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.
ill be there!
i second that! both of them! lol
there is something about him that aintright! and its not right that he is in first place either. lol
still trying to figure out who his insider is
only the govt hand out society. i would like to believe the rest of us have enough respect for each other to at least call 911 and not our crack dealer
those people are just as bad as the criminals.
the mayor should go on TV and shame the hell out of those people. it may not do any good for them, but others may feel compelled to do something next time
that is disturbing! lol
dont give him any bad ideas
didnt they cut the level of funding for this program?
Advanced tactical laser aircraft fires high-power laser in flight
6/19/2009 - Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. (AFNS) -- Members of the 413th Flight Test Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla., and contractor Boeing recently successfully fired the high-power laser aboard the Advanced Tactical Laser aircraft for the first time in flight.
The combined effort between Boeing and the 413th was instrumental to the "first light" of the high power ATL.
"This successful test is a major step toward bringing directed energy capability to the warfighter," said Gary Fitzmire, vice president and program director of Boeing's Directed Energy Systems. "We have demonstrated that an airborne system can fire a high-power laser in flight and deliver laser beam energy to a ground target."
During the test, the specially modified 46th Test Wing NC-130H aircraft equipped with the ATL weapon system took off from Kirtland and fired its laser while flying over White Sands Missile Range, N.M., successfully hitting a target board located on the ground. ATL is equipped with a chemical laser, a beam control system, sensors and weapon-system consoles.
"We have taken technology from the laboratory to reality and have now demonstrated that directed energy is on a path toward a safe and viable option for the warfighter with very unique capabilities," said Eric Van Dorn, 413th FLTS lead flight test engineer.
More tests are planned to demonstrate ATL's military utility. The system is designed to damage, disable or destroy targets with little to no collateral damage. These demonstrations support development of systems that will conduct missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.
"The time and effort from the entire team exhibited the cooperation and professionalism between the U. S. Air Force and Boeing. The culmination of this event is fantastic," said Master Sgt. Scott Wollitz, mission flight engineer. "I feel extremely fortunate to have been a part of the crew for this test. The laser shot was amazing!"
The ATL program is managed by the 687th Armament Systems Squadron, which is part of the 308th Armament Systems Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla., and supported by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland.
"It's another case of science fiction becoming reality," said Maj. James Stahl, 413th FLTS test pilot. "As a kid growing up I was fascinated by the lasers in the movie Star Wars; to be the first to fire this laser in flight is truly an honor."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/06/mil-090619-afns04.htm
Japanese parliament passes law on tackling Somali piracy
RIA Novosti
10:5619/06/2009 TOKYO, June 19 (RIA Novosti) - Japan's parliament has passed a law on counter piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden, expanding the Japanese Self-Defense Forces' powers in the region, the Kyodo news agency reported on Friday.
The new measures authorize the SDF to protect foreign-flagged commercial ships unconnected with Japan, in addition to Japanese-flagged commercial ships, foreign ships with Japanese nationals or shipments on board, and others operated by Japanese firms, the agency said.
Around 35 warships from the navies of 16 countries are involved in anti-piracy operations off Somalia's coast. According to the United Nations, Somali pirates carried out at least 120 attacks on ships in 2008.
The United Nations has said that pirates collected $150 million in ransom payments from ship owners last year, while overall losses from piracy were estimated at $13-16 billion, including the soaring cost of insurance and protection for vessels, as well as sending ships on longer routes to avoid high-risk areas.
Somalia has been without an effective government since the Revolutionary Socialist Party was overthrown in 1991. The internationally recognized federal government controls only the capital city of Mogadishu and part of central Somalia.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/06/mil-090619-rianovosti01.htm
Wary Allies Eye US Arms Policies
Wary Allies Eye US Arms Policies
By Colin Clark Friday, June 19th, 2009 8:40 am
Posted in International, Policy
Utter the term ITAR here at the Paris Show and both Europeans and Americans often cringe. The Europeans know it as the set of regulations that make it incredibly challenging for them to buy American weapon systems, no matter how close they are to the administration in charge. The Americans know it as a never-ending headache that makes foreign sales cumbersome and slow — at best — and can easily lead to a silent no from the State Department, which oversees the regulations.
