Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
that was funny! thanks
that guy is nuts! but i doubt he would take it either. lol
i wonder if his company is hiring? i dont think my company does any work on lines that you need a helicopter to get up to them.
"In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest."
this is quite a funny statement, i wonder if he actually believes his own BS
Asia forking out on defence despite slowdown: experts
by Staff Writers
Singapore (AFP) April 5, 2009
Increased military spending by China and India is forcing other Asia-Pacific countries to modernise their armed forces despite the severe impact of the global financial crisis, experts say.
Data from defence research firm Jane's Information Group estimates total military spending in the region rising year-on-year -- from about 220 billion dollars in 2008 to 239 billion dollars this year and higher still in 2010.
Those figures include external defence and homeland security and cover a region stretching from Central Asia to Australia.
"India and China are forcing the countries to think very hard strategically about their defence capabilities," Jon Grevatt, a regional defence specialist with Jane's, told AFP from Bangkok.
He said that although money is tight across the region, "the pressure of not spending on defence is very high due to the considerable military influence that China and India are assuming in this part of the world."
Even countries not bordering China and India are upgrading their arsenals.
Singapore, despite suffering its worst-ever economic slowdown, will increase its defence spending by an annual 6.0 percent to 7.53 billion dollars in the new fiscal year starting April, the government says.
The city-state's immediate neighbours, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are all poised to follow suit, Grevatt said.
"What you can see in Southeast Asia is something like a mini arms race with capabilities such as submarines and armoured vehicles being acquired," Grevatt added.
Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said spending across Asia "reflects long-term goals and ambitions that they have that are not going to be affected by short-term concerns in the economy."
Research by Jane's confirms other figures showing China is now the number one military spender in the region, surpassing Japan for the first time in 2008, when Beijing allocated almost 59 billion dollars for its defence needs.
China and India have both amassed wealth after years of rapid economic growth.
"They want to use that wealth to develop and procure military capability so that they are perceived as a country that can defend their assets," said Jane's Grevatt.
Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said the military needed modernisation "across the board" as a proposed 15.3 percent rise in defence spending to 69 billion dollars for 2009 was unveiled by Beijing.
China has come under strong pressure, especially from the United States and Japan, to be more transparent about the nature of its military build-up.
"China has not really made any real attempt to articulate these increases," said Alan Dupont, from the Centre for International Security Studies, at the University of Sydney.
He said Beijing "should not be criticised for doing exactly what Washington has done, which is to modernise its forces and increase its spending on defence."
India is also splashing out despite the global economic slowdown, with its defence budget increasing by 24 percent to 29.4 billion dollars for the fiscal year beginning April 1, the steepest rise since independence in 1947.
The bulk of that money will go towards modernising its military -- the world's fourth largest.
The country's 1.2-million-strong army is shopping for helicopters, artillery, armour and infantry gear while its air force is expected to hand out a 126-aircraft contract worth almost 12 billion dollars.
"We think the Mumbai attacks (in November 2008) sounded alarm bells across Asia about maritime security vulnerabilities," said Bob Nugent, vice-president for advisory services with US-based AMI International, a naval research agency.
"The immediate reaction in India has been to reorganise the military and related structures that provide maritime security," he said.
Neighbour Pakistan, which like India is nuclear-armed, will also get in on the act, according to Jane's -- no matter that the troubled country is in dire financial straits.
Islamabad will raise its defence budget from 5.93 billion dollars in 2008 to 6.21 billion dollars this year and 6.7 billion dollars in 2010, Jane's said.
Pakistan's officially released defence budget is lower at about 4.1 billion dollars in the year to June 2008.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asia_forking_out_on_defence_despite_slowdown_experts_999.html
T-55s Aimed At Taiwan
April 5, 2009: Although the Chinese army has over 1.5 million troops, their equipment is largely primitive and elderly. Take, for example, one of the elite units; the 2nd Armored Division. Stationed near the coast, opposite Taiwan, the 2nd Armored would be one of the key units if there were ever an attempt to invade Taiwan.
This division has three tank regiments (each with about 80 tanks, plus some infantry). Two of these regiments are still equipped with Type 59 tanks (a copy of the 1950s era Russian T-55). These regiments first received their Type 59s in the early 1960s. Those tanks are no longer in service, but were simply replaced by more recently manufactured Type 59s. The latest version, the Type59D, was introduced in the 1990s, adding reactive armor, a 105mm gun and better fire control. This year and next, the Type 59s will finally be replaced by a more modern tank; the Type 96 or Type 88s.
The 50 ton Type 96 (also called Type 88C) has a three man crew and modern sensors and electronics. The 90 series tanks are Chinese designs, and there appear to be as many as 2500 Type 90 series tanks in service, with as many as two thirds of them Type 96s. There are another 700 Type 70s and 80s, both of which were stepping stones to the 90 series. Most Chinese tanks, about 5,000, are Type 59s. Most of these have been upgraded from being a clone of the Russian T-55 to T-55 clones equipped with Western guns (copies of the British L7 105mm gun, firing depleted uranium shells) and modern electronics. China also has a copy of the German 120mm gun, which it may try to install in some Type 59 upgrades. Those Type 59s that don't get upgraded are being scrapped. This apparently means that the Type 59 force will shrink by at least several hundred tanks a year until all are gone.
The third regiment of the 2nd Armored division already has the Type 96 tanks, and the troops in the other two regiments will take a year or more to get used to them. The Type 59 is a much more primitive tank, even after being upgraded. China is very strict about keeping information on its tank force secret, but cell phones and the Internet use is widespread in China, and more information is getting out. The most modern tanks they have appear to be the Type 98 and 99, which come close to matching early models of the U.S. M-1.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20090405.aspx
i think the Navy has a new training ground for torpedos and active sonar
The Hamas And Hezbollah House Of Horrors
April 5, 2009: U.S. and Israeli intelligence have learned of an ongoing debate in the Iranian leadership. The more radical leaders, who control the Revolutionary Guard, and the al Quds force, want to equip Hamas (in Gaza) and Hezbollah (in southern Lebanon) with more lethal weapons, and goad Israel into another war. The Iranian radicals have been trying to get anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles to Hamas, as these weapons can be used immediately against Israeli helicopters, F-16s and UAVs that regularly operate over Gaza, and the armored vehicles that come in with raids and patrol the security fence. So far, none of these weapons have gotten through. The Israeli air raid on Sudan last January destroyed nearly twenty truckloads of these weapons. Iranian cargo ships are being watched closely for additional attempts to get the missiles to Gaza. This effort could backfire badly. There's a risk that, if Iranian anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles get used in Gaza, the Israelis may decide that their decision to leave Gaza four years ago was a big mistake, and take control once more.
A more worrisome effort is to supply Hezbollah with chemical warheads for some of their rockets. The less radical Iranian clerics have blocked this proposal, so far. The majority of the clerics who run the religious dictatorship in Iran are reluctant to see chemical weapons used on Israel, as they fear the retaliation (which might include a nuke, as the Israelis have no chemical weapons of their own). The more radical clerics take the "God is on our side" angle more literally and believe Israel can be taken down if hit hard enough. A little nerve gas should do it. The Iranian clerics usually work out compromises in cases like this, and the deal may include shipping chemical warheads to Hezbollah, but keeping them under the control of the Iranian security officers stationed there. Many Hezbollah leaders are also not keen on employing the chemical option. That's because Israel has the ability to take all of southern Lebanon, and grind Hezbollah into the dust. The Israelis would take a lot of casualties. But if Hezbollah hit Israeli civilians with mustard or nerve gas, the Israeli troops would have plenty of incentive to come across the border with murderous intent.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20090405.aspx
Thompson Files: Marines triumph with EFV
The EFV is the only system available that can swiftly take a reinforced rifle squad -- the basic building block of Marine expeditionary warfare -- ashore from warships beyond the reach of enemy weapons, and then immediately transition to being a highly effective land combat vehicle. Its speed in the water is three times that of the vehicle it will replace, and its range enables EFV to go ashore in more places than an enemy typically can fortify.
by Loren B. Thompson
Washington (UPI) April 3, 2009
The U.S. Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle has been getting some rough treatment in the American media lately.
Reporters and pundits say the EFV is over budget, behind schedule and plagued by design defects. Now for the good news: Most of the bad news is years out of date.
The program is running late because problems were found in testing that needed to be fixed, and now they have been. As Bettina H. Chavanne -- one of the few journalists who seems to be paying attention -- reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology
on March 6, "The U.S. Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle -- EFV -- negotiated its latest hurdle, a Critical Design Review -- CDR -- in December with relative ease, clearing the way for the first hull to roll off the assembly line as a prototype in May 2010."
Somehow, this success has been overlooked by many of the news outlets that pronounced EFV an acquisition disaster in recent years. The reality is that it is by far the best amphibious armored vehicle ever built, and the Marine Corps continues to describe it as the service's No. 1 ground combat priority.
The high priority is easy to understand: The EFV is the only system available that can swiftly take a reinforced rifle squad -- the basic building block of Marine expeditionary warfare -- ashore from warships beyond the reach of enemy weapons, and then immediately transition to being a highly effective land combat vehicle. Its speed in the water is three times that of the vehicle it will replace, and its range enables EFV to go ashore in more places than an enemy typically can fortify.
The controversy surrounding EFV is similar to the long-running debate over another Marine program, the MV-22 Osprey. The Osprey is a revolutionary rotor-craft that combines the vertical agility of a helicopter with the speed and range of a fixed-wing aircraft. It has proven itself in multiple deployments to Iraq and is now destined for Afghanistan, but its success also has been largely ignored by the media.
Apparently, bad news sells better than good news. Fortunately, the leadership of the Marine Corps is more loyal to its operating principles than the rest of the culture, which is why EFV is likely to be fielded as planned -- just as MV-22 has managed to reach the force despite the best efforts of unbelievers.
The EFV and the MV-22 Osprey are part of a broader Marine vision formulated in the 1990s called "Operational Maneuver from the Sea." The basic idea is that the Marine Corps must be able to enter hostile nations quickly and forcibly from the sea in order to defeat terrorists, insurgents, pirates and other adversaries.
The sea services have been conducting such operations for two centuries -- most notably in the island-hopping Pacific campaign of World War II -- but littoral areas are now so dangerous that warships must stay farther from shore, so Marines need better lift to move swiftly to their objectives. EFV was designed to transform water and land alike from an obstacle to a maneuver space for U.S. war fighters.
The latest complaint from critics is that the flat bottom of the EFV makes it vulnerable to improvised explosive devices -- IEDs. Some are saying it needs a V-shaped hull to resist such blasts. But that would require a complete redesign and deprive the vehicle of the planning capacity that makes high water speed possible.
The Marine Corps has come up with a better idea: use of more blast-tolerant material, combined with bolt-on armor that can be added when needed. Obviously, if the enemy doesn't know where you are coming ashore, the IED threat is much diminished. The important thing is to get to shore safely, and then have a vehicle like EFV that allows war fighters to adapt quickly to what they find there.
(Loren B. Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Thompson_Files_Marines_triumph_with_EFV_999.html
Gates Readies Budget Ax for Monday Swipe
Gates Readies Budget Ax for Monday Swipe
By Colin Clark Friday, April 3rd, 2009 3:51 pm
Posted in Air, Policy, Rumors
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to announce major changes to the Pentagon’s acquisition budget Monday afternoon.
“These are not changes to the margins. This is a fundamental shift in direction. And the secretary’s point of view argues for an unconventional approach in explaining that shift to the American people,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Friday. Gates will call congressional leaders and brief them Monday morning.
The building, unusually, is not leaking like a sieve and, so far, the administration is not planting stories with favored news outlets.
However, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the trend crystal clear on March 23 during a missile defense conference. The money will go to systems that address the “most likely” threats, not to those aimed at the “most dangerous” threats, Cartwright said. Weapons that take decades to build and can address a limited array of threats will fall by the wayside. The nation, he said, cannot afford this approach any more.
“Would you buy in tough economic times something that does one thing well or something that does 100 things well, and can do things you haven’t even thought about yet,” he asked rhetorically.
“My money is going to go on sensors and command control,” Cartwright told the audience. Architectures — and the systems they serve — must be changeable, ready to adapt to unforeseen threats with ease.
“We have got to be able to string these things together. Get over the traditional barriers about what domains they fly in, or what INT they are in. The guy who gets a bullet between his eyes couldn’t care less,” Cartwright said.
The vice chairman dined with senior congressional aides about a week before the conference and told them much the same thing. “He was signaling to us and to industry that the cuts are going to be deep and the changes substantial,” said one congressional aide.
One of the programs believed to be sitting directly in Gates’ budget crosshairs is Boeing’s Airborne Laser Program. Although the program has funding to complete its first live fire test in fiscal 2009, conventional wisdom for the last few weeks has been that the program will be made a technology demonstrator and lose its status as a program of record.
So on March 23, a bipartisan group of seven congressmen sent Gates a letter saying they “urgently request the ABL remain a robustly funded program.” The lawmakers argued that if ABL is not well funded or is cancelled “the promise of speed-of-light and extreme precision…will disappear as well as the fragile industrial base that supports it. In short, we will have wasted the resources that have been well invested since the Clinton administration.”
The signers included: powerful Boeing friend Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.); second ranking member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee; Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), also a member of the defense subcommittee; Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.); Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM); Rep. Todd Akin (R-Kansas); Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.); and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) All but Dicks and Tiahrt are members of the House Armed Services Committee.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/03/gates-readies-budget-ax-for-monday-swipe/
HULC-ing Out in Afghanistan
HULC.jpg
In case you didn't see this elsewhere, Lockheed Martin recently unveiled a down-scale competitor to the exoskeleton wars. At the February Association of the US Army symposium, LockMart introduced its Human Universal Load Carrier system.
According to LockMart, the HULC can help a Soldier carry up to 200 pounds "with minimal effort."
HULC transfers the weight from heavy loads to the ground through the battery-powered, titanium legs of the lower-body exoskeleton. An advanced onboard micro-computer ensures the exoskeleton moves in concert with the individual. HULC’s completely un-tethered, hydraulic-powered anthropomorphic exoskeleton design allows for deep squats, crawls and upper-body lifting with minor exertion.
Look, you know I'm partial to Troy Hurtubise's Trojan II, but I've got to hand it to LockMart -- the HULC seems to take the middle ground between being a full-on exoskeleton and a passive assistance device to help carry heavy loads. I can see 240 gunners and mortarmen eating this thing up, trudging through the Afghan hills a lot more easily than before. Maybe the HULC could give planners more options by making organic indirect fire support a viable alternative for platoons in the bush.
Obviously it looks a bit ungainly in the video, but in the end, if it does what the video shows and with a few ergonomic tweaks, we'll see a workable option in the field soon. With all the news about load stress on Soldiers' bodies these days, why not use technology to ease the burden?
-- Christian
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004778.html
Is NLOS Worth It?
NLOS-proto.jpg
I always sort of roll my eyes when I look at the defense authorization bill each year and see Sen. James Inhofe's successful attempt to cordon off the Non-Line of Sight cannon developed by the Army's FCS program from any budget cuts -- kind of reminds me of the JSF alternative engine.
Instead of parochialism, it all really boils down to whether the Army needs a replacement for the Paladin mobile Howitzer gun. And I reluctantly come out on the side of "yes."
I'm going to excerpt Greg Grant's excellent story from DoD Buzz today and draw your attention to a comment made on the story -- really a comment about a comment:
As we reported the other day, the Army’s $200 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program looks likely to suffer some big hits when the defense budget is finally wrapped some time later this month. Rumors of FCS doom have its champions in Congress, chief among them being Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., vowing to fight for the perennially troubled program.
Dear to Inhofe’s heart, and his constituents, is the Non-Line Of Sight Cannon, originally part of FCS. It was given its own budget line by Inhofe in an effort to fence it off from possible cuts to the larger program. Why? Well, Oklahoma is home to Ft. Sill, the Army’s artillery center for one thing and NLOS-C builder BAE Systems kindly said it would produce the cannon in Elgin, Okla. Inhofe has included language in past defense bills telling the Army to build a number of prototypes and rapidly move NLOS-C into full-scale production.
The NLOS-C is a continuation of the Army’s Crusader mobile howitzer program that was unceremoniously cancelled by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld; many of the parts used in the NLOS-C were originally designed for Crusader. It is intended to replace the Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer, and is optimized for long range counter-battery fire on a conventional battlefield. In a statement released by his office this week, Inhofe said: “To say that FCS and the NLOS-C are designed for a conventional war is narrow-minded and overlooks the reality that the systems that FCS will replace are being used on the battlefields today in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Over the past eight years, battles in Afghanistan’s road-less and mountainous terrain have certainly demonstrated the need for organic fire support to light infantry, but of the mortar variety, or perhaps a lightweight “mountain” cannon, not a large, tracked mobile howitzer. In Iraq, the Army’s Paladins spend their tours of duty parked in the motor pool as the “red legs” go off to patrol as motorized infantry.
The Paladin is more than adequate to give the Army’s maneuver formations mobile fire support if they square off against an enemy mechanized army any time in the near future. To counter insurgent mortar and rocket fire in Iraq, air strikes from fixed wing or attack helicopters have proven more responsive and accurate than artillery fire, if for no other reason than the air space must be cleared before artillery can fire, an often lengthy process.
And here's what commenter Cole said:
To add to what Armywonk said, I will quote Stryker Radar from another post who apparently is an artilleryman with 3 Iraq tours and a strong belief in FCS:
============================================
“…how is the NLOS-C worthless in today’s fight? Can it sit on a FOB and fire in support of troops? Yep. Can it fire GPS guided projoes? Yep, has that one cover also. Can it fire counter-btry in support of C-RAM? Yep, got that one also.”
“The real question is this: Can the Paladin do what the NLOS-C does? Load at any elevation? Auto-load from the on-board magazine by the push of a button from the Section Chief? Shoot a Zone 4 mission without dropping the spades? Drive around the battlefield on just battery power alone? Can the Paladin send a computer generated PTM to the AFATDS at the PLT/ BTRY FDC, BN FDC, and BDE FECC level saying what’s wrong with it and what maintenance assets it needs?”
===========================================
I will add that Mr Zaloga is not an engineer, but a history major. Considering that a far lighter M-777 somehow manages to fire 155mm rounds without beating itself to death, I question his credentials to claim the FCS NLOS-Cannon won’t be up to task. Did you catch Stryker Radar’s mention about not putting the spades down and still being able to fire?
Next, the primary mission is not counter-battery as Mr. Grant implied. It is a primary BCT-support indirect fire system. Indirect fire is historically the greatest killer on the battlefied and there is no reason to believe that trend will not continue in future warfare.
It exposes a two-man crew to far less danger than the 5-man crew in a Paladin. When equipped with all around active protection and future sloped underbody armor counter-IED kit the system will ensure cannoneers greater survivability…and serve as a near-common basis for other manned ground vehicle systems essential for future warfare.
Finally, to add to what Armywonk mentioned on SOF forces, we continue to see heroic battles between extremely small SOF units and larger Taliban forces. Why do we feel the need to make our SOF fight so outnumbered and heroically while severely outnumbered. The Iraq surge showed, as will the Afghan one, that you need adequate force on the ground. SOF alone doesn’t cut it.
I tend to agree with him. I think mobile, high powered organic fire support is the answer to greater distribution of operations. I fell in love with CAS back in the early Afghan war days, but have grown more bearish on it since I've seen it more and more in action and the ground and really question its accuracy and, particularly, its response.
But, and be sure to read the rest of Greg's story, I do see what Zaloga is saying about weight, recoil and the physics of the problem. Does anyone remember the problems with the Stryker Mobile Gun System?
-- Christian
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004780.html
i hope they are going to buy more F-22s. i dont know what to think about shrinking the carrier groups, we dont need as many ground attack aircraft with the introduction of smart bombs. but in the event of an attack by china, we would need a large amount of fighter aircraft to overwhelm their airforce and air defenses
i love it!
Taking A deep Look
April 4, 2009: It's getting harder to be a terrorist, and much of that grief comes from cheaper thermal imagers, and more powerful pattern recognition software. One example of this is the ACT 1 (Access Counter IED Technology) thermal imager. This device can examine individuals approaching a checkpoint, or simply moving near a base. The software examines the thermal image of the individuals, and, using a library of data on how explosives or weapons show up under clothing, determine with a high degree of accuracy, who is armed, or wearing a bomb.
ACT I is small, it looks like a large pair of binoculars sitting on a tripod. The entire systems weighs less than twenty pounds and can be operational in less than 15 minutes. Systems like this are getting smaller, more powerful and cheaper. A knowledgeable terrorist can do things to deceive it, but not all your terrorists are that smart.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, similar systems, used as part of base defenses, to track suspicious activities, or assist in the pursuit of enemy forces. The U.S. Army is developing a new generation of remote sensors that uses similar technology. These can be air dropped, or placed by troops on the ground, to provide more monitoring capability in remote areas.
The ability of the police or military to store vast quantities of this data also allows for suspicious activity to be sought out after a crime has occurred. Criminals, and terrorists, usually scout out a location before carrying out a crime. Advances in pattern recognition and statistical analysis software helps investigators find things that are not easily noticed at a glance.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20090404.aspx
there is not one lineman in this country that would work on that deathtrap.
now its time to finish getting drunk! i was wondering what the succession was, but i see it doesnt matter.
God Bless the USA! it may be the last opportunity we get
thanks for your service!
i havent had to move yet, ComEd just wants to make my commute as difficult as possible. and as i have stated before, unions suck almost as bad as those damn cabbies. lol
if you are a cabby, i hope you dont drive through downtown chicago using 2 lanes. while this idiot was in front of me, another almost headbutted my trailer hitch.
i think i was on dearborn for one, and the other was on elston, i think. dont ask cross streets, i dont know which ones
Marines Invent The Instant Gunship
April 3, 2009: The U.S. Marine Corps wants gunships, having noted the success of the U.S. Air Force AC-130 aircraft. But they can't afford them, as an AC-130 costs more than three times as much an a marine KC-130J aerial refueling aircraft. But the marines believe they have a solution. The KC-130J is the latest, and largest, USMC version of the C-130 transport used for aerial refueling. But the KC-130J can also carry cargo, and weapons (bombs and missiles) hung from the wings. Thus the proposal is to modify a KC-130J so that it can carry a targeting pod, with the data going to a special cargo container containing control equipment (computers, commo and displays) enabling operators use the day/night sensors of the targeting pod, and release smart bombs (like the 250 pound SDB) and missiles (like Maverick or Hellfire) hung from the wings. A 30mm Bushmaster cannon, mounted on a pallet, could also be loaded, with the rear ramp open, so that there would be gunfire support as well.
The Mk44 30mm Bushmaster cannon weighs 344 pounds and fires at 200 or 400 rounds per minute (up to 7 per second). The cannon has 160 rounds available, before needing a reload. That means the gunner has 25-50 seconds worth of ammo, depending on rate of fire used. Each 30mm round weighs about 25 ounces (depending on type.) The anti-armor shell weighs about half a pound. The armor piercing round will go through 25mm of steel at 2,000 meters range. This will get through the top armor of most vehicles, or the roof of any building, and spray the inside with fragments. At that range, time of flight is about 1.7 seconds. Explosive anti-personnel rounds are also available. From higher altitudes (up to 6,000 meters), the AC-130 fire control system and night vision sensors, enable the 30mm gunners to accurately hit targets with high explosive shells.
Existing AC-130 gunships are armed with a 105mm howitzer, a 25mm and 40mm automatic cannon. But these guns are being phased out of military service. The air force is considering equipping its gunships with smart bombs and missiles.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090403.aspx
Red Sea Mysteries revealed
April 3, 2009: Israel has revealed that it used F-16s, F-15s and UAVs to carry out attacks on convoys of Iranian missiles, being trucked from Sudan into Egypt, for delivery to Hamas in Gaza. These attacks took place over two months ago, and were only recently revealed. The F-16s delivered the attacks, while the F-15s provided protection from potential attacks by Sudanese MiG-29s (unlikely, but possible.) UAVs were used reconnaissance.
The most likely UAV for this is the Heron TP. Equipped with a powerful (1,200 horsepower) turbo prop engine, the 4.6 ton aircraft can operate at 45,000 feet. That is, above commercial air traffic, and all the air-traffic-control regulations that discourage, and often forbid, UAV use at the same altitude as commercial aircraft. The Heron TP has a one ton payload, enabling it to carry sensors that can give a detailed view of what's on the ground, even from that high up. The endurance of 36 hours makes the Heron TP a competitor for the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper (or Predator B). It takes UAVs about ten hours to get from Israeli to the Egypt/Sudan border.
The January attack destroyed 17 (out of 23) truckloads of weapons, and killed 39 men operating the vehicles. The F-16s attacked the convoy twice. Since then, the smugglers have resorted to individual trucks, and the use of small boats moving up the Red Sea coast.
Before the attacks, the U.S. advised Sudan that American intelligence had discovered the smuggling, and that it would be a good idea for Sudan to do something about it. Sudan did nothing, and the attacks took place. At first, the Sudanese believed it was an American attack.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090403.aspx
thats where i ended up blowing 2 stoplights, different intersections
will do!
The Annual Magic Missile Announcement
April 3, 2009: In what has become an annual event over the last few years, there are another batch of rumors out of China that the DF-21 ballistic missile has been equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can find and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).
As the story goes, the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s seeker technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometer range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.
The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar. Another problem the Chinese will have is getting a general idea of where the target carrier is before they launch the DF-21. This is not impossible, but can be difficult. But first, the Chinese have to conduct some of tests of this wondrous new weapon. So far, there have been no tests.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090403.aspx
Gulf War Syndrome Forever
April 3, 2009: Over two years ago, the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS), acting at the behest of Congress, completed its study of the "Gulf War Syndrome" and found that the condition does not exist. What does exist is a large number of illnesses resulting from Americans visiting an area containing many diseases and dangerous conditions that are unfamiliar to science and American medical practitioners. Similar situations occurred every time U.S. troops went to exotic locales in the past. It happened during the Spanish-American War (1898) and World War II (for troops in the Pacific, North Africa, the Persian Gulf, India and so on.)
Research continues, because the region is rich in toxic materials (both natural and manmade). One of these recent efforts, after doing brain scans of 21 Gulf War vets with the Syndrome symptoms, found that there appeared to be brain activity changes as a result of exposure to three chemicals (Sarin nerve gas, insect repellent, and anti-nerve gas pills) in the Gulf. Some troops were exposed to very low levels of nerve gas, when shells containing the substance were destroyed. The insect repellent was found in flea collars that some troops wore to deal with the sand fleas. The anti-nerve gas pills were given to most troops to counteract the effects of nerve gas (if they were exposed.) In various combinations, these three chemicals apparently an produce the most common Gulf War Syndrome symptoms. But this was a small sample, and it's known that the Persian Gulf is full of nasty stuff.
Over thirty years ago, the Department of Defense did a medical study of the Persian Gulf area, as part of the effort to form a Rapid Reaction Force for possible intervention in the region. In addition to a large number of known diseases and potentially dangerous bacteria, there appeared to be a lot of unknown ailments out there. Local medical personnel were treating a lot of diseases, never seen outside the Persian Gulf area, with whatever medicines they could get their hands on. Historians can point out a similar situation when U.S. troops went into North Africa and the Pacific during World War II. While many of these local diseases are of academic interest back in the United States, little is done to develop cures or preventive measures. The treatments developed during war time are filed away. Many have since been hauled out of storage, as some American troops served in the Persian Gulf during World War II. Even though many Americans have been there since 1991, new ailments are constantly being discovered. The Persian Gulf area is not only rich in oil, but in disease as well.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq exposed more U.S. troops to this unhealthy climate, and generated more complaints about a "Gulf War Syndrome." The problem is that, when medical records are examined, no single disease or condition can be found. Instead there is the same, somewhat unpredictable, array of little know diseases. When several of these hit someone at once, they produce more unfamiliar conditions.
The "Gulf War Syndrome" controversy is driven largely by the media. Unfamiliar with the past history of such diseases, or simply unwilling to pay attention, editors and journalists instead go with unsubstantiated, but headline grabbing, inventions. There is a "Gulf War Syndrome", but it's got more to do with bad journalism, than with medical mysteries.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090403.aspx
thanks for the directions. one of these days when i can take a long lunch i will check them out
its not bad once you get familiar with it, which im not yet. those damn stop lights pop up out of nowhere.
thanks for the invite! i will definitely be around
that was my thinking, what can either of those countries bring to the table? neither of them are anywhere near stable enough or free of corruption. then again, its seems NATO will accept anybody these days. more of the welfare mentality if you ask me
thanks for the link, ill check it out
Two Balkan countries officially join NATO
RIA Novosti
01/04/2009 21:41 WASHINGTON, April 1 (RIA Novosti) - Albania and Croatia officially became NATO's newest members on Wednesday, bringing the number of countries in the military alliance to 28.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg accepted Albania's and Croatia's instruments of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty for which the United States is the depositary government.
"We welcome the completion of the accession process prior to NATO's 60th Anniversary Summit on April 3 and 4, where Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha and Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader will take their seats for the first time representing their countries as members of the alliance," the U.S. State Department said in a statement.
Commenting on the accession of new members, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said: "They will now benefit from collective security the alliance offers, but they will also bear the responsibility that collective security requires."
Both Albania and Croatia have already deployed small military contingents as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Croatia has sent 530 soldiers and Albania 140, according to NATO sources.
A flag-raising ceremony marking the accession of Albania and Croatia will be held at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 7.
The previous NATO expansion took place in 2004 with the accession of seven Eastern European countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania.
At the 2008 summit in Bucharest three countries were promised future invitations - the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia and Ukraine.
Moscow strongly opposes NATO's eastward expansion, viewing it as an attempt to surround and isolate Russia.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090401-rianovosti06.htm
Does Army Need a New Mobile Howitzer?
Does Army Need a New Mobile Howitzer?
By Greg Grant Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 2:47 pm
Posted in Land, Policy
As we reported the other day, the Army’s $200 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program looks likely to suffer some big hits when the defense budget is finally wrapped some time later this month. Rumors of FCS doom have its champions in Congress, chief among them being Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., vowing to fight for the perennially troubled program.
Dear to Inhofe’s heart, and his constituents, is the Non-Line Of Sight Cannon, originally part of FCS. It was given its own budget line by Inhofe in an effort to fence it off from possible cuts to the larger program. Why? Well, Oklahoma is home to Ft. Sill, the Army’s artillery center for one thing and NLOS-C builder BAE Systems kindly said it would produce the cannon in Elgin, Okla. Inhofe has included language in past defense bills telling the Army to build a number of prototypes and rapidly move NLOS-C into full-scale production.
The NLOS-C is a continuation of the Army’s Crusader mobile howitzer program that was unceremoniously cancelled by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld; many of the parts used in the NLOS-C were originally designed for Crusader. It is intended to replace the Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer, and is optimized for long range counter-battery fire on a conventional battlefield. In a statement released by his office this week, Inhofe said: “To say that FCS and the NLOS-C are designed for a conventional war is narrow-minded and overlooks the reality that the systems that FCS will replace are being used on the battlefields today in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Over the past eight years, battles in Afghanistan’s road-less and mountainous terrain have certainly demonstrated the need for organic fire support to light infantry, but of the mortar variety, or perhaps a lightweight “mountain” cannon, not a large, tracked mobile howitzer. In Iraq, the Army’s Paladins spend their tours of duty parked in the motor pool as the “red legs” go off to patrol as motorized infantry.
The Paladin is more than adequate to give the Army’s maneuver formations mobile fire support if they square off against an enemy mechanized army any time in the near future. To counter insurgent mortar and rocket fire in Iraq, air strikes from fixed wing or attack helicopters has proven more responsive and accurate than artillery fire, if for no other reason than the air space must be cleared before artillery can fire, an often lengthy process.
The Teal Group’s Steven Zaloga, who has studied and written more about armored vehicles and artillery than anybody, told me that putting the massive 155mm howitzer on a lightweight FCS chassis, even with efforts to minimize recoil, is a really bad idea. “The problem with a self-propelled field howitzer is once you put them in the field they get the crap beaten out of them. That’s the nature of artillery. The shock of firing a big caliber weapon beats them up… That little chassis is going to get shot to hell.” (Personal note: I’ve fired a Paladin and they do pack one hell of a wallop). The NLOS-C chassis is too small to carry its own ammunition, so it will have a bunch of ammo carriers following it around, defeating the whole smaller footprint idea, he says.
The NLOS-C does not fit with the major force structure changes underway being pushed by SecDef Gates, his brain trust in OSD, including ASD SOLIC Michael Vickers, and a number of influential commanders, such as Marine Gen. James Mattis at JFCOM. Their vision of future wars includes small, highly skilled teams working either in direct action SOF mode or in Green Beret trainer and advisor mode. They don’t see much of a place for the big World War II style fire and maneuver battle.
As Frank Hoffman, an irregular warfare expert at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Quantico, Va., says, fighting a globally dispersed enemy of small, networked insurgent and terrorist cells is not a job well suited for a large conventional ground forces. “There is no mass for our formations to attack,” he says. That’s the lesson America’s enemies picked up from watching U.S. military operations in the early 1990s: don’t do what Saddam Hussein did with his army and provide easy targets for American sensors and precision weapons that can kill you. Instead, disperse among crowds of civilians and in the maze of city streets as was done so effectively in Mogadishu.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/02/does-army-need-a-new-mobile-howitzer/
Dual Tanker Buy Could Save Billions: Murtha
By Colin Clark Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 3:49 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
Rep. Jack Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said today that his plan to buy tankers from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman will save taxpayers billions of dollars, principally by retiring the aging tanker fleet more quickly.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and most DoD people dealing with the issue have said repeatedly they believe buying from both companies would be wasteful and greatly complicate the Pentagon’s logistics train. But Murtha told me and another reporter today that he thought the plan could save billion of dollars money by “retiring the old fleet” as quickly as possible, apparently by increasing the number of tankers bought each year. He acknowledged the reservations many have had about his plan, noting that even his “staff, at first they were hesitant about it.” He spoke with most of the staff standing next to him.
Murtha also said he “has the votes” on the HAC-D to pass his tanker plan, though he admitted it was not unanimous.
The Pennsylvania Democrat said he and the staff had found it very difficult to get technical and cost information about maintenance and related costs from the two companies but had gradually overcome the corporate resistance.
In other budget news, Murtha laid out a schedule for the coming supplemental and budget bills. He is expecting the supplemental to hit the Hill next Thursday. It will be considered in some detail during an April 22 House Appropriations Committee hearing with Central Command’s Gen. David Petraeus. Then the bill will be considered by the full committee on April 30. and should make it to the House floor on May 5, Murtha said. “We hope to have it done by Labor Day,” he said.
The full defense budget request for 2010 should make it to the Hill on May 4, he said. Word around the Pentagon and Capitol Hill is that the budget will only include fiscal 2010 numbers. There will be no Future Years Defense Plan with this budget. Several experts noted that when the recently departed President Bush took office his administration did the same thing. “There just isn’t the time to put together an entire FYDP. The administration is still getting into place,” noted one congressional staffer. The defense spending bill should be ready for markup on May 30. However, Murtha acknowledged this may be pushing things, noting it is “a very ambitious schedule.”
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/01/dual-tanker-buy-could-save-billions-murtha/
Blair, Gates OK Multi-Billion Secret Sats
Blair, Gates OK Multi-Billion Secret Sats
By Colin Clark Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 10:17 am
Posted in Intelligence, Policy, Space
UPDATED: With Confirmation, Explanation by DNI spokeswoman
DNI spokeswoman Vanee Vines confirmed April 2 that the DNI and Defense Secretary approved the “next generation electro-optical satellites.” Vines said the decision was “based on the results of multiple panels and studies conducted over the last several years…” She said the DNI was “working to ensure we can continue to provide deep insights” into world events for the president and military forces, a clear reference to the possibility of a gap in the American eletroc-optical constellation. Vines would not discuss the costs or schedule of the proposed satellite system.
President Barack Obama is expected to approve a new constellation of highly classified multi-billion dollar spy satellites in the next few days, injecting a major new expenditure into the Defense Department budget that was not planned when the administration began its budget deliberations.
The debate between the intelligence community and the military over this system has been particularly sharp. In the words of one Hill source familiar with the issue. “A deep path has been worn between the Pentagon on this one,” the source said.
Gates and Blair signed a classified memo approving the program on March 30, according to two sources familiar with the program. Details of the program are highly classified. A DNI spokesman had not responded by the time we posted this story but may provide details later.
However, we have obtained a few details in the meantime.
The system may cost $3.5 billion to get started, if earlier estimates are accurate. It may cost up to $10 billion, over the next five years depending on which technical approach was approved and on how many satellites will be built.
The Hill source said that the DNI and Pentagon would have great trouble paying for the system. “I don’t think they can come up with enough to pay for two-plus-two,” the source said, refusing to add any details.
This is what led to the decision to approve the new system. Blair commissioned a group, led by Paul Kaminski, former undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and technology, to tell him whether the US faces a capabilities gap as aging satellites die and the US continues to fail to put new ones into orbit. While there is vigorous disagreement within Congress, DoD and the intelligence community as to whether there really be a gap that needs to be filled, the official consensus seems to be that the country cannot afford the risk.
Kaminski and his panel, “basically said, we want everything, a robust constellation,” according to one source familiar with the discussions. In the coded language that the intelligence community uses dealing with people who aren’t cleared, this means that Blair is pushing an “exquisite” solution. And that means it’s a really technologically advanced satellite with big and expensive optics able to deliver the rarest and finest strategic intelligence to the president. “We are asking for the Rolex,” said our source. This source does not believe the country needs what the DNI wants: “We are chasing what we want, rather than what we need.”
A former government official with experience of space programs was sharply critical of the DNI’s approach: “The panel recommendations appear to be another triumph of over-the-top programs that seek performance beyond reasonable need. The costs are astronomical in terms of dollars, risk, and missed opportunities. Though I highly respect the panel members, at some point we should ask ourselves whether it’s wise to rely exclusively on ‘greybeards’ when considering the kind of changes required in this post-Cold War era.
All this echoes comments made recently by Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the country does not need exquisite systems and Cartwright is a major player in the debate about what electro-optical satellites need building. For example, he was present when Gates was briefed.
The Pentagon and DNI will pull money from across all of DoD and the intelligence community. Pentagon funding will not come from the space budget (black or white).
There may be one big flaw in the plan currently being considered: it completely ignores US policy that requires the government use commercial data whenever possible. A senior Defense Department official said the current constellation would not include any commercial satellites or any money to buy commercial data from the two American companies that have satellites in orbit.
DoDBuzz readers have known about this effort from the beginning when we broke the story about the failed effort by the last DNI, Mike McConnell, to try and stuff $3.5 billion into the recently passed financial rescue supplemental. The money would have gone to build at least one of these satellites. Some $300 million of it would have gone to buy commercial data on the side.
In the latest effort, Kaminski and his panel of so-called greybeards have briefed Blair and Gates. Kaminski spoke two weeks ago with the tiny coterie of Hill aides who determine intelligence spending and policy. Apparently, he told them little beyond how the process worked and the broad outlines of his plan. But the Hill aides, who have been very frustrated with the slow pace and uncertain course of both the Pentagon and intelligence community on the electro-optical constellation, reportedly told Kaminski they will support the way ahead as long as somebody actually takes a decision and does something.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/01/blair-gates-ok-multi-billion-secret-sats/
MV-22 Osprey Going To Sea [Gun Question...]
bataan-osprey.jpg
Discussions are underway with regard to the Marines also operating them in Afghanistan as U.S. military forces in that conflict area are increased.
For her coming forward deployment to the Middle East-Indian Ocean area the Bataan will embark the ten Ospreys of (again) VMM-263. The tilt-rotor aircraft will provide increased flexibility over the CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters that are normally deployed in LHA/LHD amphibious ships. The Osprey provides greater range, lift capacity, and speed compared to the helicopters. And, the Osprey can be refueled in flight.
The Bataan will also embark CH-53E Super Stallion heavy-lift helicopters as well as SeaCobra gunships and Huey utility helicopters. Normally these ships also have a detachment of AV-8B Harrier STOVL attack aircraft on board. It is not clear if the Bataan will carry those aircraft.
The Bataan's deployment follows a highly successful deployment of four Air Force CV-22 model Ospreys to North Africa in November 2008 for a multi-national exercise. Based at Hurlburt Field, Florida, those aircraft -- configured for special operations -- were flown overseas with in-flight refuelings. Dubbed Operation Flintlock, the 15-nation exercise in the trans-Sahara region was conducted without any significant problems with the Osprey.
The CV-22s -- from the Air Force's 8th Special Operations Squadron -- flew the 6,000-plus statute miles from Florida to Mali with several stops and with in-flight refuelings from Air Force MC-130 Hercules aircraft.
(Ironically, in 2007 several Air Force CV-22s conducted operations from the Bataan.)
Meanwhile, procurement of the Ospreys is continuing. The current Marine procurement goal is 458 MV-22 aircraft and the Air Force is acquiring 50 CV-22s for special operations (replacing the MH-53J Pave Low helicopter). Interestingly, the V-22 prefixes are erroneous as, according to Department of Defense guidance, the "M" should indicate multipurpose -- and is suitable for the Air Force special operations mission -- while the "C" prefix indicates cargo/transport, more suitable for the Marine's Osprey missions.
Read the rest of Norman's story at Military.com's Warfighters Forum...
[EDITOR'S NOTE: I spoke with a Marine Lt. Col. yesterday at a conference on Afghanistan in Washington who brought up an interesting point I hadn't thought of regarding the Osprey's gun. He's a 53 pilot and mentioned that the BAE Systems "Remote Guardian" gun that's to be retrofitted to the Osprey doesn't have the ability to engage targets while on the ground. I discussed with him the Corps' contention that landing in hot LZs is an anachronism and he argued back that while Corps planners always try to avoid that situation, sometimes you've gotta go in with guns blazing.
That brings up the whole escort problem. Cobras can't keep up with the Osprey if it's truly taking advantage of its speed capabilities, so that injects a whole nother complexity into combat planners' task. I suppose you could use another Remote Guardian-equipped Osprey orbiting the LZ to cover the one dropping off or picking up pax. I'll be interested to see how SOCOM develops TTPs for the Osprey gun.]
-- Christian
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004775.html
U.S. Navy Stands Down For Repairs
April 2, 2009: The U.S. Navy is reducing the number of days ships are at sea by a third, in order to reduce the wear and tear on its ships, and to provide cash and port time for needed maintenance. The problems began with the end of the Cold War in 1991, as the navy has sought to maintain the same high tempo of operations, and even increase it. That meant sending carrier and amphibious task forces out to sea for six month cruises to distant parts of the planet more frequently than before. After September 11, 2001, the tempo of operations increased even more, to support the war on terror.
To support all this on smaller post-Cold War budgets, the navy downsized. In the 1990s, the US Navy decommissioned over 300 ships. In 1990, the navy was still trying to increase warship strength of 600. With the end of the Cold War, and the threat of the huge (but now disintegrating) Soviet fleet, there were suddenly more crises and hot spots the navy felt it had to deal. So while only about a quarter of all ships were at sea during the Cold War, in the 1990s about a third were out there. This put more strain on sailors, as marriages fell apart and sailors got tired of the constant stress of sea duty.
In response, the navy has focused on building new ships that used 50-80 percent fewer sailors. This is not as extreme as it sounds, for commercial ships have been doing this for several decades. But the smaller crews have not arrived yet, because the new ships have proved too expensive to build. Meanwhile, the navy has been putting off doing a lot of ship maintenance, especially stuff that requires replacing lots of parts (like on engines and other mechanical and electrical gear). The result has been more ships failing inspections and having problems while at sea. So the decision to cut days at sea, and catch up on maintenance, makes sense.
In the last two years, the navy has switched from the "six month cruise" concept it used for most of the Cold War, and after, to the "surge" system. This means most ships spend most of their time at their home ports. The ships still go to sea for training, but this lasts a few days, or a week or so. Less time away from the family, and more time to do maintenance in port. And less wear and tear on the ships. Being at sea, even calm seas, wears the ships out.
The navy is also recognizing that, as the largest fleet on the planet (larger than all the others combined, at least in terms of combat power, if not numbers), the navy doesn’t have to be out there as much. The world knows what the USN can do, and won't forget because a carrier task force doesn't come by for a year or so. The navy is also taking advantage of the smart bomb revolution. The GPS guided bombs mean that one carrier aircraft can now do the work of dozens. If you have an emergency somewhere, the smart bombs mean that you only have to send one carrier to take care of it, instead of two or three. With the surge doctrine, additional carriers will be ready to go if you need more help, or there's a problem somewhere else.
The ships most in need of this additional attention are the less publicized ones; the destroyers, cruisers, and smaller warships. The carriers and nuclear subs have always had priority on funds, and it was often at the expense of the other surface warships. Although the navy is still shrinking, the navy wants to make sure all ships that are still in service, can work as well as possible.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20090402.aspx
The Sporting Life
April 2, 2009: In the last decade, the U.S. military has been increasingly looking to the "sports medicine" industry for new techniques and equipment for rehabilitating soldiers injured in combat, or due to accidents. Seems that the this is a good fit. Most injured soldiers are in combat units, where physical fitness is a minor religion. Even combat support troops are required to stay in above average (compared to the general population) physical shape. Moreover, two of the more popular civilian sports (for professionals, schools and the general public) are inclined to create injures (basketball and American football). The sports use very wealthy players, who (along with their teams) can afford extraordinary treatment for injuries. The medical industry has responded by developing new equipment and treatments to deal with this. The military is using that to treat many of their wounded, especially since most of them suffer from blast (roadside and suicide) bomb injuries that cause injuries similar to traumas suffered by the professional athletes.
There has been an explosion of sport medicine technology and technique in the last two decades. So much so, that the military had a hard time ignoring it. That's because, in peacetime, thousands of military personnel suffer serious sports injuries each year. Once the fighting in Iraq picked up, it was only a matter of time before troops in need of physical rehabilitation became familiar with the most recent sports medicine resources available. Sports medicine has also done a lot of work on treating concussions and similar trauma to the brain. This work also became valuable in treating over 10,000 troops suffering some degree of concussion from explosions.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090402.aspx
work has me down in chicago now. i see 5 squad cars parked for every one i see rolling down the street.
BTW, dont drive through downtown chicago unless you have to and know exactly where you are going. i made that mistake today, i was trying to get back to the office. cabbies suck!
i guess people are starting to open their eyes finally
i have never been around anything like that, but the same night i was out with some old friends. one was a SWAT team member and another was an officer from another municipality, both of them doing shots like it was no big deal