CGI Reporting from The Sun?

[texaxile]

Am I daft or is this some poor CGI? Has the cyberattack started?

If 3 trucks is all we can muster then God help us.

No driver in number 1 , 2 and 3 Truck, plus some very odd movements from the trucks and staff lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0VKRGtXXQ&ab...

Edited by texaxile on Friday 4th February 21:01

[robscot]

Relying on the Sun is probably the reason.

Lots of vids out there and pics etc https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/...

[Electro1980]

That’s not CGI, just stty video and lighting. Probably on a cheap mobile.

[eharding]

Stills of the event show the drivers in place.

Assertion of CGI due to an odd camera angle through the windscreen, low quality video and Alcan millinery worn by the observer.

[Electro1980]

texaxile said:

No driver at 0:05?

CGI for sure I reckon mate.

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

[texaxile]

Electro1980 said:

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

Thanks for the sarcasm.

More than aware of shape shine shadow silhouette & movement, cheers. Don't you have some blankets to stack?

0:35 to 0:40

I know Camo is good, but it still does not render one totally invisible in broad daylight lol just seems a bit unusual to me, movement very poor and the actual video itself not great. 3 trucks as well. That's learn 'em.

Probably my old and useless eyesight playing up though. Looks a bit suspect all the same, plus The Sun being a bastion of honest and accurate reporting as well.

Edited by texaxile on Friday 4th February 22:24

[TDK-C60]

Aren't the three trucks bits of the old Rapier system being withdrawn? It's like an out with the old, in with the new parade?

[eharding]

TDK-C60 said:

Aren't the three trucks bits of the old Rapier system being withdrawn? It's like an out with the old, in with the new parade?

Easy mistake to make if you're blind as a bat and a bit daft like the OP though. He'll probably reply in a minute when he works out he's been mashing his fingers on a plate on chips and frantically shoving his ashtray around rather than actually using his keyboard and mouse.

[texaxile]

eharding said:

Easy mistake to make if you're blind as a bat and a bit daft like the OP though. He'll probably reply in a minute when he works out he's been mashing his fingers on a plate on chips and frantically shoving his ashtray around rather than actually using his keyboard and mouse.

No need to be nasty like that! bit churlish of you tbh.

Plus, chips will give you a square bum.

Edited by texaxile on Friday 4th February 23:06

[dudleybloke]

texaxile said:

I know Camo is good, but it still does not render one totally invisible in broad daylight

You get the invisibility cloak after you finish the balcony level on expert difficulty.

[rodericb]

texaxile said:

Am I daft or is this some poor CGI? Has the cyberattack started?

If 3 trucks is all we can muster then God help us.

No driver in number 1 , 2 and 3 Truck, plus some very odd movements from the trucks and staff lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0VKRGtXXQ&ab...

Edited by texaxile on Friday 4th February 21:01

They'd want to drive a bit quicker than that too - any action will long be over by the time they get to wherever it is that they're going....

[98elise]

Electro1980 said:

That’s not CGI, just stty video and lighting. Probably on a cheap mobile.

If it was CGI it would be far better quality.

[rxe]

It’s worth listening to the bloke doing the explanation.

Old system (Rapier) does local defence. You plonk it down, it protects your airfield using radar to detect things and missiles to hit them. All good, other than the bad guys will stick a missile into your radar, rendering the whole thing useless, Radar sets are really easy to hit, they are emitting vast amounts of energy. The first part of the air war in Iraq was clobbering air defence radar, once you’ve done this, you own the skies.

New system is networked defence. You can deploy it, and leave the radar switched off. An F-35 can see something coming, you launch, and the F-35 does all the work, from 100 miles away. So now you have missiles without the need for local air defence radar. Much harder to hit, Or, you can have your radar on, and direct the F-35 missiles, allowing the F-35 to be completely passive in terms of emissions.

[Talksteer]

rxe said:

It’s worth listening to the bloke doing the explanation.

Old system (Rapier) does local defence. You plonk it down, it protects your airfield using radar to detect things and missiles to hit them. All good, other than the bad guys will stick a missile into your radar, rendering the whole thing useless, Radar sets are really easy to hit, they are emitting vast amounts of energy. The first part of the air war in Iraq was clobbering air defence radar, once you’ve done this, you own the skies.