The Obama administration talks often and often convincingly about partnerships with allies and their tremendous importance to US national security interests. As Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense for policy, put it in her recent QDR remarks, “allies and partners are absolutely essential.”
And there are important policy decisions ahead. Japan still wants to buy the F-22, export version or not. I hear a key radar sale to an ally is pending. And there will be the day to day grind of working with partner countries to build the Joint Strike Fighter.
And ITAR decisions — whether to allow sales of a weapon to a foreign government — will be crucial to each one of those. Arms export license decisions — based on the ITAR — are regarded as one of the essential coins of the allied realm. When the US says no to a sale or takes months to decide, allies are often puzzled, frustrated or just plain mystified because the process lacks transparency although there have been efforts in the last few years to improve this a bit.
Given the frustrations heard from the Europeans here in Paris, I spoke with several very experienced Americans who work with Europeans, industry and the US government about just what Europe should do over the next six months to make sure they get their messages through to the Obama administration.
Joel Johnson, an analyst at the Teal Group in Washington who used to be industry’s point man on arms export policy at the Aerospace Industries Association, counseled NATO allies to use meetings of their top leaders — military and civilian, up to and including the British prime minister, French president etc. — to raise the issue with senior American officials at the highest levels possible. Don’t worry about embarrassing anyone, he said. Don’t soft peddle your case. Be polite, direct and raise the issue at each venue to keep the squeaky wheel squeaking. Otherwise, U.S. officials will assume things are fine and go on as they are.
Another senior American industry official noted that the Obama administration still has many senior people to get in place at the State Department — the lead agency on arms export issues — and at the Pentagon. A few crucial positions are close to being filled. The outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, looks to be on her way to Senate approval as undersecretary of State for arms control and international security. And a senior advisor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Andy Shapiro, is also close to clearing the Senate as assistant secretary for political-military affairs, usually the post who handles the day to day issues of arms export policy and compliance. The industry official said Shapiro’s choice appeared to offer some hope, if not of policy changes, of access to Clinton when policy disputes arise or an important arms export license is languishing for one reason or another.
So, will the Obama administration deliver on its talk of close relations with “allies and partners?” Much will depend on the allies helping them to see the light.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/19/allies-wary-on-obama-arms-exports/
they deserve to be taken if they think insuring north korea is a good idea
Outside View: Hidden in plain sight
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Harlan Ullman
Washington (UPI) Jun 17, 2009
If you are president of the United States, how do you know when things are going wrong, and what to do about it, especially when the evidence is hidden in clear sight? These may be the toughest questions and conditions any president will face. Given the extraordinary pace with which the Obama administration has attacked a multitude of daunting and possibly intractable issues, from conflicts abroad to economic, fiscal and healthcare crises at home, surely these questions are ones to be addressed. But can they be answered in time to make a difference?
History can be cruel in demonstrating how tough knowing and acting accordingly are. Both Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt confronted economic depression. Both got it wrong. Hoover was too slow to react. And had it not been for World War II, who knows how long the Depression would have lingered.
In the Korean War, Truman knew Gen. Douglas McArthur's march to the Yalu was reckless. By the time McArthur was relieved, the war was on the way to becoming a bloody stalemate that took a new president to end. Lyndon Johnson agonized over Vietnam, knowing full well it went wrong and was incapable of doing anything about it. It was three years into the second Iraq war that the second President Bush finally changed course in 2006, well after conditions on the ground were in chaos.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan became Bush's forgotten war and was allowed to deteriorate in plain public sight. More than six years after the Taliban was routed in 2001 and Osama bin Laden escaped did the new Obama administration begin a serious strategic review of Afghan policy. Some believe that this review came too late.
So, when things go badly and sufficient corroborative evidence exists, how does a president know in time to take remedial action? Conventional wisdom argues, with some merit, that it is too early to tell for the new administration. But is it? General Motors, Afghanistan and Pakistan make this point about urgency.
Regarding the economy, Obama's aims have been to stabilize the banking and financial systems first and then repair the economy. And the severity of these crises may exceed the capacity of any government to respond. But the White House must take stock of the state of the takeover of General Motors and by extension Chrysler.
Yes, General Motors has been financially re-engineered and slimmed down. But it suffers at least one fatal flaw. The bulk of consumers are not interested in buying GM cars in sufficient numbers at competitive prices to let the company survive without further bailouts. Detroit understands that 75 percent of all new car buyers in the next decade are currently 40 or younger. Just ask them if they will buy GM cars. And when that is done and the answer is a resounding "no," the administration will understand that things are not going right for GM. Again, this is evidence hidden in plain sight.
In Afghanistan, the Obama administration implicitly has given its AFPAK strategy no more than a year to work with the expectation that the combination of a "mini-surge" of U.S. forces and the new strategy will turn the tide. Realistically, this grace period could be six months or less. The obvious flaw here is the failure or inability to bring sufficient resources to bear on the Afghan civilian side for establishing governance, rule of law, effective policing, jobs and cracking down on rampant corruption and narcotics trafficking. We all know this. Yet, if the civil side is the weak link and hence the target for success, why is greater effort not going to it?
Pakistan's future meanwhile rests on the government's ability or lack thereof to contain the insurgency and violence provoked by radical jihadis. The one commodity that the United States can offer is aid. Pakistan needs about $10 billion a year to support its flagging economy, develop and reconstruct the lands vacated by 3 million to 4 million refugees, field more police and security forces, and give the army weapons to win an insurgency. Yet, given the state of our fiscal house, more money is not likely to be forthcoming. We know this shortfall is a predicate for failure. But what can be done?
Other crises are less conducive to knowing when things are going wrong and then taking remedial action. In North Korea and Iran, the choices open to this or any administration range between bad and worse. There is also no reason to believe the Obama team will be any more successful in bringing settlement to the Arab-Israeli-Palestine crises than its predecessors. So, both the outlook is grim and the room for maneuver limited.
But knowing what is wrong is tough even when the evidence is clear and present -- and taking timely action often tougher!
(Harlan Ullman is a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council. His last book was "America's Promise Restored: Preventing Culture, Crusade and Partisanship from Wrecking Our Nation.")
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_View_Hidden_in_plain_sight_999.html
NKorea missile train on the move: report
File image: Missile train.
by Staff Writers
Seoul (AFP) June 17, 2009
A special North Korean train that last month took a long-range missile to a west coast launch site has recently made a journey to another launch site on the east coast, a report said Wednesday.
South Korea and the United States are wondering whether Pyongyang intends simultaneous launches from both sites or whether the train's latest journey is just a smokescreen to confuse watchers, Seoul's Chosun Ilbo newspaper said.
The paper said the train was used in May to transport a missile to a newly-completed site at Dongchang-ri on the northwest coast.
It said the train was also recently spotted travelling from a missile research centre in Pyongyang to Musudan-ri on the east coast, which the North used for its three previous long-range missile launches.
The paper quoted a South Korean government source for its information. The National Intelligence Service declined comment on what it called intelligence matters.
On Tuesday Chosun said the North has installed a launch structure and completed a hangar at Dongchang-ri.
But it said no radar has yet been set up and no missile has been brought to the launch pad itself, meaning a launch is not imminent.
The North on April 5 staged what it called a satellite launch from Musudan-ri, using a Taepodong-2 rocket theoretically capable of reaching Alaska.
The US and its allies said the launch was a disguised missile test and the UN Security Council condemned the operation.
The North vowed to conduct more nuclear and missile tests unless the UN apologised, and went ahead with its second atomic test on May 25.
US and South Korean officials have said it may be preparing another ballistic missile test. And US intelligence officials have been quoted as saying it may also stage a third nuclear test.
Chosun said Pyongyang appears to have three to four intercontinental ballistic missiles, and may be keeping one or two of them at the research centre in the capital.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/NKorea_missile_train_on_the_move_report_999.html
China builds railway to nuclear test desert site: state media
File image: "The Sea of Death"
by Staff Writers
Beijing (AFP) June 17, 2009
China has started building a railway to a remote desert region known as "the sea of death", state media said Wednesday, a place once used as a test site for nuclear bombs.
The 360-kilometre (225-mile) railroad from the China-Mongolian border to the Lop Nur area in the northwestern region of Xinjiang will help the nation in its quest for resources, the Xinhua news agency reported.
It will improve access to potassium salt, an ingredient in some fertiliser products, and will also make it easier to reach important coal reserves in the region, according to the agency.
But apart from that, the railroad, expected to be completed in two years, will also help open up one of China's most mysterious areas.
Lop Nur was home to a little-known civilisation, Luolan, which disappeared in the third century, possibly because of an environmental disaster.
In 1980, archaeologist Peng Jiamu went missing on his fourth expedition to Lop Nur and was never found.
Lop Nur was also picked as the site for China's first nuclear bomb detonations in the 1960s.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_builds_railway_to_nuclear_test_desert_site_state_media_999.html
JSF Kills Best SAMs Too: Heinz
JSF Kills Best SAMs Too: Heinz
By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 7:34 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy
The argument that more F-22s must be bought because it is is the only fighter that is truly effective against advanced surface to air missiles got shot down (sorry about the pun) here at the Paris Air Show by the top Joint Strike Fighter official Marine Brig. Gen David Heinz.
Advocates such as Rebecca Grant, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, argue that the F-22 is needed principally because it is the premier weapon against the sophisticated S-300 ground-to-air missiles that the Russians have developed and are trying to sell.
So I asked Heinz if the JSF could kill advanced SAMs. His answer: “While I will do the mission differently, I am still delivering first day of the war capability.”
We’ll see if that puts the nail in the coffin of the F-22 supporters or if there are good counter-arguments to this. Of course, Heinz is a fierce advocate for this program and must be expected to defend it, but he’s also known as a very straight shooter. If he did not believe the plane’s ability to handle the SAM threat I think we would have gotten a very different answer.
On the industrial base side of the program, Heinz told reporters here that the program could reasonably generate an astonishing 6,000 sales. He based his estimate on the 4,425 F-16s sold around the world in various development blocks, combined with 600 F-18 E/Fs and Typhoons. “As these airplanes aqe out, I believe my airplane will be competitive,” he said.
The United States and the eight foreign partners are expected to order about 3,100 planes. Add 1,000 sales to prospective buyers such as Israel, Singapore, Spain, Japan, Finland and South Korea. Then top up the rest of the world and you get to Heinz’ figure of 6,000.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/17/jsf-kills-advanced-sams-too-heinz/
JSF Chief Slams Boeing on F-15
JSF Chief Slams Boeing on F-15
By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 2:52 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy
The general building the F-35 called Boeing on the carpet here at the Paris Air Show, saying they were misleading customers as they marketed the F-15 “Silent Eagle.”
My colleague Andrea Shalal-Esa of Reuters interviewed Brig. Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35. “So for Boeing to make statements about a ‘dumbed down’ variant … is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business,” she quoted Heinz as saying.
Jim Albaugh, the head of Boeing’s IDS, said earlier this week that the F-15 version would offer customers as much stealth as the government allows for export in tersm of its front radar cross section.
“We are not trying to say that this is an airplane that has full-aspect stealth capability,” Albaugh said. “It doesn’t. But from the front, “it has all the stealth that has been approved for export by the U.S. government.”
One of the things that may have left Gen. Heinz fuming is his belief that Boeing has been telling international customers for the F-35 that the US is selling a less stealthy version of the plane than they are buying.
He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
Boeing’s military aircraft president Chris Chadwick said the F-15 was being marketed only to existing F-15 customers, and was not in direct competition with the F-35.
“If there are other customers who would like to talk to us about the enhanced version of the F-15 (the Silent Eagle) we’d be happy to discuss,” he said, responding to Heinz’s remarks.
Boeing’s F-15 and F-18 fighter jets are competing against Lockheed’s F-16 for massive fighter jet orders around the world. Analysts say Boeing, the top U.S. exporter and the Pentagon’s No. 2 supplier in prime contracts, risks getting edged out of the fighter market altogether as the U.S. government focuses more and more on the F-35.
Keen to keep its fighter production lines open, Boeing in March unveiled an F-15 version that offers some radar-evading capability as an alternative for countries that can’t afford the F-35 fighter being developed by Lockheed for the United States and eight other countries.
Boeing has said it is speaking to companies in the United States and abroad about co-funding development of a new F-15 version aimed at Asian and Middle East markets that would incorporate coatings to help avoid detection by radar.
Heinz first criticized how Boeing was marketing its F-15 Silent Eagle at a news conference in Washington on June 2, and also took a swipe at its radar-evading capabilities.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/17/jsf-chief-slams-boeing-on-f-15/
Bundeswehr Inspector General: German Troopies an "Embarassment"
german army.jpg
From the horse's mouth, so they say, German soldiers "are softies who lack discipline, hate responsibility and show an inadequate desire to serve their country."
General Wolfgang Schneiderhahn, the general inspector of the Bundeswehr, told the German parliament that depite their positive contribution in Afghanistan, complaints from troops about their conditions were an "embarrassment".
"We have given a good account of ourselves in Afghanistan, but we cannot guarantee an all-round feel-good feeling for soldiers," said the general, before going on to detail the less dignified side of the country's armed forces.
He cited complaints reaching him about the quality of sleeping bags used in a deployment in the Congo.
"Are our soldiers too soft?" asked the best-selling daily German newspaper Bild.
Gen Schneiderhahn told politicians in Berlin on Monday that the descendants of the country's mighty military machines of the past needed to have "a better feeling for discipline and to show a greater readiness to serve the state".
Interesting devolution, from what was once the most feared military machine in the world to nothing more than a glorified gendarmerie. In fairness to our Kraut allies, this is largely a political problem, in that the Germans are -understandably, given their history- reluctant to use military force outside their borders. Remember that up until 1994, the Bundeswehr was restricted to border defense only.
Here, war might be the answer. There's nothing more demoralizing to a combat unit than to be demoted to occupational force (the German army mainly does peacekeeping and reconstruction). Allowing the Germans to fight in Afghanistan, alongside their British, Dutch, American, and Canadian allies, could jumpstart their inner warriors -- and hopefully give them more important to worry about than sleeping bags.
--John Noonan
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004888.html#comments
of course they arrest the one frenchman able to protect their country. lol
allowing russia to partner up in this would most likely give them access to some of the tech we have paid for free. allowing them to develop countermeasures to our more modern defenses.
if then can forge a partnership without a transfer of the tech, its a good idea
north korea has twice as many troops, and nobody takes them seriously until they set off a nuke.
these backward ass countries need to be swatted back down into their places. they could have billions in aid if they would just stop trying to be the biggest bad ass on the block. the US govt would even let them keep stealing all the money they do if they would just suck it up.
Brazil Shows The Chinese How To Do It
June 17, 2009: Brazil has agreed to a deal where Chinese sailors will learn aircraft carrier operating skills on the Brazilian Navy's carrier, the "Sao Paulo." Nine years ago Brazil bought the 32,000 ton French aircraft carrier Foch (which was still in service) for $12 million, updated it and renamed it. The navy has not been able to get much cash out of the government to further refurbish the 46 year old Sao Polo, and apparently the Chinese deal will change that.
The "Sao Paolo" was headed for decommissioning, and has been used mainly to train carrier pilots for the last few years. The "Sao Paolo" entered service in 2000, and the Brazilians retired the " Minas Gerais", a World War II era (British) Colossus Class carrier a year later (after 40 years of service). So the Brazilians have a long tradition of carrier operations, and sufficient experienced carrier sailors to teach the Chinese some useful things. Brazil has long been the only South American nation to operate a carrier.
The Sao Polo has a crew of 1,900 and was designed to carry 35 warplanes (smaller, older models like the A-4) and four helicopters. This load can vary depending on aircraft type.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090617.aspx
Will Future U.S. Military Submarines Be Invisible to Enemy Sonar Detection?: Enter Acoustic Metamaterial Cloaking Tech
By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com
June 16, 2009
It looks like the whole metamaterial/negative-index material movement just got another shot in the arm with development of an “acoustic metamaterial lens” that can theoretically create an acoustic/sonic “invisibility cloak” a.k.a. “cloak of silence” capable of hiding military submarines from enemy detection. DefenseReview first reported on metamaterials a.k.a. negative-index materials or “negative index metamaterials” in August 2006. The technology on which we were reporting at the time theoretically has the potential to lead to an optical invisibility cloak for cloaking soldiers and military equipment and vehicles.
Anyone who’s seen the film the The Hunt for Red October remembers the very cool, ultraquiet “caterpillar drive” that the Russian Submarine “Red October” utilized. It would seem that the Red October’s “caterpillar drive” was essentially a magnetohydrodynamic-drive/MHD propulsor engine that used a electromagnetic field to drive the sub without using any moving parts, rather than using a mechanical propellor. Anyway, as revolutionary as that fictional submarine magnetohydrodynamic propulsion system may have been, it was arguably somewhat more conventional than, and very different from, an “acoustic invisibility cloak” since it quieted the submarine organically and didn’t shield the sub from enemy sonar detection equipment.
Acoustic cloaking via an acoustic metamaterial lens is reportedly a “next step” technology that can theoretically create an active anti-sonar-detection system for future U.S. military submarines. Three researchers out of the University of Illionois at Urbana-Champaign Mechanical Science and Engineering (MechSE) department are claiming credit for the acoustic metamaterial lens tech. They are Assistant Professor Nicholas Fang (Nicholas X. Fang), Shu Zhang, and Leilei Yin.
The “acoustic superlens“, or ultrasound lens, that they’re developing reportedly can be used for medical acoustic imaging as a kind of enhanced ultrasound to better detect tumors and other physical abnormalities, but we hear at Defense Review are interested in the potential military applications of the technology. One question we have is if the technology is so viable for military future applications, including submarine warfare applications, why hasn’t it been classified already and/or turned it into a black program? DoD is usually pretty diligent about that. Perhaps they’re just waiting for it to be developed to the point it can actually be applied to submarines before classifying it.
So, is the acoustic cloak hype or the real deal? Time will tell, and we’ll be watching. It is, however, ironic that three Chinese (or Chinese-American, whatever the case may be) researchers may have just provided the U.S. military with an important strategic technology solution to the growing Chinese military threat, especially since China is currently in the process of significantly expanding its naval warfare capabilities. China is, after all, arguably our largest and most dangerous potential future nation-state enemy.
http://www.defensereview.com/title-will-future-us-military-submarines-utilize-an-acoustic-invisibility-cloak-to-defeat-sonar-detection/
New Ideas You Won't Choke On
June 16, 2009: As foreign military leaders (especially those in China) scrutinize American military performance in the last decade, there is a debate over how to replicate it for themselves. The American achievement has been striking. They defeated a seemingly intractable Islamic terrorist campaign in Iraq, and are inflicting the same kind of damage on the Taliban in Afghanistan. In doing this, the U.S. troops are suffering casualties at a third of the rate of previous wars, and with fewer troops in combat (to accomplish similar tasks from past wars.)
