military that's not best Korea's.
    Even Best Korea uses guided torpedoes.

    http://res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb...20001222_0.jpg

    "The CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfish_torpedo is what we use now.

    We used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...torpedo#Mark_X to sink the belgrano as the more modern torpedo had issues at the time.

  13. #6333
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,427


    canadian navy in action

  14. #6334
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    15,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post


    canadian navy in action
    Reminds me of that scene from Surface Detail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  15. #6335
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    7,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post


    canadian navy in action
    Ftfy

  16. #6336
    Sarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    It looks fucking cool though.



  17. #6337
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    dazzle camo not be in vogue as a means of defeating optical sensors
    Not really. Modern image segmentation techniques will eat camouflage for breakfast, and the reality is that all you've got to do is stick an additional sensor into the mix (UV, IR etc.) and it becomes almost impossible to hide from it if you've got line of sight.

    There's a lot of hype about using "dazzle" to fool ML algorithms, but the reality of these techniques is that even the flashiest, modern ones based on generative adversarial neural networks and whatnot are strongly constrained in the contexts they work and typically attack the problem of object classification rather than object segmentation.

    You could maybe fool a sensor into classifying a part of a ship as something a lot more critical than it really is, in order to draw fire, but you're not going to fool a sensor into missing a ship.
    It looks fucking cool though.


    I only have one rep to give...


  18. #6338

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    4,500


    If you can't watch the whole vid then start at the 3:02 marks and listen to the insanity/brilliance of the past!

  19. #6339
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,825

  20. #6340
    Yankunytjatjara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,592
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    Wohooo if anything can actually get the impulse for small fusion reactors it's this. Wouldn't it be hilarious if war saved us from global warming and the need for oil?
    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude!
    Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •