Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not just talking about the weight of buoys, I'd still be quite surprised to see it take off with 100 bouys strapped to it. That still leaves the acoustics processing equipment and either a data feed that can be sent in real time back to acoustic analysis operators or a very small crew of wet men.
Then, as has already been pointed out, you still need to kill it. So you'd better hang a few torpedoes on it.
Congratulations, you now have something that can do part of the LRMPA job.
Nothing against UAV, shove a good radar on it, feed the data back to a comfy desk for a dry man to sit at and you've got the ASUW side of things going quite well - add a couple of ASM's and the ability to feed targetting info to some FJ's and you are in business. I just don't see it replacing the wet team for ASW any time soon, not effectively that is.
Satellite detection still appears to be (you never quite know, we've had the odd surprise over the years after all) a 'wouldn't it be nice' idea rather than practical. Ideas like spotting the disturbance on the surface as a sub passes below are fairly old hat and I don't know but I'll bet nobody has got that idea to work. All the stuff about radar is of course cobblers against subs, to get radar to find a sub under water you first have to remove the water.
MAD is of course nothing to do with acoustics at all, so Iraven that's a complete non-sequitur, it might well have been removed for any of a number of reasons, but it wasn't due to a perception that acoustics was dead. As an ex dry man I'll freely admit that acoustics is still (probably) the only game in town v subs, unless somebody has got something going out of left field that they've kept very quiet about. It is bloody difficult though, which explains why people keep trying to find alternative methods to detect and localise subs.
Acoustics can refine your datum accurately enough to drop a weapon. I have no intention of giving away capabilities on this site but nothing in that article suggests to me that the supposed alternatives would refine the datum to the point that a weapon could be released., other than the acoustic sensors on ships/subs etc that are mentioned as possibly being used in conjunction.
Some/much of the stuff mentioned there will provide detection, but not localisation.
Dave
Then, as has already been pointed out, you still need to kill it. So you'd better hang a few torpedoes on it.
Congratulations, you now have something that can do part of the LRMPA job.
Nothing against UAV, shove a good radar on it, feed the data back to a comfy desk for a dry man to sit at and you've got the ASUW side of things going quite well - add a couple of ASM's and the ability to feed targetting info to some FJ's and you are in business. I just don't see it replacing the wet team for ASW any time soon, not effectively that is.
Satellite detection still appears to be (you never quite know, we've had the odd surprise over the years after all) a 'wouldn't it be nice' idea rather than practical. Ideas like spotting the disturbance on the surface as a sub passes below are fairly old hat and I don't know but I'll bet nobody has got that idea to work. All the stuff about radar is of course cobblers against subs, to get radar to find a sub under water you first have to remove the water.
MAD is of course nothing to do with acoustics at all, so Iraven that's a complete non-sequitur, it might well have been removed for any of a number of reasons, but it wasn't due to a perception that acoustics was dead. As an ex dry man I'll freely admit that acoustics is still (probably) the only game in town v subs, unless somebody has got something going out of left field that they've kept very quiet about. It is bloody difficult though, which explains why people keep trying to find alternative methods to detect and localise subs.
Acoustics can refine your datum accurately enough to drop a weapon. I have no intention of giving away capabilities on this site but nothing in that article suggests to me that the supposed alternatives would refine the datum to the point that a weapon could be released., other than the acoustic sensors on ships/subs etc that are mentioned as possibly being used in conjunction.
Some/much of the stuff mentioned there will provide detection, but not localisation.
Dave
Dave
How about more than 1x RPAS then? There is such a thing called Multi Aircraft Control (MAC) where you can control up to 3 RPAS from one cabin - 2 dropping sonobuoys and 1 with weapons to finish the job (you could even have it engines running on the runway).
Three Pred B sized RPAS and all the Gnd Ctl Stns with associated support would still cost about 1/5th of an MRA4.
By the way, the processing would be done offboard the aircraft through digitally multiplexed datalinks - listening to multiples of them from the Gnd Ctl Stn would not be too problematic.
I would wager that we'll see ASW RPAS capabilities before 2020 from some nations.
LJ
PS. Enjoying this debate as it stimulates new ideas.
How about more than 1x RPAS then? There is such a thing called Multi Aircraft Control (MAC) where you can control up to 3 RPAS from one cabin - 2 dropping sonobuoys and 1 with weapons to finish the job (you could even have it engines running on the runway).
Three Pred B sized RPAS and all the Gnd Ctl Stns with associated support would still cost about 1/5th of an MRA4.
By the way, the processing would be done offboard the aircraft through digitally multiplexed datalinks - listening to multiples of them from the Gnd Ctl Stn would not be too problematic.
I would wager that we'll see ASW RPAS capabilities before 2020 from some nations.
LJ
PS. Enjoying this debate as it stimulates new ideas.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satellite detection still appears to be (you never quite know, we've had the odd surprise over the years after all) a 'wouldn't it be nice' idea rather than practical. Ideas like spotting the disturbance on the surface as a sub passes below are fairly old hat and I don't know but I'll bet nobody has got that idea to work.
http://www.sarusersmanual.com/ManualPDF/NOAASARManual_CH10_pg245-262.pdf
[PDF] Chapter 10. Underwater Topography
10.2 Principle of radar imaging of underwater bottom topography. It has been known for more than thirty years that, under certain conditions, underwater ...
If you scrolll down into that PDF file, there are some synthetic aperture radar images of sea surfaces and of bottom topography beneath the surface. The SAR devices were mounted on satellites.
The little white specks in some of the images are surface ships.
No, no mention of submarines in this paper. "NOAA" is National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin. Not military.
http://www.sarusersmanual.com/Manual..._pg245-262.pdf
http://www.sarusersmanual.com/ManualPDF/NOAASARManual_CH10_pg245-262.pdf
[PDF] Chapter 10. Underwater Topography
10.2 Principle of radar imaging of underwater bottom topography. It has been known for more than thirty years that, under certain conditions, underwater ...
If you scrolll down into that PDF file, there are some synthetic aperture radar images of sea surfaces and of bottom topography beneath the surface. The SAR devices were mounted on satellites.
The little white specks in some of the images are surface ships.
No, no mention of submarines in this paper. "NOAA" is National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin. Not military.
http://www.sarusersmanual.com/Manual..._pg245-262.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon & IRaven
Without giving too much away about this highly classified topic, anyone who knows anything about submarine detection, location and prosecution will tell you that you need more than just a couple of sonobuoys to achieve your goal. You very often need large numbers of buoys;
Fields and barriers are a typical example of the need for more than a couple of these devices, and next to the human eye ball and seeing the darned thing, the only other way of identifying your prey is by listening to it (assuming of course that he isn't going to stick a mast up and use his radar)
It is for these reasons alone that MPA are used for ASW. Detect, locate, prosecute.
Satellites are great for watching ships and subs leave port, but I fail to understand how they can detect a submarine submerged. Lets face it, it won't be the first time a whale has been mis ID's as a sub has it? So something quite big, under the surface, moving at say 5kts, would the wave movement and water dispacement be that much different to a small nuke?? I'm not so sure. However, stick a buoy next to it, and the sonics team will have an ident on it in seconds, literally.
As Davejb has explained it's all about being flexible and having the expertise 'on the spot' to make the right decisions. Your UAV, while a great bit of kit I'm certain, is no where near as good, capable or flexible as having a manned MPA.
Apart from the very basics, I don't understand sonics at all. It is indeed a 'kind of magic' to many of us. I have listened in while the wet team are tracking a contact and I have heard all of the squeeks, farts and burps, but it is truly an art to hear the lead wet or whoever in the team explain 'well that's a shrimp' thats a merchant ship, or thats the sub. That skill was achieved after many years and to loose it would be a disgrace and a huge loss.
I genuingly hope that something can be salvalged from this fiasco and that Nimrod can be brought into service. IMHO only a fool would argue that we don't need an MPA.
Winco
Without giving too much away about this highly classified topic, anyone who knows anything about submarine detection, location and prosecution will tell you that you need more than just a couple of sonobuoys to achieve your goal. You very often need large numbers of buoys;
Fields and barriers are a typical example of the need for more than a couple of these devices, and next to the human eye ball and seeing the darned thing, the only other way of identifying your prey is by listening to it (assuming of course that he isn't going to stick a mast up and use his radar)
It is for these reasons alone that MPA are used for ASW. Detect, locate, prosecute.
Satellites are great for watching ships and subs leave port, but I fail to understand how they can detect a submarine submerged. Lets face it, it won't be the first time a whale has been mis ID's as a sub has it? So something quite big, under the surface, moving at say 5kts, would the wave movement and water dispacement be that much different to a small nuke?? I'm not so sure. However, stick a buoy next to it, and the sonics team will have an ident on it in seconds, literally.
As Davejb has explained it's all about being flexible and having the expertise 'on the spot' to make the right decisions. Your UAV, while a great bit of kit I'm certain, is no where near as good, capable or flexible as having a manned MPA.
Apart from the very basics, I don't understand sonics at all. It is indeed a 'kind of magic' to many of us. I have listened in while the wet team are tracking a contact and I have heard all of the squeeks, farts and burps, but it is truly an art to hear the lead wet or whoever in the team explain 'well that's a shrimp' thats a merchant ship, or thats the sub. That skill was achieved after many years and to loose it would be a disgrace and a huge loss.
I genuingly hope that something can be salvalged from this fiasco and that Nimrod can be brought into service. IMHO only a fool would argue that we don't need an MPA.
Winco
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the Il38 May.
Based on the Il-18 Coot. So, no different in that respect to the Orion, or in retrospect, Nimrod...
All initially commercial airliner designs adapted for MPA.
Based on the Il-18 Coot. So, no different in that respect to the Orion, or in retrospect, Nimrod...
All initially commercial airliner designs adapted for MPA.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North by North West
Age: 54
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon
How fast do you think these UAVs fly? Sat on the ground with engines running waiting for an attack solution? I really don't think that is a workable solution as the submarine has gone before the third UAV arrives.
2 dropping sonobuoys and 1 with weapons to finish the job (you could even have it engines running on the runway).
...bit like TSR2, really
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that you have line of sight of course. That type of bandwidth over a sat link would cost serious money.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MAD has improved but even so its range is still very limited. A fast moving submarine might be detected by MAD but move rapidly out of the detection zone.
Submarines can also hear aircraft so an aircraft conducting a MAD sweep can be avoided or evaded.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So combine the Ucav drop platforms to a line of sight a/c like the E3 or summat and bolt in a few new desks.
The low and dirty does by remote, your ears are left in a pie shop and you could have a pod made so a fast jet could deploy a set of dinghys.
Sheesh. it's not rocket science is it.?
We need to get a/c that can role between many differnt fits, so big, fast, comfortable, long fatigue life and lots of spare wiggly amps and slots to plug gear in.
all in the nice "new" std of cable etc and scrap old gear and replace with newer and cheaper as it goes lifex
The low and dirty does by remote, your ears are left in a pie shop and you could have a pod made so a fast jet could deploy a set of dinghys.
Sheesh. it's not rocket science is it.?
We need to get a/c that can role between many differnt fits, so big, fast, comfortable, long fatigue life and lots of spare wiggly amps and slots to plug gear in.
all in the nice "new" std of cable etc and scrap old gear and replace with newer and cheaper as it goes lifex
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MAD has improved but even so its range is still very limited in the order of approximately 1,200 metres. A fast moving submarine might be detected by MAD but move rapidly out of the detection zone.
Submarines can also hear aircraft so an aircraft conducting a MAD sweep can be avoided or evaded.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elmo,
I think you're being a deliberate wind up merchant frankly, but just on the off chance you really aren't -
your article on underwater topography clearly states in the intro that 'Under favourable conditions...' SAR has the ability to determine what the sea bed is like, in shallow waters, by observing the effect on the surface. Further that this requires a strong current to be present. None of this, in any way shape or form, suggests for one tiny moment that a submarine under the surface will produce a noticeable surface effect that can then be detected by a satellite. Even if it did, the sub would have to be in shallow water.
Mutiple UAVs - yes, although I'm far from convinced by it ... I think the costs, once you added the need for a satellite data link and a ground station for operators to man would probably get pretty big, all for a system that at the end of the day was less flexible when compared to an airborne tac team on an MPA. Considering that the MPA and crew can change role in minutes to SAR, ASUW, anti drug and all the other roles the Ninrod has performed I just don't see multiple UAVs as the answer.
(Unless of course you paint them red, and perhaps fly 9 of them at a time? After all, you can shove a dummy cockpit and pilot on to make folk think they're manned....)
I still think we need an LRMPA.
Dave
I think you're being a deliberate wind up merchant frankly, but just on the off chance you really aren't -
your article on underwater topography clearly states in the intro that 'Under favourable conditions...' SAR has the ability to determine what the sea bed is like, in shallow waters, by observing the effect on the surface. Further that this requires a strong current to be present. None of this, in any way shape or form, suggests for one tiny moment that a submarine under the surface will produce a noticeable surface effect that can then be detected by a satellite. Even if it did, the sub would have to be in shallow water.
Mutiple UAVs - yes, although I'm far from convinced by it ... I think the costs, once you added the need for a satellite data link and a ground station for operators to man would probably get pretty big, all for a system that at the end of the day was less flexible when compared to an airborne tac team on an MPA. Considering that the MPA and crew can change role in minutes to SAR, ASUW, anti drug and all the other roles the Ninrod has performed I just don't see multiple UAVs as the answer.
(Unless of course you paint them red, and perhaps fly 9 of them at a time? After all, you can shove a dummy cockpit and pilot on to make folk think they're manned....)
I still think we need an LRMPA.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NW England
Age: 62
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bandwidth???
What, an audio downlink occupying 30 times less bandwidth than the pred video feed that is routinely sent across satlink
Wrong - most buoys are now digital and directional so you need a lot more bandwidth than you think.
OK I've no idea what bandwidth you need for the "pred video feed" but for 64 buoys you need one heck of a lot
OK, I'm no sonobuoy expert but looking up DIFAR Sonobuoy Uplink on Google reveals an uplink data rate of 1200 bits per second; Full Motion Video from a RPAS currently in service is between 1000000 to 3000000 bits per second. Therefore, you could fit over 1000 digitally multiplexed sonobuoys on a single frequency within the same bandwidth of a 1st generation Predator!
The bandwidth argument doesn't stack up...
The bandwidth argument doesn't stack up...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIFAR, wot's that? Oh yeah, it's what was used before HIDAR, I remember
At least reading some of these ASW 'experts' must be bring a few smiles to those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days
At least reading some of these ASW 'experts' must be bring a few smiles to those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven,
Sir, might I suggest that you stop posting on here because you are making a complete fool of yourself and displaying a total lack of knowledge as far as ASW is concerned.
Just for the record and to give you something else to look up on google on these cold, dark nights:
1. How many buoys do you believe a predator could carry?
2. What would be the total weight of that kind of payload?
3. Given that payload, what would be a reasonable length of 'on station' time?
4. How many of your predators do you feel would be required to track a soviet nuke from say the gaps down to the bay of Biscay?
5. How many predators in total do you think the RAF will need, to achieve that one single task?
6. What would the total cost be to the British public?
I guess that bringing 8 Nimrod MR4's into service, that have already been paid for and for which we already have the crews and infrastrucure in place looks a pretty good solution, wouldn't you agree?
For the record, we were using DIFAR buoys when I was on the fleet (infact we were still using Mk1C buoys (God forbid!!) when I joined the fleet) And I know nothing about HIDAR at all! You really do need to get more up-to-date with things mate.
Winco
Sir, might I suggest that you stop posting on here because you are making a complete fool of yourself and displaying a total lack of knowledge as far as ASW is concerned.
Just for the record and to give you something else to look up on google on these cold, dark nights:
1. How many buoys do you believe a predator could carry?
2. What would be the total weight of that kind of payload?
3. Given that payload, what would be a reasonable length of 'on station' time?
4. How many of your predators do you feel would be required to track a soviet nuke from say the gaps down to the bay of Biscay?
5. How many predators in total do you think the RAF will need, to achieve that one single task?
6. What would the total cost be to the British public?
I guess that bringing 8 Nimrod MR4's into service, that have already been paid for and for which we already have the crews and infrastrucure in place looks a pretty good solution, wouldn't you agree?
For the record, we were using DIFAR buoys when I was on the fleet (infact we were still using Mk1C buoys (God forbid!!) when I joined the fleet) And I know nothing about HIDAR at all! You really do need to get more up-to-date with things mate.
Winco
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven, please don't listen to Winco - your posts are so enlightening 
Do tell where you are getting your vast maritime knowledge from? Is it the 1990's edition of "ASW For Dummies"?
MadMark!!!
