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.
Navy Christens Newest Arleigh Burke Class Ship Gravely
In-Depth Coverage
The Navy will christen the newest Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, Gravely, on May 16, during a 10 a.m. CDT ceremony at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss.
The new destroyer honors the late Vice Adm. Samuel L. Gravely Jr. Gravely was born in Richmond, Va., June 4, 1922. After attending Virginia Union University, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve in September 1942. In 1943 he participated in a Navy program (V-12) designed to select and train highly qualified men for commissioning as officers in the Navy. On Dec. 14, 1944, Gravely successfully completed midshipman training, becoming the first African American commissioned as an officer from the Navy Reserve Officer Training Course. He was released from active duty in April 1946, but remained in the Naval Reserve.
Gravely was recalled to active duty in 1949. As part of the Navy's response to President Truman's executive order to desegregate the armed services, his initial assignment was as a Navy recruiter, recruiting African Americans in the Washington, D.C. area. Gravely went on to a Navy career that lasted 38 years and included many distinguished accomplishments.
Gravely was a true pathfinder whose performance and leadership as an African American Naval officer demonstrated to America the value and strength of diversity. Gravely’s accomplishments served as watershed events for today’s Navy. He was the first African American to command a warship (USS Theodore E. Chandler); to command a major warship (USS Jouett); to achieve flag rank and eventually vice admiral; and to command a numbered fleet (Third).
Retired Adm.J. Paul Reason will deliver the ceremony's principal address. Alma Gravely will serve as sponsor of the ship named for her late husband. In accordance with Navy tradition, she will break a bottle of champagne across the ship’s bow and christen the ship.
Designated DDG 107, the 57th Arleigh Burke class destroyer, Gravely will be able to conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime presence and crisis management to sea control and power projection. Gravely will be capable of fighting air, surface and subsurface battles simultaneously and contains a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to support maritime warfare in keeping with “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” the new maritime strategy that postures the sea services to apply maritime power to protect U.S. vital interests in an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.
Cdr. Douglas Kunzman is the prospective commanding officer of the ship and will lead the crew of 276 officers and enlisted personnel. The 9,200-ton Gravely is being built by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding - Gulf Coast in Pascagoula, Miss. The ship is 509 feet in length, has a waterline beam of 59 feet, and a navigational draft of 31 feet. Four gas turbine engines will power the ship to speeds in excess of 30 knots.
The christening ceremony will be streamed from the following site: http://www.sb.northropgrumman.com/events/gravely/
Additional information on Arleigh Burke class destroyers is available online at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=900&ct=4 .
http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=12673
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090514-dod01.htm
Underway at Last!
Varyag.jpg
"China's carrier has gone to sea" was the headline of one Asian newspaper. The event -- the story implied -- marked the long-awaited operational debut of the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag. In reality, the ship got underway with harbor tugs providing the power, moving the ship from a pier in the port of Dalian to a nearby dry dock, a "voyage" of about two miles.
As of this writing, no major work on the ship has been observed since she arrived at Dalian in northeastern China on 3 March 2002. The ship was painted a few years ago, but little other effort has gone into the unfinished giant despite periodic press claims that the carrier was being "clandestinely" completed.
While the ship was being towed to the dry dock on 27 April the Varyag was extensively photographed. Those photos reveal much about the ship: She rode high in the water and, with the lack of "patches" on her flight deck, it is obvious that engines had not been installed in the ship. Her flight deck lacks arresting cables and operational markings, and her island structure is void of the aerials, electronic domes, and radar antennas that inundate aircraft carriers.
The question is: Why has the Varyag moved into a dry dock. A number of reasons are possible for her brief voyage and dry docking. These include:
(1) Completing the carrier -- which was laid down at the Nikolayev South shipyard as the Soviet Riga in the Ukraine in 1985. This would involve the complex task of installing engines and other machinery (assuming that they are now available), auxiliary equipment, messing and berthing facilities, radars and other electronic equipment, etc.
(2) Carrying out general maintenance on the hulk, including cleaning her underwater hull, and taking other measures to simply preserve the Varyag until a definite decision is made concerning her eventual fate.
(3) Permitting naval architects and others to examine the ship's underwater hull, possibly to assist in efforts to design and construct an indigenous Chinese aircraft carrier.
There can be no question but the Chinese Navy's leadership wants to acquire aircraft carriers, primarily to provide air cover for naval operations in the South China Sea, an area of great interest to China because of offshore oil activities. In long-range planning, the Chinese may also be considering their increasing political and economic interests in Africa and South America. However, despite periodic press reports -- some saying that the first Chinese carrier will be completed this year -- there is still no publicly available evidence that construction of such ships has begun in China. Indeed, even commercial satellites would have detected such efforts.
Chinese shipyards, which are producing advanced missile destroyers and nuclear-propelled submarines as well as large merchant ships, can certainly build a large aircraft carrier. Completion of the ship -- which would take probably four years or more from the start of construction -- would have to be followed by a lengthy working up period, with extensive ship and then aircraft trials and qualifications. Thus, with at least a year from the decision to build such a ship until actual construction would start because of the need to order components and materials, if that decision were made today the first Chinese carrier could be ready in about six or seven years.
-- Norman Polmar
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004846.html
Germany Seeks To Ban Paintball
May 17, 2009: German politicians recently tried to outlaw paintball, a sport employing guns that use compressed air to fire 17mm paint balls at other players in contests simulating firefights. Paintball have been around since the 1970s, and there are 500,000 active participants in Germany. Paintball is very popular with American and German military personnel, and the drive to outlaw paintball threatened to cause a diplomatic crises between Germany and the U.S. American troops use paintball for training, as well as entertainment. But that's why many German politicians wanted to outlaw the sport, calling it "immoral" and a "disgrace." The immediate cause of all this outrage was a recent incident where a German teenager stole a gun and killed fifteen people at a school. Politicians also want to ban laser tag. Both the German and U.S. armies uses a version of this as a primary training tool.
Using "guns" that were first developed to enable foresters to mark trees, or cowboys to mark cattle, paintball has developed into a worldwide sport for some 20 million participants. The commercial paintball guns fire their solid gel balls at about 300 feet per second. Injuries from playing paintball are less than any other contact sport, and lower than most non-contact sports that require a lot of running or jumping.
The uproar from German paintball and laser tag enthusiasts (and 300 businesses involved in the two sports), plus the fact that the teenage killer had no connection with either activity, and military (German and American) protests that a ban would interfere with vital training, caused the German parliament to pull back (but not drop) legislation for the proposed ban. There have been attempts elsewhere in the world, to ban paintball. But these efforts are caused by the misuse of paintball guns outside supervised gaming areas. Some paintball enthusiasts will fire their paintballs at people or objects, causing property damage and injuries. In the United States, these paintball gun injuries (mostly outside the organized use in games) has gone from under a thousand a year in the 1990s, to over 3,000 a year now. This has led to paintball being banned locally, usually making it illegal to fire a paintball gun outside a designated, and supervised, playing area. Germany currently has over 200 of these areas, and several dozen are on military bases.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpeace/articles/20090517.aspx
Germany Seeks To Ban Paintball
May 17, 2009: German politicians recently tried to outlaw paintball, a sport employing guns that use compressed air to fire 17mm paint balls at other players in contests simulating firefights. Paintball have been around since the 1970s, and there are 500,000 active participants in Germany. Paintball is very popular with American and German military personnel, and the drive to outlaw paintball threatened to cause a diplomatic crises between Germany and the U.S. American troops use paintball for training, as well as entertainment. But that's why many German politicians wanted to outlaw the sport, calling it "immoral" and a "disgrace." The immediate cause of all this outrage was a recent incident where a German teenager stole a gun and killed fifteen people at a school. Politicians also want to ban laser tag. Both the German and U.S. armies uses a version of this as a primary training tool.
Using "guns" that were first developed to enable foresters to mark trees, or cowboys to mark cattle, paintball has developed into a worldwide sport for some 20 million participants. The commercial paintball guns fire their solid gel balls at about 300 feet per second. Injuries from playing paintball are less than any other contact sport, and lower than most non-contact sports that require a lot of running or jumping.
The uproar from German paintball and laser tag enthusiasts (and 300 businesses involved in the two sports), plus the fact that the teenage killer had no connection with either activity, and military (German and American) protests that a ban would interfere with vital training, caused the German parliament to pull back (but not drop) legislation for the proposed ban. There have been attempts elsewhere in the world, to ban paintball. But these efforts are caused by the misuse of paintball guns outside supervised gaming areas. Some paintball enthusiasts will fire their paintballs at people or objects, causing property damage and injuries. In the United States, these paintball gun injuries (mostly outside the organized use in games) has gone from under a thousand a year in the 1990s, to over 3,000 a year now. This has led to paintball being banned locally, usually making it illegal to fire a paintball gun outside a designated, and supervised, playing area. Germany currently has over 200 of these areas, and several dozen are on military bases.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpeace/articles/20090517.aspx
U.S. Navy Satellites Hijacked
May 17, 2009: Brazil and the U.S. have been arresting people who have been illegally using obsolete, but still functioning, U.S. Navy FLTSATCOM communications satellites. The FLTSATCOM (Fleet Satellite Communications System) were eight communications satellites launched between 1978-89. Two of the launches failed, and FLTSATCOM was replaced by the UFO in the 1990s. Although the FLTSATCOM birds were built to last for seven years, two of them are still operational twenty years later.