It's not just the fighting prowess that is envied, but the ability to quickly solve tactical and technical problems, and rapidly adapt new technology and tactics to battlefield needs. And then there's the fact that the United States is still, after over a century, the largest economy on the planet. Yet Chinese students score higher on math and science tests than do their American counterparts. A disproportionate number of graduate science students in the United States are from China, because these schools are seen as the best in the world. Many Chinese believe that this shows how China will surpass America. But Chinese military analysts looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, are not so sure. The Americans are not the best at math or physics, but they do have a knack for coming out on top. There's something else the Americans have going for them that doesn't seem to be widely recognized, or even have a name.
Some Chinese, who have been educated in the United States, and come back home to work, talk about the spirit of entrepreneurship and individual accomplishment. This is quite different from the collectivist and statist (state control) attitudes that dominate in the rest of the world. America has, for over a century, been the source of the most new jobs, and new businesses, on the planet. Those attitudes of innovation and accomplishment seem to have carried over to their armed forces as well.
The Chinese leadership does not want to encourage entrepreneurs and individualists. In Chinese history, this has led to change and unrest. Chinese leaders see this sort of thing as disruptive to the natural order of things. So the generals and admirals are told to take what they can from the American experience, and leave behind what China cannot digest.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090616.aspx
Dead Man Floating
June 15, 2009: In the last 13 years, eight space satellites have been destroyed by collisions with one of the 300,000 lethal (the size of a marble or larger) bits of space junk that are in orbit. As more satellites are launched, more bits of space junk are left in orbit. Based on that, and past experience, it's predicted that ten more satellites will be destroyed by space junk in the next five years. Manned space missions are at risk as well. The recent U.S. Space Shuttle mission to fix the Hubble space telescope, faced a one in 229 chance of getting hit with space junk (that would have likely damaged the shuttle, and required a back up shuttle be sent up to rescue the crew.) Smaller, more numerous, bits of space junk are more of a danger to astronauts (in space suits) working outside. The shuttle crew working outside to repair the Hubble satellite had a one in 89 chance of being killed by space junk.
The U.S. is spending nearly a billion dollars a year in an attempt to better identify, and track, the larger, more lethal bits of space junk. Later this year, the U.S. Air Force is putting a special Space Based Space Surveillance system (SBSS) satellite into orbit. This $425 million satellite contains a digital camera to take pictures of space debris, and make it easier to count and track the growing quantity of space junk up there. Getting a better, and more timely, look at space junk has become a priority.
The U.S. has proposed using a space based laser to destroy much of the space junk. The laser either vaporizes debris, or damages the larger bits so that its orbit "decays" and the junk moves down into the atmosphere and burns up. Many nations object to this proposal, as such a laser system could also be used as an anti-satellite weapon. However, if the growing swarm of space junk destroys lots more satellites, that attitude may change.
After sixty years of humans putting objects into orbit, there is a lot of junk circling the planet. Currently, over 300,000 dangerous objects 10 mm (.4 inch) in size have been identified. The smallest of these is capable of disabling a satellite, or damaging a spacecraft. That's because these objects can hit at very high speed (9-10 times faster than a bullet) if they, and their target, are coming from different directions. There are nearly 18,000 objects 10 centimeters (4 inches) or larger. These can do some catastrophic damage to satellites or spacecraft. There are billions of objects smaller than 10mm, and these are responsible for many satellites failing early because of cumulative damage from getting hit by several of these micro objects.