New system is networked defence. You can deploy it, and leave the radar switched off. An F-35 can see something coming, you launch, and the F-35 does all the work, from 100 miles away. So now you have missiles without the need for local air defence radar. Much harder to hit, Or, you can have your radar on, and direct the F-35 missiles, allowing the F-35 to be completely passive in terms of emissions.

Specifically the missile used has it's own radar meaning that it only needs to be directed to the proximity of the target before engaging.

System is great but it's being procured in far too smaller numbers and thus it's cost is far too high. We should have much more systems. Also we're going to need systems cheap enough to fired at swams of commercial drones.

[98elise]

rxe said:

It’s worth listening to the bloke doing the explanation.

Old system (Rapier) does local defence. You plonk it down, it protects your airfield using radar to detect things and missiles to hit them. All good, other than the bad guys will stick a missile into your radar, rendering the whole thing useless, Radar sets are really easy to hit, they are emitting vast amounts of energy. The first part of the air war in Iraq was clobbering air defence radar, once you’ve done this, you own the skies.

New system is networked defence. You can deploy it, and leave the radar switched off. An F-35 can see something coming, you launch, and the F-35 does all the work, from 100 miles away. So now you have missiles without the need for local air defence radar. Much harder to hit, Or, you can have your radar on, and direct the F-35 missiles, allowing the F-35 to be completely passive in terms of emissions.

Surely the system will engage the missile aimed at it. Yes it's better to have a fire and forget area defence system but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with point or area defence radar. If that wasn't the case then warships wouldn't be able to defend themselves.

[rxe]

98elise said:

Surely the system will engage the missile aimed at it. Yes it's better to have a fire and forget area defence system but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with point or area defence radar. If that wasn't the case then warships wouldn't be able to defend themselves.

The problem with it is that it is vulnerable, and once it is destroyed, you have no air defence. Say you want to protect an airfield. You stick down a load of conventional area defence systems. You run one of them, and keep the others silent. You see a plane coming, and you launch against it. Before it runs away, it launches two anti-radar missiles with loitering capability. The first one takes your active radar, at which point you are blind. You think, a-ha, i have another one, so you switch it on, and the loitering missile takes it out. How many do you have left?

Essentially, anti-radar missiles have rendered area defence unworkable if you are up against a decent opponent. You can have anti missile missiles but in the end, you’re just playing a numbers game defending a delicate radar installation.

Warships - well although they are bristling with defences, they are pretty vulnerable as well. Launch enough at them, and one will get through. Part of the game here is attrition - there is a limit to the number of million pound devices you can launch at your enemy, mainly because you don’t have that many of them.

[Talksteer]

rxe said:

98elise said:

Surely the system will engage the missile aimed at it. Yes it's better to have a fire and forget area defence system but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with point or area defence radar. If that wasn't the case then warships wouldn't be able to defend themselves.

The problem with it is that it is vulnerable, and once it is destroyed, you have no air defence. Say you want to protect an airfield. You stick down a load of conventional area defence systems. You run one of them, and keep the others silent. You see a plane coming, and you launch against it. Before it runs away, it launches two anti-radar missiles with loitering capability. The first one takes your active radar, at which point you are blind. You think, a-ha, i have another one, so you switch it on, and the loitering missile takes it out. How many do you have left?

Essentially, anti-radar missiles have rendered area defence unworkable if you are up against a decent opponent. You can have anti missile missiles but in the end, you’re just playing a numbers game defending a delicate radar installation.

Warships - well although they are bristling with defences, they are pretty vulnerable as well. Launch enough at them, and one will get through. Part of the game here is attrition - there is a limit to the number of million pound devices you can launch at your enemy, mainly because you don’t have that many of them.

The point with the CAAM system is that it is intended to run in an SEAD environment. This is why it has no engagement radar.

Basically the missile launcher can engage anything in range that any system can see. Ergo it can be fed targets from AWACs etc.

The giraffe radar shown would operate as a gap filler to cover areas that other systems can't see. Key elements are that it is perfectly capable of detecting anti radar missiles and either having the CAAM engage them or going silent and relocating.

I would also be very surprised if radar systems operating against near pears won't have their own countermeasures e.g. decoys, IR smoke, chaff, jammers.

One would hope that over the last few years the army has been looking properly at how to operate when the opposition has precision weapons, EW systems and drones.