As the navy stopped using FLTSATCOM in the late 1990s (shifting over to the more efficient UFO satellites), ham radio users in Brazil discovered that the FLTSATCOM satellites had no security on them. If you knew the frequency and had a satellite dish, you could send a signal to the FLTSATCOM satellite, that would then automatically be rebroadcast by the satellite over a wide area below. While the navy sent encrypted messages (which sound like static, for anyone picking it up below on ham radio gear), the Brazilians found that they could simply use FLTSATCOM to communicate over a wide area (the interior of the country) that lacked telephones. FLTSATCOM birds had multiple transponders, making several simultaneous conversations possible. There was no security because, back in the 1970s,the remote possibility of homemade satellite dishes using FLTSATCOM, did not seem to warrant the additional hassle of adding passwords to transmit from the satellites.
Hijacking FLTSATCOM transponders did not happen in the U.S., or most other countries, because illegal users could easily be found by the police, arrested and punished. One Brazilian migrant in the United States used a FLTSATCOM satellite, was caught, and fined $20,000. But in Brazil, for years, the government ignored the illegal FLTSATCOM users, and the U.S. Navy didn't notice it because they were rarely using the FLTSATCOM birds, as the newer (and more powerful) UFO satellites were preferred. But eventually, the U.S. Navy did find out. Since the two FLTSATCOM satellites still operational are still U.S. government property, and their communications capabilities, no matter how limited, were considered available for emergencies, the U.S. asked Brazil to enforce laws about illegal satellite use. The publicity from this will probably cause ham radio (and electronics) enthusiasts in many countries to risk a visit from the Space Police, and try communicating via one of the FLTSATCOM birds.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20090517.aspx
A Segway Solution
May 17, 2009: For the last four years, a charity, Segs4Vets has raised money and bought, so far, 340 Segway personal transporters for U.S. veterans who lost legs or suffered spinal injuries. There are several thousand of these veterans, and the Segway is preferred, to a wheelchair, for getting around. Even vets who can be fitted with prosthesis (artificial limbs), prefer the stand-up Segway for getting about. That's because it takes additional effort to move using prosthesis, especially if you are using two of them.
The Segways cost about $5,000 each, after a discount. Segs4Vets had to get a waiver so that they could make a charitable contribution of more than a thousand dollars to a veteran.
More information can be found at
segs4vets.com and
www.draft.org/Segs4Vets/tabid/54/Default.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090517.aspx
i would agree entirely. way to many laws and every drug out there is cheaper now than 10 years ago.
but than doing something like building a fence across our border to stop the dumber criminals and illegals would make to much sense.
i know they recently started building the fence in the Az area
Pakistan Puzzles
May 16, 2009: While the U.S. can take Pakistan’s repeated protests over UAV attacks, against Taliban/al Qaeda targets, as a pro forma sop to nationalist sensibilities, the Americans take more seriously Pakistani claims that they will resist any American incursions on the ground. A UAV is much less of an intrusion than troops. This has led to the suggestion that if enough Afghans could be trained to handle special operations, they could probably operate in the border regions with minimal negative reaction from the Pakistanis. There are already some Afghan inel operatives working both sides of the border, to help with running the informant network. There is a growing effort to develop an Afghan SpecOps capability, which officially meant to go after domestic threats (Taliban and al Qaeda). But once there are a lot of Afghan operators, there will be a temptation to let them wander across the border.
Given Pakistan’s recent offensive in the Swat valley, and elsewhere, it seems likely they’re working with U.S. intel people. This is a very tricky business, given the ties ISI (Pakistani intel) has to some Islamist groups. But the United States has been working around ISI interference for decades, and the success of the Swat operation, and the hunt for terrorist leaders, appears to bear this out.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090516.aspx
russia cant win a war against anyone bordering them in the artic, because we are allies with most of them. and those we arent allies with are the neutral countries which i think we would defend any how. and they have a treaty amongst themselves and have a decent military to defend themselves with
Thanks For The Memory
May 16, 2009: Spies love computers. Many secrets are stored on computers, and these secrets prove far harder to guard than their owners imagine. Even if owners prevent hackers from grabbing secrets, there are other opportunities, once the computer is replaced by a more powerful model. While everyone in the secrets business knows that you have to erase hard drives that are taken out of service, it isn't always done. This is more often the case with defense contractors, than with military or government operations, who often physically destroy the retired hard drive. Contractors, however, usually have a policy of erasing (in theory), surplus hard drives, then selling them off.
Recently, security researchers bought 300 used hard drives as auctions (of used officer equipment), on eBay and at computer flea markets. One of those hard drives contained all manner of classified information on the American THAAD (Theatre High-Altitude Area Defence) missile system. This included information on employees and even blueprints for contractor facilities.
An even bigger problem are USB memory sticks, which are often lost, and found by anyone who happens by. Counter-intelligence officials, whose job it is to prevent secrets from being stolen, are not happy with memory sticks, which have basically replaced 3.5 inch floppy disk and rewritable CDs as the favored way of carrying around computer information.
These devices are small, and easily misplaced, or stolen. In Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq, cleaning and maintenance staff, have a an annoying tendency to steal whatever they can get away with. For security reasons, many of the cleaning personnel in Iraq are imported non-Iraqis. These people are less likely to steal, not just because they have a harder time fencing the stuff, but because they can lose a good job, and be shipped home, if they get caught. In Afghanistan, hiring locals is less of a security risk, and there it has been discovered that memory sticks are very popular items to steal. Some of these devices are as small as a finger, and easy to conceal. Out on the street, some of them can bring five or ten bucks to the thief. That's real money in Afghanistan, where a good monthly salary is a hundred dollars.
The memory sticks generally hold 1-8 gigabytes (billion bytes) of data. These items plug into most PCs and laptops, and instantly become another hard drive (as far as the computer is concerned.) Troops like them because they can quickly put all the data they need for a mission on a memory stick. The memory sticks are cheap, often under twenty dollars each. The troops leave a lot of them lying about, and many of these get swept up by the friendly Afghan cleaning guys. When the purloined memory sticks show up in the market place, their contents, sometimes including classified data, are usually erased, to make way for the new users stuff. But, for a counter-intelligence officer, the vulnerability is obvious. The nightmare scenario is a journalist getting possession of one of these stolen memory sticks. The resulting story would feature as many damaging secrets as possible.
But it gets worse. As it turns out, these "Memory Sticks" fit nicely on the dog tag chain. Troops keep their email from home, digital pictures and all manner of stuff on these small devices. Some officers have tied to forbid the practice, as you are not supposed to take such documents with you into a combat zone (lest you be captured and the data prove useful to the enemy.) But the troops still carry the memory sticks around with them.
For official use, the military is beginning to issue encrypted (and more expensive) memory sticks. But there's still the growing risk of classified data getting on to an unencrypted device. Every new technology brings with it new risks, and this is a perfect example. But there are also opportunities, as the terrorists also like to schlep data around on memory sticks. It takes time to find the useful secrets, though, as you first have to plow through all the porn and MP3 files.
The army finally ordered that no memory sticks be used in military networks. No so much to prevent secrets from getting out, but to stop hacker software from getting in. Hackers have developed programs that secretly copy themselves to memory sticks, and then into any computer they are plugged into. That was the final straw, but it still does not prevent someone from not erasing, or destroying, a hard drive that was taken out of service.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090516.aspx
More Chinese Spies In America
May 15, 2009: The U.S. is prosecuting a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, James Wilbur Fondren, Jr., for acting as a spy for China. Fondren is accused of conspiring to pass classified information to an agent of the Chinese government. Fondren retired in 1996, and in 1998 began working for a Taiwanese citizen, Tai Shen Kuo, who had business interests in Taiwan and China. In 2001, Fondren went to work in the Pentagon, and gained access to much classified material.
American intelligence agents found that Kuo had been paid at least $50,000 by the Chinese government, to collect information from his American contacts. Fondern was aware of this, and also communicated with Chinese officials. China told Kuo to convince Fondern that he was actually stealing American secrets for the Taiwanese. This is a common ploy the Chinese have used many times.
Between 2001-8, Fondern supplied Kuo with Pentagon documents, being paid $350-800 for each of them. Some of these documents contained classified information. Kuo was arrested by the FBI in 2008, for his work in obtaining information from another American contact, Gregg William Bergersen, who was also arrested, and later convicted and sentenced to 57 months in jail. An associate of Kuo, Yu Xin Kang, was also arrested and confessed to his activities.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090515.aspx
Iraqi Terrorists Are Safe In Denmark
May 14, 2009: Danish intelligence officials have identified several Iraqi migrants as having participated in terrorist activities. Most notably, the Iraqis have run a recruiting and transportation network that identified Moslems in Europe and North Africa who were willing to carry out terrorist attacks in Iraq, and supplied them with transportation, via Syria, to terrorist groups in Iraq. The Danish intel people worked with their counterparts in Germany, Morocco and other countries, to identify the Iraqi migrants (particularly Amer Saeed) who were running this network from Denmark.
The Danish government attempted to deport the Iraqis back to Iraq (on the grounds that their pro-terrorist beliefs made them unfit to enjoy asylum in Denmark). The deportation was blocked by lawyers pleading that the Iraqi terrorists would be at risk of mistreatment by Iraqi police interrogators, or murder at hands of families of those killed by Islamic terrorists the Danish Iraqis helped get into Iraq. Thus, on humanitarian grounds, the Iraqi terrorists continue to live in Denmark.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090514.aspx
this is a very interesting link. its a long read
http://www.combatreform2.com/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm
Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) ‘Kill Weapon’ Flummoxes U.S. Navy
By David Crane
defrev at gmail dot com
April 6, 2009
I’ve been writing about the vulnerability of U.S. Navy surface ships, particularly large expensive aircraft carriers, against other countries’ anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes for awhile, now. Specifically, I’ve focused on the latest crop of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and supercavitating torpedoes, even though some argue that long-range wake-homing torpedos pose a greater threat to our warships than the supercavitating variety.
Well, that debate may be a moot point due to China’s development of an advanced long-range anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) "kill weapon" that can reportedly target, track, and destroy U.S. surface ships, including aircraft carriers, in a single strike without being nuclear tipped, due to its size. This makes the ASBM "kill weapon" the…
first ballistic misssile to be successfully developed specifically to attack surface ships. According to a U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) report, the missile has range of 2000 kilometers (2000km) (approximately 1,240 miles) and can reach an aircraft carrier or any other surface ship within 12 minutes at that range.
USNI also reports that the Chinese ASBM "kill weapon" employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature (i.e. low-observability, or "stealth" aspects), and "maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, and thus better able to evade tracking and interception.
The news of this new ship-killing weapon has, according to USNI, caused "panic inside the [U.S. Navy leadership] bubble", causing a major sea change (excuse the pun) in U.S. Navy focus strategy away from an emphasis on littoral combat ships designed to operate in shallow water near coastlines and toward improving the capabilities of deap-sea war ships and "developing anti-ballistic defenses". The U.S. Navy’s reaction to the Chinese ASBM threat leads the USNI believe it’s legitimate.
At this moment in time, DefenseReview isn’t aware of any viable U.S. ship-borne defense system that can effectively deal with the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile. If one of our readers is aware of one, please don’t hesitate to contact us. If the U.S. Navy indeed doesn’t have a viable defense agains the Chinese ASBM, the first three obvious questions are "why not", "how long will it take to develop one", and "how much will it cost". Defense Review doesn’t doubt for a second that we can do it, it’s just a question of "how long" and "how much".
However, instead of just spending a ton money on really expensive surface-ship defense systems, perhaps it’s time to explore the idea of submarine aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy, as well as submarine destroyers and cruisers, if possible. Combat Reform has an interesting page on this concept. A mostly submarine (or, at least, sub-surface) force with submarine aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers would provide an organic passive defense system against wake-homing and supercavitating torpedoes and anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles. If you want to add non-organic active anti-torpedo and anti-missile defense systems the submarine ships, that’s fine. At least you’re not starting with huge, expensive, slow-moving above-the-surface targets that are easy to hit and difficult and costly to protect.
Remember, low-observability, or "stealth", is its own protection and doesn’t require an entire fleet of other ships with sophisticated defense hardware to protect you from ballistic threats. If the enemy can’t see you, he can’t hit you.
A submarine aircraft carrier fleet coud conceivably use the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft to great effect, assuming the F-35B STOVL JSF works as advertised. If the ships can employ launch ramps, perhaps they could also carry and deploy two-seat A-10 Thunderbolt II "Sea Hogs" (OA-10B-type) for augmented ship defense, including anti-submarine a.k.a. sub-hunting operations.
http://www.defensereview.com/chinese-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-kill-weapon-flummoxes-us-navy/
CNN’s Rick Sanchez Attacks Fox News and Calls American Gun Buyers/Purchasers “Alarmists”.
none of the links in the article will work, you will have to go to the link provided to use any of them
By David Crane
defrev at gmail dot com
April 10, 2009
DefenseReview received an interesting CNN video clip (link below) yesterday from the good folks at the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), yesterday, showing SAF president Alan Gottlieb (Alan M. Gottlieb) going up against the combined brain trust–and we use that term loosely–of CNN news anchor/commentator/newly-appointed hatchet man Rick Sanchez and Media Matters’ “Senior Fellow” (whatever that means) Eric Boehlert, after Mr. Sanchez went on a rather lengthy vitriolic and downright hostile diatribe against Fox News Channel (FNC) and Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Mr. Sanchez accused the Fox News, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Hannity of “garden-variety fear and hate mongering night-in and night-out” and at least partially causing the recent spate of active-shooter a.k.a. “mass shooting” a.k.a. spree-killer situations by “stirring the pot” and making people “apoplectic” and causing them to “scarf up guns and ammunition at an alarming rate.” Uh, quick question there, Rick? What constitutes an alarming rate? What’s an acceptable rate, in your opinion? I ask you this just in case all 57 of your viewers are interested.
Sanchez actually called all the law-abiding American citizens who are currently purchasing firearms and ammunition as an insurance policy against potential new gun control laws, civil unrest, and encroaching socialism “alarmists”, as if these gun buyers don’t actually have a legitimate reason to be alarmed by the Obama administration’s and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent pro-gun-control/anti-Second-Amendment statements and economic policies, which do seem just a wee bit socialistic. He also took umbrage at Sean Hannity calling, according to Sanchez, “the nation’s first minority…minority [racism strongly implied, here, by Sanchez] President”, Barack Obama, a socialist, as if President Obama has never exhibited any socialist tendencies and Mr. Hannity is the only news commentator/political analyst to do so. Really, Mr. Sanchez? I mean, really. Wow.
The CNN video clip was simultaneously disturbing and entertaining. Let’s start with the disturbing part: It was disturbing because as Mr. Sanchez went ass-over-teakettle off the journalistic rails, he made seemingly self-delusional or ignorant (at best) and possibly deliberately deceitful (at worst) statements about the supposed lack of evidence of President Obama’s rather obvious hostility toward the Second Amendment–both its purpose and spirit–even though Mr. Obama’s hostility against the Second Amendment and private firearms ownership is well-evidenced and documented by his entire legislative record and by very public multiple statements made recently by his Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder (Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.), who just weeks ago attempted to use the Mexican drug war as an excuse to push a new PERMANENT “assault weapons” ban (more accurately a tactical/defensive firearms ban, specifically a tactical/defensive rifle/carbine ban) and other gun control laws against law-abiding U.S. citizens (see video clip links below).
Mr. Sanchez’s own network, CNN, has actually reported on some of Mr. Holder’s recent pro-gun-control statements! So, Mr. Sanchez A) wasn’t cognizant of it, B) was in denial of it, or C) was being outright deceitful to his viewers. Logic dictates that it simply has to be one of those three, because I refuse to believe that Mr. Sanchez is abjectly stupid.
Understand that the only way Mr. Holder could make these statements about banning tactical/defensive firearms–or what he and President Obama call “assault weapons”–and pushing for other gun control laws is if he got the go-ahead, i.e. express permission and/or direction, by his boss, President Obama, to do so. The president had to have given Mr. Holder permission and/or direction to “test the waters” by floating the idea of permanently reinstating a tactical/defensive firearm ban–one that had no provable positive anti-crime effect the first time around–in front of the American public, the excuse being that it will somehow help to solve a foreign country’s (Mexico’s) lawlessness and corruption.
Even if Mr. Holder can prove that the majority of the Mexican drug cartel’s firearms were purchased in U.S. gun stores, which he’s so far been unable to do, it’s irrelevant. He can’t infringe on the American people’s right to arm themselves with tactical firearms designed specifically for fighting, since military-grade tactical firearms are specifically what the Second Amendment was designed to protect. After-all, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the free law-abiding citizens of the United States have access to small arms that are commensurate technologically and and capability-wise with what agents of the government, i.e. U.S. military infantrymen and law enforcement personnel, have at their respective disposals, so said citizens can effectively fight said agents of the government, if and when that government becomes tyrannical. That’s the citizenry’s ultimate and final check and balance against the government. The bottom line is that the Second Amendment was written and put into the Bill of Rights in order to protect the right of the people to own and keep tactical firearms designed specifically for fighting other human beings. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sporting firearms.
Even if the guns flowing into Mexico are indeed U.S.-sold (civilian) semi-auto tactical firearms as Mr. Holder and the Mexican government contend, then that’s all the more reason to properly secure the U.S./Mexican border from both sides using high-tech surveillance equipment, fences, walls, border security personnel, military personnel, and whatever else the U.S. and Mexican governments can devise. They just can’t legally inhibit the availability of tactical firearms and/or ammunition to the citizens of the United States. Any law that infringes on our ability to obtain military-grade tactical firearms (the type of firearms that are necessary for an armed citizenry to be able to effectively fight against a tyrannical government’s armed military and police forces) and/or ammunition is, by definition, in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and thus violates the Constitution. Period. Now, if President Obama and AG Holder want to try to repeal the Second Amendment, well then…oh yeah, that’s right, the Second Amendment merely inumerates and guarantees us in writing our God-given right to bear arms, it doesn’t grant it. So, even if the Obama administration and the Democrat Congressional leadership were to somehow manage to repeal it, said God-given right wouldn’t cease to exist. It would still be there.
Oh, and here’s a question: Why is Mexico’s murder rate so much higher than ours, when guns are much more plentiful and available here in the U.S. than in Mexico? Could it be a double-whammy social problem/law enforcement problem down there rather than a U.S. civilian gun problem, perhaps? I mean, if it’s a gun-availability problem, shouldn’t the murder rate be significantly higher here in the U.S., rather than the other way around, since it’s so much easier for U.S. residents to obtain firearms?
Eric Holder’s Anti-Second-Amendment / Pro-Gun-Control / Pro-Gun-Ban Public Statements (Video Clips):
Attorney General: Obama to Seek Assault Weapons Ban (Google Video)
cnn - lou dobbs: - gun ban plan dropped (YouTube Video)
Eric Holder Proposes Assault Weapons Ban (YouTube Video)
Eric Holder: Make Assault Weapons Ban Permanent (Disclose.tv Video)
Fortunately, after AG Holder made his latest public statement about the Obama administration’s desire to reinstitute the “assault weapons” ban permanently and pass additional gun control laws as well, 65 Democrat congressmen immediately came to the defense of the 2nd Amendment (and thus freedom) and voiced their opposition to President Obama and AG Holder in an open letter, basically urging the Obama administration through Mr. Holder to cease and desist its efforts to disarm law-abiding American citizens posthaste. And, the amazing thing is, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were intelligent enough politically to back them (the 65 Democrat congressmen) up! Pelosi stated that we should concentrate on enforcing the laws that are currently on the books rather than pass a new tactical firearm ban or other gun control laws, even though Ms. Pelosi is still pushing for firearm registration a.k.a. gun registration, which is historically proven to be the primary step toward total firearm confiscation and ultimately tyranny and mass murder (and torture), each time, every time, throughout history.
Now for the entertaining part of the video clip, courtesy of the aforementioned Mr. Gottlieb, who used his factual and historical knowledge, intelligence, and quick wit to very effectively counterpunch and beat Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Boehlert in their own venue: Gottlieb brought up Obama’s legislative record of voting for gun control laws and against private firearms ownership, Eric Holder’s recent public statements, and a recent Pew Research Center survey concluding that President Obama is the most polarizing U.S. president in the modern era. He also effectively dispelled Mr. Boehlert’s characterizing all the law-abiding citizens currently purchasing firearms as a safeguard against future gun-control legislation and an increasingly socialist state as being part of a “militia movement”. He reminded Mr. Beohlert that there are currently approximately 90 million law-abiding gun owners in this country.
However, the highlight of the interview/debate came at the very end, when Gottlieb quickly and deftly turned Sanchez’s own argument about news networks sewing discontent and fear among the proletariat (by constantly attacking politicians and their agendas) around on him by pointing to CNN’s and MSNBC’s constant attacks on President Bush (President George W. Bush, 43) and his policies while he was in office. In other words, he nailed CNN and MSNBC for doing against Bush the very thing that Sanchez was now accusing Fox News of doing. And, the kicker is, Gottlieb effectively got in the last word by getting lucky with the timing of the segment, since Sanchez had to end it and cut to a commercial almost as soon as Gottlieb stopped talking. This didn’t leave Sanchez enough time to think up an effective retort to Gottlieb’s last punch at CNN and MSNBC, so Sanchez ended up ceding the point to Gottlieb, saying “Aw’right, well, we’ll leave it at that, I suppose that’s fair…” It was a true thing of beauty, and you have to watch it to fully appreciate it.
So, here’s the Rick Sanchez vs. Alan Gottlieb debate video that all the fuss is about:
CNN Rick Sanchez ‘SLAMS’ FOX News’s Gun Fear Mongering (YouTube Video)
Score one for the American people. Thank you, Mr. Gottlieb. You’re a true patriot.
Editor’s Note on What Gun Control is Really About (and What the Government Won’t Tell You): “Gun control” laws are really people control laws, since they’re used to control us, the people, not guns. When the Government (any government) says it wants to control what firearms you own, or keep you from owning certain types of firearms, or keep you from owning firearms altogether, what it’s really saying is that it doesn’t trust you, the individual (law-abiding) citizen, with these dangerous weapons (dangerous to them), so you need to be controlled. The Government is basically saying: “Think of yourself as a dangerous, impetuous child that’s not adequately equipped to be able to own and keep these dangerous weapons intelligently and responsibly. Only we the Government, the parent in this relationship, can be trusted with them, because we, unlike you, are all those things you are not. Unlike you, we are mature adults. We have more experience and possess greater intelligence than you. We are more just, more trustworthy, and more responsible than you are…because we’re the Government. And, quite frankly, we really don’t want to have to worry about all of you, our citizens, our dangerous, impetuous children, being armed and therefore capable of fighting and resisting us if and when we need to control you. We don’t want to have to worry about you resisting and overthrowing us if and when we need to dominate and/or subjugate you for your own good. After all, we’re the Government, and we know what’s best for you.”
Now, once the Government has disarmed you, criminals will of course still be armed to the teeth with illegal firearms, so they will be able to predate on you (i.e. attack and feed on you) much more easily, since you, the law abiding citizen, won’t have any firearms with which to fight back against them. This works out quite well for the government, who rather than actually caring about what happens to you, just wants to control you, remember? Now that you’re disarmed, they know you will have to run to them and rely on them to “protect you” against all those big, mean and highly-armed criminals, right? So, the Government will respond, at your request, by putting more and more police and security/surveillance cameras on the streets “to protect you” from the baddies (but really to watch and control you), creating more and more of a police state, until you’re living in either your very own version of a George Orwell novel (worst case scenario), or England (best case scenario), the latter becoming more Orwellian with every passing year.
So, you, the law-abiding citizen, get hit with the double-whammy one-two punch combo of increasing governmental domination/oppression and criminal predation. Pretty diabolical and insidious, huh?
http://www.defensereview.com/cnns-rick-sanchez-attacks-fox-news-the-second-amendment-and-law-abiding-gun-purchasers/
Manpackable Laser Weapons on the Way for U.S. Military’s Future Soldiers?
By David Crane
defrev at gmail dot com
March 31, 2009
There’s a scene towards the end of the movie Congo (1995) where Laura Linney’s character, Dr. Karen Ross, slices through an attack force of homicidal and generally-disagreeable grey gorillas with a diamond-based portable laser weapon like a Ginsu knife through a ripe tomato. It’s scenes like this that excite the minds of U.S. military/DoD (Department of Defense) weapons developers, and encourage them to make them a reality. But lightweight, manpackable solid-state weapons-grade lasers a.k.a. weaponized lasers a.k.a. laser weapons have so far been relegated to the realms of science fiction and entertainment, but thanks to companies like Northrop Grumman and Boeing, they very well may become a reality in our lifetimes.
It’s being reported that Northrop Grumman has successfully developed a seven-laser-chain 105.5 kW solid-state laser called “Firestrike” that’s scalable up to 120 kW by adding an eigth chain. Firestrike’s scalable “building-block” approach was apparently the…
answer to the long-sought weapon-level power question.
The Firestrike high-power laser, a product of the Joint High Power Solid State Laser (JHPSSL) program, was tested at five minutes of of continuous operation, and has been operated for a total duration of 85+ minutes to date. During the 5-minute test, the laser achieved electro-optical efficiency of 19.3 percent (19.3%), and reached full power in less than 0.6 seconds. Beam quality was better than 3.0.
So, how does it work? Here’s how Noah Shachtman of Wired Blog Network “Danger Room” fame explains it in his article Military Laser Hits Battlefield Strength (grammar-corrected):
In its lab, south of Los Angeles, Northrop combines 32 garnet crystal “modules” into “laser amplifier chains.” Shine light-emitting diodes into ‘em, and they start the laser chain-reaction, shooting out as much as 15 kilowatts of focused light. Combine all those beams into one, and you’ve got yourself a battlefield-strength ray.
While a 100-kilowatt (100kW) laser may have been the “proof of principle” sought for weapons-grade laser systems by DoD officials, a Northrop representative asserts that a 25-50kW laser has military utility, or as he/she puts it, is capable of “militarily useful effects, provided the laser has good beam quality, as Northrop’s system does.
But, don’t start counting your sliced, diced, and fricasseed enemy combatants just yet. Mr. Shachtman offers up this little nugget of celebration-mitigating buzzkill, er, caveat:
Does that mean energy weapons are a done deal? Hardly. There are still all sorts of technical issues–like thermal management and miniaturization, for instance, just to name two–that have to be handled first. Then, the ray gunners have to find the money. The National Academies figure it’ll take another $100 million to get battlefield lasers right.
And, in the current economic climate, and with an anti-defense-spending White House, that $100 million might not be all that easy to come up with in a timely fashion. Then again, next to the gargantuan dollar numbers of Obama’s mega-billion-dollar “stimulus” packages, $100 million does seem like a rather piddling sum for next-generation, paradigm-shift-level weapons tech. And, it’s green (we think), which Obama should like.
DefenseReview is curious as to what the battery power solution will be. Adequate battery power has been a constant thorn in the side of all future soldier/warfighter-type R&D programs to date.
By the way, as we briefly alluded-to above, Boeing is reported to have used a ground-based “kilowatt-class” solid-state laser called “Laser Avenger” to shoot down a UAS/UAV (Unmanned Aircraft System/Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier this year. Previously, Laser Avenger’s primary claim to fame was as an IED (Improvised Explosive Device)/unexploded munitions neutralizer.
But, getting back to manpackable weaponized lasers, it will be interesting to see if they pass Hague, who’s perameters/restrictions the U.S. seems intent on following, even though we never signed on and we’re currently fighting a subnational conflict against an enemy with no flag or uniforms. It’s DefenseReview’s opinion that if we ever achieve truly manpackable 100kw+ lasers, the deterrent value alone is worth fielding them, let alone the warfighter-survability aspects.
http://www.defensereview.com/manpackable-laser-weapons-on-the-way-for-us-militarys-future-soldiers/
One Huge Footprint
May 12, 2009: Because of the success of the GPS version of the U.S. MLRS rocket, the smaller, truck mounted MLRS (HIMARS) rocket launcher system has become more popular. HIMARS carriers only one six rocket container (instead of two in the MLRS), but the 12 ton truck can fit into a C-130 transport (unlike the 22 ton tracked MLRS) and is much cheaper to operate. The 680 pound GMLRS (guided multiple launch rocket system) missile is as GPS guided 227mm rocket that entered service five years ago. It was designed to have a range of 70 kilometers and the ability to land within meters of its intended target, at any range. This is possible because it uses GPS (plus a back up inertial guidance system) to find its target. Last year, the U.S. Army tested GMLRS at max range (about 85 kilometers) and found that it worked fine. This enables one HIMARS vehicle to provide support over a frontage of 170 kilometers, or, in places like Afghanistan, where the fighting can be anywhere, an area of over 5,500 square kilometers. This is a huge footprint for a single weapon (an individual HIMARS vehicle), and fundamentally changes the way you deploy artillery in combat.
The first of the HIMARS vehicles were issued to American combat units five years ago. The U.S. Army is using most of the 900 HIMARS vehicles ordered, with the marines getting the rest. There are also several export customers.
The U.S. Army is buying 100,000 GMLRS, most of them fitted with a 196 pound high explosive warhead. These have been used with great success in Iraq and Afghanistan, where nearly a thousand have been used so far. The guided rocket is much more effective than the older, unguided, version, and is replacing it in most cases. No more of the unguided rockets are being purchased by the U.S.. The accuracy of GMLRS means that one rocket does the job that previously required a dozen or more of the unguided ones. That's why HIMARS is so popular. While it only carries six rockets, that's often enough to last for days, even when there's a lot of combat.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20090512.aspx
Islamic Terrorists Rap The Recruiting Message
May 12, 2009: Islamic terrorists, who largely recruit from among the young, and poorly educated, have been successful in using the same aspects of Western culture they deplore (video, music and dancing, if you count guys with guns bouncing around) to fuel their propaganda efforts. Recent examples can be seen in Somalia, where an American recruit, Abu Mansour al Amriki is producing videos that seem modeled on MTV. While popular in Somalia, these videos are mainly seeking to recruit more Westerners, and young Moslems living in the West.
The terrorists want the Westerners because they are better educated (or at least literate), and thus more useful as trainers and propagandists. Knowledge of computers is a big plus, because al Qaeda has had a hard time getting people with these skills. These recruiting efforts have been successful, bringing in thousands of recruits to Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia. Rap music is particularly suited to extolling the benefits of a Jihadi lifestyle.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090512.aspx
hopefully the pakistani govt allows our special forces to assist them in containing those bastards. uavs can only do so much
Guarding The Internet
May 9, 2009: The U.S. Navy has found its place in defending the Internet; underwater. That's where most of the planets Internet traffic spends most of its time, as it travels from continent to continent via fiber-optic cables. The navy proposes to undertake more aggressive operations to prevent terrorists, or hostile nations, from trying to cut these cables.
American submariners need all the work they can get, especially since they are fighting hard to get money to replace their rapidly ageing boats. It’s an uphill fight. Submarines haven’t been used much in combat for over sixty years. That means they have not had a chance to prove how useful submarines can be.
Four years ago, the navy began admitting to missions that were long known, but not admitted. There were the Cold War missions to tap into Russian undersea communications cables. For all we know, American subs are still doing this. It's not the sort of thing you admit to.
The U.S. navy has built up a lot of experience, and specialized (and often still secret) equipment for these missions. What the navy now proposes is to use some of this knowledge to help guard these fiber-optic cable networks. The navy has a lot of specialized equipment for this. In addition to the "spy submarines" (including the Jimmy Carter, a Seawolf class boat built specifically for these missions), there was (and still is, to a certain extent) the undersea passive sonar system. During the Cold War, there were several networks of these underwater listening devices, which could detect ships and subs over a thousand kilometers away. The U.S. still maintains a lead in that kind of technology, as well as other techniques for tracking underwater traffic.
While it's possible for a hostile party to cut underwater data cables, it's even more likely to happen by accident. There have been several cables cut by ship anchors in the last few years. It's very easy for this to happen. Then there are natural disasters (undersea landslides and earthquakes). While the navy can't do much about accidents, they do (in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard) keep track of a lot of the merchant and military ships on the world's oceans. If the navy has a plan for Internet defense at sea, much of it will involve black (secret) projects. So you won't hear much about it until it's all over.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090509.aspx
he should get the death penalty, by firing squad
U.S. Buys Su-27s
May 11, 2009: The U.S. has purchased two Su-27 fighters from Ukraine. They were delivered in a Ukrainian An-124 transport. The Su-27s will be used to help train American pilots to cope with the growing number of Su-27 and Su-30 fighters being sold to air forces the world over. The two Su-27s will also be used to test the effectiveness of new U.S. radars and electronic warfare equipment.
Russia's Sukhoi aircraft company has sold over a billion dollars worth of these aircraft (plus components and technical services for them) a year for the last few years. Sukhoi mainly supplies Su-27/30 jet fighters to India, China, Malaysia, Venezuela and Algeria. The 33 ton Su27 is similar to the U.S. F-15, but costs over a third less.
Developed near the end of the Cold War, the aircraft is one of the best fighters Russia has ever produced. The government helped keep Sukhoi alive during the 1990s, and even supplied money for development of an improved version of the Su-27, which was called the Su-30. This proved to be an outstanding aircraft, and is the main one Sukhoi produces. There are now several Su-30 variants, and major upgrades. While only about 700 Su-27s were produced (mostly between 1984, when it entered service, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991), adding Su-30 production and you have over 1,000 aircraft (including license built ones in China and India).
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090511.aspx
A Tomahawk That Can Hunt You Down
May 9, 2009: The latest version of U.S. Tomahawk (BGM-109 Block 4) missile, is getting upgraded so that it can hit moving targets. This is mainly intended to turn the Tomahawk into an anti-ship missile, although it can also hit moving land targets. Currently, the Block 4 costs about $1.7 million each, weighs 1.4 tons, has a range of 1,500 kilometers and carries a half ton warhead. It moves to its target at a speed of 880 kilometers an hour. Since production began four years ago, 1,300 have been made since. The Tomahawk was introduced 26 years ago, and over 6,000 have been manufactured. The U.S. Navy has fired over 1,900 in combat and training.
The United States is developing a successor to the Tomahawk cruise missile, that will be heavier (2.2 tons, versus 1.4 tons), have a longer range (2,000 kilometers versus 1,500) and a one ton warhead (twice the size of the Tomahawks.) The new missile will be stealthier, and use a combination of guidance and targeting systems (to improve the chances of success). Price will probably be the key factor in whether this new missile ever enters service. The new Cruise Missile XR (for Extended Range) will probably cost twice that, or more. The cruise missile, when it showed up in the 1980s, was one of the first UAVs, it just wasn't reusable. But UAVs that carry bombs and missiles, and can be reused, are going to provide competition for a new, $3 million, Cruise Missile XR.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090509.aspx
The British Army Puts On A Show
May 9, 2009: Britain has spent $20 million to build a replica of two Afghan towns, and staffed it with Afghans and retired Gurkhas who respond to soldiers as Afghans would. British soldiers headed for Afghanistan will undergo realistic training in this portion of the Stanford Training Area. The U.S. pioneered this type of training, and several training centers like this.
For example, the U.S. Army's JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Center) at Fort Polk, Louisiana can put a brigade through a month of realistic conventional warfare training at JRTC for about $2 million. But it costs $9 million to run the same brigade through a month of peacekeeping training (for Iraq or Afghanistan.) The major additional cost is payroll. Over 800 civilians, including either Afghan or Iraqi-Americans, are brought in and trained how to act as civilians, aid workers, reporters and so on. In effect, the troops get to play parts in a very realistic simulation of what the trainees are going to face, for real, in a few months. About two hundred veterans of those battle zones dress, and play, the part of the various bad guys. All this is supervised by troops and civilians who run the JRTC. Thousands of man hours go into setting the scene and writing the script. Unlike a movie, however, there can be many endings to this adventure. The trainees have many, very realistic, opportunities, to make mistakes. Thus the debriefings are one of the most important parts of the exercise. The trainee commanders are given a blunt assessment of their performance. If they didn't make some mistakes, they are reminded of that, and asked if this was just luck, or that they knew what they were doing. For mistakes, the correct solutions are provided.
For the troops, the JRTC experience is more revealing, and educational, than anything else they have done to get ready for action. Perhaps the biggest lesson is the need for some cultural awareness. The U.S. Army Special Forces has long appreciated this, but the rest of the army has always been playing catch up. Thus, while the troops are given cards or booklets containing useful phrases in the local language, when they confront "actors" on the "set" who are actually Afghans or Iraqis, and won't speak to them in English (representing the fact that few people in these countries can), the troops either have to remember and use those phrases they were supposed to have memorized, or try and get along without. It's much easier if you can say a few words in the local language, and this way they learn why at Fort Polk, instead of overseas, where such problems can get them killed.
The troops will later get to talk to the Afghan-American or Iraqi-American actors, and get the lessons repeated in English, with assurances that, "over there," bad manners can have very serious consequences. All of this reinforces what veterans in the trainee units have been telling the non-veteran troops. It's all about repeating realistic experiences without getting killed for making a mistake. This kind of training works, as the troops themselves testify. The trainees are polled after they have come back from overseas, and are solicited for additional items the JRTC training should cover.
So successful has this kind of training been that the army's largest, and most effective (for conventional war training) center, at Fort Irwin, California (the NTC, or National Training Area) is now covered with nearly twenty "villages", and a $50 million dollar "town" is to be built as well. In addition, the army is buying lots of special effects technology, and consulting, from the same firms that supply movie makers.
The realistic training areas also provide a suitable venue for trying out new tactics and equipment. This has especially been the case with roadside bombs. This involves simulating what goes on with the enemy, to get a bomb in place. It's actually a complicated process, and new tactics make it more difficult for the bad guys. But effective new tactics only get developed if you have a realistic way to test them. This involves not just the combat troops, but also the intelligence people, and even some types of support troops.