Do tell where you are getting your vast maritime knowledge from? Is it the 1990's edition of "ASW For Dummies"?MadMark!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm,
according to RECEPTION OF UPLINK DATA FROM SONOBUOYS - US 2010/0110828 A1 - IP.com digital sonobuoy datarate max is 256k, so it rather depends on which buoys you are using.... and, of course, how many you are trying to monitor at a time.
As I've said before, I'm an ex Dry man, so the technical bits of sonobuoys aren't exactly at the forefront of my brain, but I think it would probably be a good idea not to downplay the hardware necessary to replace an airborne Tac team. Could they be replaced by UAV? Yes, of course, throw enough money and kit at the problem and eventually you'll manage it - but I think some on here believe you can do it by just buying a bunch of UAVs and strapping a few extra pylons bulging with sonobuoys under the wings. I really don't think it would be anything like that in reality, I also think it would cost an arm and a leg to accomplish....to end up with a less capable ASW platform.
Dave
according to RECEPTION OF UPLINK DATA FROM SONOBUOYS - US 2010/0110828 A1 - IP.com digital sonobuoy datarate max is 256k, so it rather depends on which buoys you are using.... and, of course, how many you are trying to monitor at a time.
As I've said before, I'm an ex Dry man, so the technical bits of sonobuoys aren't exactly at the forefront of my brain, but I think it would probably be a good idea not to downplay the hardware necessary to replace an airborne Tac team. Could they be replaced by UAV? Yes, of course, throw enough money and kit at the problem and eventually you'll manage it - but I think some on here believe you can do it by just buying a bunch of UAVs and strapping a few extra pylons bulging with sonobuoys under the wings. I really don't think it would be anything like that in reality, I also think it would cost an arm and a leg to accomplish....to end up with a less capable ASW platform.
Dave
AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR Sonobuoy
The AN/SSQ-53F is a NATO A-size sonobuoy manufactured for the U.S.
Navy which combines a passive directional and calibrated wide band
omni capability into a single multi-functional sonobuoy. This advanced
sonobuoy combines the capabilities of both the AN/SSQ-53D and AN/
SSQ-57 sonobuoys.
http://www.sonobuoytechsystems.com/pdfs/Q53F2-2-10.pdf
Sonobuoy and Advancing Underwater Technologies
The 1.2kbps data rate suggested by iRAVEN is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun!) compared to video feed. If this is representative, then he is right that 100 sonobuoys is achievable within extant datalinks and 25 sonobuoys in a pod under 4 underwing hardpoints is also achievable.
I have heard nothing but bleating about "RPAS not being able to LRMPA" but I have seen no well reasoned argument to say why it is not possible. Let's look at what's in open source on General Atomics Predator B then:
http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircr...Predator_B.pdf
Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK
External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK
Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK
Comms Relay - CHECK
Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK
22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK
Range over 3,000nm - CHECK
Affordability (the cost of 2x MRA4) - CHECK
Standing by for incoming from, to quote MFC_Fly, "those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days"
LJ
The AN/SSQ-53F is a NATO A-size sonobuoy manufactured for the U.S.
Navy which combines a passive directional and calibrated wide band
omni capability into a single multi-functional sonobuoy. This advanced
sonobuoy combines the capabilities of both the AN/SSQ-53D and AN/
SSQ-57 sonobuoys.
http://www.sonobuoytechsystems.com/pdfs/Q53F2-2-10.pdf
Sonobuoy and Advancing Underwater Technologies
The 1.2kbps data rate suggested by iRAVEN is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun!) compared to video feed. If this is representative, then he is right that 100 sonobuoys is achievable within extant datalinks and 25 sonobuoys in a pod under 4 underwing hardpoints is also achievable.
I have heard nothing but bleating about "RPAS not being able to LRMPA" but I have seen no well reasoned argument to say why it is not possible. Let's look at what's in open source on General Atomics Predator B then:
http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircr...Predator_B.pdf
Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK
External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK
Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK
Comms Relay - CHECK
Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK
22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK
Range over 3,000nm - CHECK
On Jan 3/08, the US DSCA announced the United Kingdom’s official request for:
“10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B/AAS-52), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.071 billion.”
“10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B/AAS-52), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.071 billion.”
Standing by for incoming from, to quote MFC_Fly, "those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days"
LJ