All of this is costing the army several hundred million dollars, which puts the British effort in context. But the army has ways of measuring the impact of the new training, and the result is fewer American casualties, and more, and faster, success in the combat zone. It was the success of these training areas that led the British to build their own, to give infantry battalions some realistic experience before they show up in Afghanistan and face real bullets and bombs.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20090509.aspx
Frozen Helmet Gets Screwed
May 9, 2009: A U.S. manufacturer has recalled 37,000 ACH helmets, after it noticed that four screws, used to attach the chin strap, were not of the type called for in the specifications. This was discovered when helmets leaving the factory were inspected. During that process, one helmet from each lot is picked at random and fired at with a 9mm pistol. The helmet should stop that bullet. Several other helmets are picked from each lot and just examined visually. It was during this check that one of the inspectors noted how the four screws looked different from those used in previous shipments. This was double checked, and it was revealed that a different type of screw had been used for helmets shipped between last November and January, 2009. Further tests were conducted and it was found that the new screws did not stay attached when bullets were fired at the helmets under extreme temperatures (160 degrees and minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit.) These extreme temperature requirements are mandated because helmets may find themselves shipped in containers that can be exposed to such extreme temperatures. When the manufacturer found that the new screws failed the temperature test, the army was notified, and the helmets recalled so that the proper screws could be installed.
This is not the first time the ACH has run into problems because of how it was built. It was in late 2005 that the U.S. Army began issuing the new ACH (Advanced Combat Helmet) on a wide scale. At the same time, the marines began distributing a similar "Marine Corps Lightweight Helmet", which is actually 15 percent larger than the ACH (but still smaller and lighter than the older helmet). In the first year of service, there was a dispute over whether or not fabric padding should be inserted between the webbing like helmet liner, which rests on the wearers skull, and the top of the helmet. The army believed the padding provided additional protection from bomb blasts. The marines disagreed, saying that without the padding, the helmets are lighter, and cooler to wear in very hot conditions. But Congress, and private charities (that are distributing free helmet liners to marines) got involved, and raked marine procurement officials over the coals. Such disputes over "defective weapons and equipment" are a staple of the media, politicians, and anyone looking for a little attention. Most of these crusades are based on bad facts, no facts, or invented facts.
The ACH completely replaced all the 1980s era PASGT (Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops) helmets two years ago. The Kevlar PASGT design was a third generation combat helmet, and nicknamed the "Fritz" after its resemblance to the German helmets used in both World Wars. That German World War I design, which was based on an analysis of where troops were being hit by fragments and bullets in combat, was the most successful combat helmet in both world wars. This basic design was finally adopted by many other nations, after the American Kevlar helmet appeared in the 1980s. Most of the second generation helmets, which appeared largely during World War II, were similar to the old American "steel pot" design. The fourth generation helmets, currently in service, use better synthetic materials and more comfortable design.
The PASGT came in five sizes, and weighed between 3.1 pounds (size Extra Small) to 4.2 pounds (size Extra Large). The new ACH weighs a third less than the PASGT, and uses a new type of Kevlar that provides more protection. The ACH will stop a 9mm bullet at close range, and rifle bullets at longer ranges. The ACH is smaller, and does not cover as much of the neck. This was important, because the newer protective vests (like the bullet-proof Interceptor) ride high on the back, thus becoming very uncomfortable when the soldier is prone and trying to fire his rifle. The ACH eliminates this problem. The ACH was first developed as a special project by the U.S. Army Special Forces, and was so successful that the rest of the army began buying them.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090509.aspx
The Tragic Territorial Army
May 9, 2009: The United Kingdom's Territorial Army, similar to the US National Guard and Reserves, is being streamlined in order to make the Territorials better-trained and ready to fight in the least amount of time. Unfortunately, this may not make much of a difference unless the Army can do something about a severe manpower shortage in the reserves.
Most of the problems the UK's ground forces suffer from are related to years of defense budget slashes and poor pay, which have resulted in a lack of spare parts, equipment, and disgruntled and poorly paid servicemen. But the issue of manpower has always been Britain's major problem, regardless of whether the military was well-funded or not. During World War II, the constant and unceasing demands for manpower in the European Theatre caused growing personnel shortages in the army. In the old days, this wasn't so much of a problem since Britain could call upon hundreds of thousands of Empire troops to make up for their own shortage of bodies to fill the ranks. The majority of these soldiers came from South Africa, India, and the ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand). Unfortunately, this is no longer possible since the Indians are no longer associated with the Commonwealth. As for the Australians and New Zealanders, they are unlikely to mobilize thousands of troops without a direct request from the monarchy and in the absence of a full-scale invasion. Furthermore, neither country has any plans to increase their army sizes in the near future. Currently, the Territorial Army numbers around 29,000, which is 30,000 short of what it is supposed to be. This is bad news for Britain, which is currently disengaging from one conflict (Iraq) and focusing on sending more personnel to another (Afghanistan). Britain is on her own.
Currently, the active army consists of about 80,000 officers, NCOs, and enlisted men. The 29,000 Territorial Army troops have several different degrees of obligation. The Regular Reserve is composed of two different classes (A and D). The A class reservists are required to answer compulsory calls for training and deployment whereas Class D troops report for service on a purely voluntary basis. Furthermore, Territorial Units are broken up into Regional and National formations. The Regional formations are composed of soldiers recruited locally from specific areas in the UK. Their commitment is a minimum of 27 days training a year. For National formations, who typically fulfill specialized roles such as logistics and medical services, the commitment is even less at 19 days per year.
Despite the limbo in which the Territorials find themselves regarding their personnel shortages, the government is smart enough to realize they're going to need the reserve forces. They are going to increasingly need the soldiers, and quickly, as they ramp up their combat operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the drug gangs. Currently, the Territorial Forces have no fixed timetable for training their units up to full combat-ready standards. This has caused some in the regular army to question whether, in their current state, the Territorials could provide any added value to the offensives in Afghanistan.
Currently, the reserves' time to get in shape and trained for combat operations is being capped at six months. This may not be enough time to conduct basic training and teach advanced skills before shipping the troops to a combat zone. The plan also calls for more training alongside regular army units, to learn heavy weapons skills. This usually result in the reduction of training times in order to get more soldiers in combat faster. The UK has made it clear that the Territorials are going to be in combat soon and they want them trained and ready to do their jobs as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, all the training and upgrading may be for nothing if they can't scrape up the recruits they need.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090509.aspx
Guarding The Internet
May 9, 2009: The U.S. Navy has found its place in defending the Internet; underwater. That's where most of the planets Internet traffic spends most of its time, as it travels from continent to continent via fiber-optic cables. The navy proposes to undertake more aggressive operations to prevent terrorists, or hostile nations, from trying to cut these cables.
American submariners need all the work they can get, especially since they are fighting hard to get money to replace their rapidly ageing boats. It’s an uphill fight. Submarines haven’t been used much in combat for over sixty years. That means they have not had a chance to prove how useful submarines can be.
Four years ago, the navy began admitting to missions that were long known, but not admitted. There were the Cold War missions to tap into Russian undersea communications cables. For all we know, American subs are still doing this. It's not the sort of thing you admit to.
The U.S. navy has built up a lot of experience, and specialized (and often still secret) equipment for these missions. What the navy now proposes is to use some of this knowledge to help guard these fiber-optic cable networks. The navy has a lot of specialized equipment for this. In addition to the "spy submarines" (including the Jimmy Carter, a Seawolf class boat built specifically for these missions), there was (and still is, to a certain extent) the undersea passive sonar system. During the Cold War, there were several networks of these underwater listening devices, which could detect ships and subs over a thousand kilometers away. The U.S. still maintains a lead in that kind of technology, as well as other techniques for tracking underwater traffic.
While it's possible for a hostile party to cut underwater data cables, it's even more likely to happen by accident. There have been several cables cut by ship anchors in the last few years. It's very easy for this to happen. Then there are natural disasters (undersea landslides and earthquakes). While the navy can't do much about accidents, they do (in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard) keep track of a lot of the merchant and military ships on the world's oceans. If the navy has a plan for Internet defense at sea, much of it will involve black (secret) projects. So you won't hear much about it until it's all over.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090509.aspx
Helos, Drones Up, FCS Down for Army
army-cammie.jpg
The Army’s 2010 budget request reflects the service’s shift of focus from the battlefields of Iraq to those of Afghanistan, with a heavy emphasis on delivering more rotary wing aviation, aerial drones and from fielding FCS equipped armored brigades to beefing up the combat power of its light infantry.
The Army requested $142 billion in the base budget for 2010 and an additional $83 billion to fund ongoing combat operations in the 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations request, previously known as emergency supplementals. The budget request fully funded the Army’s expansion to 547,400 active duty soldiers.
The massive FCS program is, of course, the hot budget issue when it comes to the Army and with Gates’ declaration that he would cancel the bulk of the program last month, the Army’s modernization strategy will shift from fielding 15 FCS equipped BCTs to building “a versatile mix of networked BCTs that leverage mobility, protection, precision, information and fires in order to be effective across the full spectrum of combat operations,” said Lt, Gen. Edgar Stanton, the services’ budget chief, in a briefing to Pentagon reporters.
The 2010 budget accelerates “spin-outs,” new technologies such as small ground robots and sensors, to all of the Army’s 72 BCTs, active and reserve, an effort that will probably take until 2025. Gates directed the Army to stop its expansion of BCTs at 45 instead of the originally planned 48. Stanton said the QDR will determine exactly what type of BCT mix the Army needs, as far as heavy, light infantry or Stryker, and he hinted it might include a requirement for more Stryker equipped brigades. I would expect the QDR to call for more Stryker brigades as they proved their versatility in irregular warfare during fighting in Iraq.
He said the service has already begun to “relook” the requirements for new armored vehicles to eventually replace the Abrams, Bradley, M-113 legacy fleet, and as per Gates’ guidance, will incorporate lessons from the ongoing wars in the vehicle’s design, specifically in providing greater protection against IEDs. Stanton made it clear that he didn’t much like Gates’ characterization of FCS as a Cold War relic. The Army expects to deliver a “concept proposal” for new vehicles by late summer. Given such an abbreviated timeline for rolling out a new plan, it’s difficult to imagine that the service will do much more than tweak the existing FCS vehicle design.
I pressed Stanton on that issue and he claimed the Army will “start with a blank sheet of paper,” but he also said it would be “prudent” to take into account the vehicle development work that’s already been done. The Army could even revisit the whole wheels versus tracks debate, he said, although that doesn’t seem very likely. Whatever the final design it would incorporate some form of the V-shaped blast deflecting hull design characteristic of the MRAP series of IED protected vehicles. He said the Army expects to come up with more details of where it goes in terms of new armored vehicles during the QDR strategic review.
The Army had originally planned to replace its Kiowa Warrior scout helicopter with the new Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, but the ARH program was recently cancelled so $235 million was included in the budget request to upgrade the Kiowa fleet. The Army is also spending around $500 million to train 150 new helicopter crews, and buy new Apaches and Chinooks for flight training, in an effort to bolster Army aviation in Afghanistan. Stanton said the mountainous terrain and lack of roads in Afghanistan puts a premium on helicopter transport.
The Army said its 2010 development and procurement budget is driven primarily by armor and sensor upgrades to the legacy armored fleet, newer helicopters and buying more aerial drones that will “advance the Army’s adaptation to combat environments where remote weapons platforms and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities play an increasingly prominent role.”
Additional 2010 development and procurement highlights include:
• $2.9 billion for further development of the FCS small unmanned ground vehicles, robots, small aerial drones, the information network and the non-line of sight missile system, the FCS spin-outs.
• $738 million for development of the WIN-T information network.
• $1.2 billion for 79 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters.
• $1.06 billion for 36 CH-47F Chinook helicopters, of which 25 will be new builds and 14 remanufactured aircraft.
• $736 million for 36 Sky Warrior drones, the Army variant of the Predator family armed drone.
• $370 million for remanufacture of 8 AH-64 Apaches to the Longbow Block 3 configuration.
• $326 million for Lakota Light Utility Helicopters.
• $105 million to buy the C-12 Liberty dual prop plane, a modified King Air 350, for tactical surveillance and ground force overwatch.
• $79 million to buy 704 of the small Raven aerial drone.
• $917 million for 59 Patriot missiles.
• $526 million for Bradley fighting vehicle modifications.
• $478.9 million for Stryker vehicle survivability enhancements. No new vehicles will be bought in 2010 but the production line will be kept “warm.”
• $1.5 billion to buy 10,214 new Humvees.
• $471 million to buy 22 M1A2 SEP tanks and for other Abrams modifications.
• $1.6 billion to buy 5,232 FMTV medium trucks, and $1.4 billion to buy an unspecified quantity of FHTV heavy trucks and trailers.
The withdrawal of Army brigades from Iraq has reduced the demand for reset, the initiative to refit war worn vehicles, down to $11 billion in 2010 from around almost $17 billion three years ago, Stanton said. Included in the OCO funding for battle losses were 4 new Apaches and 4 new Chinook helicopters.
Stanton said the Army is “in the process” of looking at unfunded requirements to respond to a request for the same from Congress. The service has not yet sent its unfunded request to OSD.
-- Greg Grant
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004837.html
Navy Fares OK in Slimmed Down Budget
dd-1000.jpg
It's a downsized Navy that, save for pirate sniping, is having a hard time grabbing the limelight in a ground-intensive war (sorry, contingency operation) against Islamic extremists.
So, you've just got to be ready for the knife when the bean counters try to find money for jeeps and cannons and wonder why you're spending $2 billion on subs, right?
Well, when the budget finally shook out for 2010, the Navy didn't stand in terrible shape. A few airplanes cut here, a ship or two there, but in the end, the sea service's top line increased by about $10 billion over 2009 to more than $156 billion, with another kicker of $15.3 billion for "overseas contingency operations" as the new GWOT is called (and most of that money is for Marine Corps vehicles, ammo and personnel).
Navy procurement jumped $5.7 billion to $44.8 billion, while research and development funding slumped $400 after the VH-71 presidential helo was axed.
Winners: DDG-51 with a one ship build in 2010 that restarts the line; one SSN-774 and some advanced money kicked in to build 12 Virginia class subs; two TAKE transport ships and another Joint High Speed Vessel; two more STOVL JSFs for a total of 16 funded in '10; one more C-40A (the admirals will love that); and six P-8A multi-mission aircraft beginning the Lot 1 LRIP buy and 325 new Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System missles designed to compliment the Hellfire rotor wing missiles.
Losers: DDG1000 one ship killed; LPD-17 no ships in 2010; one Maritime Prepositioning Force (Aviation) ship cancelled for a zero buy in 2010; and one MPF Mobile Landing Platform ship deep sixed for a zero buy; cut in half the number of Super Hornets from 18 to nine purchased in 2010, three MH-60Rs cut to 24, one E-2D cut for two; two KC-130Js cut for a zero buy and four T-6A trainers cut for a 38 aircraft buy and one MQ-8B drone cut for a five Fire Scout buy to match LCS needs.
The Navy is devoting $495 million to a ballistic missile sub replacement program for the 2030 timeframe -- the money will be used for propulsion and missile compartment research, LCS gets $361 million, $572 million for the CH-53K and $1.7 billion in R&D funds for the JSF program.
The Corps is finally going to get more of its Growler Internally Transportable Vehicles with 48 purchased in 2010 and 52 new Humvees. The Corps gets the lion's share of OCO funding, buying 18 LW155s, 933 Humvees and -- drumroll please -- ZERO MRAPs.
Navy officials said a lot of this will of course be dependent on Congresses concerns and also the mulling over the next Quadrennial Defense Review.
We'll have a lot more detail in the coming days as we analyze deep into the numbers, but that's a quick wrap up of what's going to the Blue-Green team.
-- Christian
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004836.html
Homemade Firearms
May 8, 2009: India has a growing problem with homemade pistols ("kattas") and shotguns (big kattas) showing up in remote, often very poor, areas. These weapons can be made from many common forms of steel pipe, and improvised firing mechanisms (that hit the bit of sensitive explosive at the center of the rear of the cartridge, which ignites the propellant in the cartridge and fires the bullet or shotgun pellets out the smooth bore barrel).
The easiest weapon to make is basically a single shot pistol firing a .410 (10.4mm) or 20 gauge (15.6mm) shotgun shell. Accurate enough for something within 5-10 feet. Not much good for hunting. These cost $20-$50 each in most parts of the world. The next step up, which requires an experienced metal worker and some machineshop tools, is full size (or sawed off) shotgun (single or double barrel), that sells for $80-$300. These can be used for hunting. These craftsmen can also make 9mm pistols (single shot or revolvers) for $50-$600. These weapons, because they are firing a more powerful cartridge, are more dangerous to use, because they are prone to exploding, rather than firing, when the trigger is pulled.
Ironically, people out in the countryside, where there are still dangerous animals that a gun can protect a village from, have fewer firearms. That's because there's more money, more to steal, and more demand for weapons in the cities.
In some parts of the world, like the metal working center of Akwa, in Nigeria, and the Pushtun tribal territories of Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are craftsmen who can reproduce just about any modern firearm. The Akwa and Pushtun tribesmen have been making metal weapons for over a thousand years, and quickly applied their skills to firearms when they first encountered Europeans using them.
With all these homemade weapons, the key ingredient is ammunition. The cartridges are more difficult to manufacture than the guns, since it involves chemistry, as well as metal working and fabrication. But ammo is easier to smuggle, and once you have that, there are metal working craftsmen in most parts of the world who can figure out how to build a weapon that will fire the bullets.
For over a century now, factory made rifles have been getting into these remote areas. This hurt the market for the high-end handmade weapons, but the cheaper stuff still sold. This is still the case, even with the flood of cheap AK-47s that poured into Afghanistan (starting the 1980s) and Africa (after the Cold War ended in 1991). Again, the cheap pistols and small shotguns were still popular with criminals, especially young guys just starting out. In rural India, communist rebels and political thugs often use these weapons, in addition to factory made pistols and rifles. Again, these two groups prefer concealable weapons, and they cheap homemade stuff gets the job done inexpensively.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20090508.aspx
Commando UAVs Are Very Different
May 8, 2009: U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has doubled its order, to 20, for the new A160T Hummingbird UAVs. After a decade of development, the helicopter UAV now has an official designation; YMQ-18A. Deliveries have already begun, after SOCOM ordered ten last Fall.
The YMQ-18A was developed as part of a U.S. Department of Defense effort to create a helicopter UAV that could stay in the air for over twelve hours at a time. The most recent test had a YMQ-18A staying in the air for 18.7 hours, at altitudes up to 15,000 feet, while carrying a 300 pound load (to simulate a typical sensor package). This set a record for unmanned UAVs weighing between half a ton and 2.5 tons. When the YMQ-18A landed, it still had 90 minutes worth of fuel left. The first flight test of the Hummingbird Unmanned Aerial Vehicle took place seven years ago.
The YMQ-18A is a small helicopter, able to fly under remote control or under its own pre-programmed control. The three ton vehicle has a top speed of 255 kilometers an hour, and was originally designed to operate for up to 40 hours carrying a payload of 300 pounds. Max payload is over half a ton. Maximum altitude was to be about 30,000 feet, and its advanced flight controls were to be capable of keeping it airborne in weather that would ground manned helicopters.
The YMQ-18A can also be armed, and one has been configured with stubby wings, capable of carrying eight (hundred pounds each) Hellfire missiles. The U.S. Navy is interested in the YMQ-18A, because it can operate off any ship with a helipad. SOCOM wants the YMQ-18A because it can hover, and because it is actually very quiet. The chopper can deliver supplies to Special Forces teams at night, as well as assist with intelligence gathering. Moreover, the YMQ-18A can carry new sensors that can detect people moving through forests or thick bush below. Most likely, the SOCOM YMQ-18As are headed for Afghanistan, where are plenty of forests up in the mountains. Like other UAVs, the YMQ-18A carries the usual assortment of day and night video cameras, plus laser rangefinder and laser designator.
The YMQ-18A had some competition in the RQ-8B Fire Scout, which can stay in the air for up to eight hours at a time (five hour missions are more common), has a top speed of 230 kilometers an hour, and can operate over 200 kilometers from its controller (on land, or a ship.) The RQ-8A is being developed for use on smaller navy ships, as well as with army combat units. The navy has recently been testing the RQ-8A on ships at sea.
The U.S. Army version of the RQ-8A will be particularly useful supporting combat operations in urban areas. Both the RQ-8A and the YMQ-18A carry day and night cameras, GPS and targeting gear (laser range finders and designators). The RQ-8 is based on a two seat civilian helicopter (the Schweizer Model 333), and has a maximum takeoff weight of 1.5 tons. With its rotors folded (for storage on ships), the RQ-8 is 23 feet long and 9.4 feet high. Max payload is 600 pounds, meaning it would probably carry hundred pound Hellfire, or 44 pound Viper Strike missiles. Each RQ-8 UAV costs about $8 million (including a share of the ground control equipment and some spares.) The flight control software enables the RQ-8 to land and take off automatically. The YMQ-18A is expected to have similar features, but cost at least 20 percent more. However, with this early order from SOCOM, the YMQ-18A has an opportunity to gain valuable combat experience. If the reviews are positive, the RQ-8A will lose market share to the "combat proven" YMQ-18A.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20090508.aspx
Encouraging Bright Ideas
May 8, 2009: Since the 1990s the U.S. armed forces have saved several billion dollars, and improved their efficiency and effectiveness, by listening. In the 1990s, each of the services adopted a program where troops or civilian employees who come up with a money saving idea, get paid a reward. The savings for these ideas amounts to several hundred million dollars each year. The maximum award is about $25,000, with the most common amounts ranging from $200 to $10,000. In addition, those who get the award also get public recognition. Most (over 20,000 a year) of the ideas are not useful, but the 20 percent that are not only save money, but make life easier for the troops.
The U.S. Air Force IDEA (Innovative Development through Employee Awareness) program is the largest and most successful. The air force program actually began during World War II, when the air force was still a part of the army. The army had a similar, but more modest, program that began during World War I. The navy and marines have since instituted their own programs.
These programs not only recognize and reward innovation, but encourage it. This is important, because it creates a climate of constant innovation. It's hard to quantify that, but the fact that the U.S. armed forces are considered the most effective in the world is one result.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090508.aspx
Greetings From the Most Bombed Place on Earth
By CHUCK HENRY and TARA WALLIS-FINESTONE
Updated 1:20 PM PDT, Fri, May 8, 2009
Some people call it a "top-secret" tourist destination.
Top-Secret Tourism
Watch Video
Some people call it a "top-secret" tourist destination. It's located north of Las Vegas. For those who visit, they can't take pictures or bring their cell phone.
Top News Photos
View Slideshow
See amazing photos from around the globe...
Weird News Photos
View Slideshow
From mermaids to flying pigs check out these pictures of off-beat, interesting happenings from around the world.
It's located north of Las Vegas. Those who visit can't take pictures or bring their cell phones.
But the government recently allowed rare access to the area known as the "Most Bombed Place on Earth."
It's the Nevada Test Site.
Tourists come from all over. Many wait months, even years to board a tour bus for the 65-mile ride.
Between 1951 and 1992, the U.S. government tested 928 nuclear bombs on this controversial area the size of Rhode Island.
It's a two-hour journey to the pock-marked landscape that bears the scars of America's nuclear testing program.
"You are right at ground zero," said Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration in Las Vegas. "What you are seeing right here is where an atmospheric test went off in May off 1955.
"Not everything was destroyed. A lot of people think everything gets vaporized, but they don't."
That's why people come here -- to see what's left.
What's left are the subjects of images made famous by a Department of Defense video. There are homes and other structures, such as a bank vault, that are still standing.
There's also the Sedan Crater. It's the site of a massive underground explosion to determine whether nuclear blasts could be used to move earth.
"You can't appreciate the size of a crater that is 1,500 feet across until you are standing on the edge of it," said Darren Spang of Los Angeles. "That's why I wanted to see it. The power of what was done here."
The government filmed every aspect of the testing. The images survive today thanks to the restoration work of Southern California filmmaker Peter Kuran.
"I got a lot of cooperation from the government," Kuran said. "I wanted to put together something that was interesting."
Among the most jaw-dropping moments of the film are images of U.S. soldiers and government workers charging toward the mushroom clouds.
Ernie Williams worked at the Test Site in the 1950s and 1960s. He witnessed 80 nuclear explosions.
"The first thing is, you are going to hear a tremendous blast," he said. "The next thing you will feel is the heat. And, all this happens within a few seconds. Then the shockwave is gonna hit you."
"You better be down with your hands on your knees. If you are in Parade Rest, you are going down."
At 78, Williams is cancer free, unlike many of his former colleagues. They are the so-called "Atomic Veterans."
"It's unfortunate that there are not many around to talk about these things that happened in the late 1940s and 1950s," Williams said.
There are reminders of the past's dangers such as warning signs and a mid-tour check of the bus. But the government says there is no radiation risk to the tourists.
Laura Shotwell came all the way from Massachusetts to see the Test Site.
"I think it's just a desire to know what went before us, to appreciate what we are capable of doing," Shotwell said.
Related Stories
* Biden: Stay Off Subways During Swine Flu Panic
* Slideshow The Kentucky Derby: A Slice Of Americana
The tour of America's nuclear graveyard is free. There are restrictions and an extensive background check.
"What they are getting is something top secret," Morgan said. "They are seeing something that the normal person doesn't get to see."
but what sense does that make? making guns illegal will keep us safe. lol
Mullen acknowledged that "every country in the world has got a right to develop their military as they see fit to provide for their own security" but suggested the U.S. and its allies needed to cooperate to figure out a way to work with China to avoid miscalculations
i wonder what the USNS Victorious did that needed anything more than a "our ship is operating outside your legal boundaries"?
quit trying to placate the chicoms
Special Flight Suits For The F-35
May 6, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is providing pilots of its new F-35 fighter with a custom flight suit, to deal with a potential problem pilots might encounter when ejecting. The “JSF light-weight coverall” is similar to the standard flight suit, worn by all air force pilots, except that it has provision for a removable fabric cord on the upper sleeve. These cords are only worn when the pilot is seated in the ejection seat, and attach to the centerline harness buckle on the ejection seat. The “JSF light-weight coverall” also removes a small pocket from the left leg of the flight suit.
When the pilot pulls the ejection seat handle (between his legs), the cords keep his arms close to the centerline of the ejection seat. The ejection seat is rocket propelled, and leaves the cockpit at high speed, and the design of the F-35 cockpit creates the possibility that the pilots arms could be injured (by debris or parts of the cockpit) if they were not kept together during ejection. This is apparently considered more of a problem in the F-35 than in other aircraft.
Ejection seat system costs between $200,00-300,000. Most ejection seats weigh about half a ton, and are complex bits of technology. Ejection seats became essential as military aircraft became so fast, that a pilot could not safely climb out of the cockpit and jump. With the higher speed, there was the danger of hitting the tail. Also, escaping pilots were often injured or stunned, and unable to get out quickly enough.
The first ejection seat design was developed in Germany, where the seats were first installed in their He 219 night fighters, in 1943. These used compressed air to propel the seat out of the aircraft. A year later, rocket propelled seats were installed in the He-162 jet fighter. By the end of the war, all of Germanys jets were equipped with rocket propelled ejection seats. While the Swedish firm SAAB had also developed a rocket propelled ejection seat, it was British firm Martin-Baker that jumped in and created a design that quickly filled the needs of most Western air forces.
The U.S. Air Force insisted on an American made ejection system, but the U.S. Navy stayed with Martin-Baker, because the American ejection seat did not function as well at very low altitudes (where a lot of naval aviators have to eject during carrier operations). Martin-Baker supplies about two-thirds of the ejection seats for Western fighter aircraft. The Soviet Union produced their own ejection seats. Over 10,000 aircrew have successfully used ejection seats since World War II.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090506.aspx
The Seagoing Security Swat Teams
May 6, 2009: The U.S. Marines have troops trained for many special missions, but none as special as their FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) force. These units were first organized in 1987 and there was no shortage of volunteers. There were eleven FAST platoons, organized into three FAST companies.
Each platoon is commanded by an experienced captain, plus a senior NCO, three or four sergeants, three or four corporals and about thirty other marines. There are about 500 FAST marines overall, including 20 officers. Three platoons serve seven month tours at overseas bases. In addition, one or two platoons are on alert in the United States all the time, ready to be flown to any hot spot anywhere. Often, the FAST platoon will be sent to a marine amphibious task force that is near a potential trouble spot. Half the FAST platoons will be training at any time, but in the past few years, FAST marines have spent about half the year overseas.
Technically, FAST marines are not commandos. Most of the enlisted FAST marines are selected from those who volunteered for the Marines Security Force. There are nine Security Force companies, and these guard high value (or profile) items (nuclear weapons, embassies and sensitive facilities.) The FAST marines are the elite of this security service. FAST can fight, but only if what they are guarding is threatened. FAST marines are trained to lock down a facility very quickly and very tight. FAST marines platoons have been called out over a hundred times since the late 1980s. FAST marines are meant for emergencies, they do not do long term security. They may look like commandoes, but in reality they are the guards who guard the guards who watch over the crown jewels.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20090506.aspx
awesome shirt!
YES! and they should follow that law up with some serious jail time for people who break the law with a firearm
biden opens his mouth before he thinks, if he even thinks