The U.S. Air Force Space Surveillance Network tracks nearly 18,000 objects 10mm and larger, but stopped sharing all of its information five years ago, for national security reasons. The United States will be under a lot of pressure to change this policy once the SBBS goes into operation. With some 900 active satellites in orbit, and nearly half of them are American, there is a need to provide better tracking of dangerous space junk. About 75 percent of all satellites are non-military (most of them commercial, the rest government non-military birds.) With SBBS, the U.S. will be much better able to protect its satellites from the growing debris menace. Other nations, particularly American allies, will want the same degree of safety.
There are other organizations keeping an eye on the debris. The Russian Space Surveillance System is known to use radar to track over 5,000 objects in low orbit. But the Russians have never shared this data completely, or regularly. Filling in the gaps are two international organizations; IADC (Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee) and ISON (International Space Observation Network). IADC is a government operation, whose members include the U.S. NASA, and the equivalents in Russia, China and several other major nations. Like most government organizations, not all data is shared.
ISON is a non-government organization, and they come up with some of the most interesting stuff. ISON comprises 18 scientific institutions, 18 observatories, 25 telescopes and over a hundred professionals. ISON does not, as far as anyone knows, withhold data because of any national security concerns. This is fairly certain because ISON work is monitored, and complemented, by the efforts of thousands of amateur astronomers and orbital addicts who connect via the Internet, and constantly scour the orbital space for new objects, and dangerous movements by existing ones.
ISON already has spotted nearly 200 larger (over 10mm) objects that have never been reported by any of the government organizations. The Internet based amateurs are often the first to spot a lot of this new activity, mainly because they have more eyeballs, and, in some cases, impressive optical equipment, searching the skies.
When someone spots an object headed for a maneuverable satellite, the owner is alerted, and the bird is moved. This has happened several times in the last few years. The number of dangerous objects up there increases 10-20 percent a year. That's even with many of them falling into the atmosphere and burning up each year. Even when you spot a potential collision between debris and an active satellite, the high speed of these objects, and slight instability of their orbits, can turn an expected collision into a near miss. This is not an exact science, but the more information you have, the more accurate your predictions will be.
SBBS has a military purpose, to spot and track hostile KillSats, sent up to destroy American satellites. If the initial SBBS is successful, more will be launched, to provide real time surveillance of orbital space. But most of the time, SBBS will serve to make space safer from catastrophic accidental collisions.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20090615.aspx
Reality Check
June 15, 2009: Army basic training is getting a much-needed overhaul thanks to returning combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. For almost 100 years, basic training, for all of its improvements, has still relied primarily on repetitive drills and learning a standard set of basic skills, many of which haven't changed since World War II. Marksmanship, bayonet fighting, and small-unit tactics are still the basic building blocks of basic, but returning troops are trying to change that, saying it's not enough.
One of the most important things these new instructors are doing is halting training for "convoy live fire", claiming it's impractical and doesn't really fit the situations facing soldiers in combat. Beyond that, many soldiers are complaining that the curriculum being taught in basic training is wrong. For example, the convoy live fire concept was developed after the confusing battle for An Nasiriyah in 2003, when soldiers traveling in vehicles were being ambushed by irregulars. Unfortunately, terrorist tactics have evolved, while some basic training techniques for protecting against an ambush have not. Exercises for reacting to ambushes usually consist of troops riding on an open truck bed and hitting a target somewhere down the road while moving. The problem with this is that, as ambushes and IED tactics have become more sophisticated, nobody rides in open beds or on top of armored vehicles anymore. It's just not safe or smart. Still , the training has persisted.
Small unit tactics are also getting desperately-needed improvements. Previously, troops training for maneuvers in squads and platoons got most of their instruction, about 12 hours or so, in classrooms, the assumption being that once those 12 hours are over, the soldiers have a thorough understanding of how to fight and work with their fellow soldiers. The instruction itself still assumes a conventional war and thus focuses on large-scale open area warfare.
Returning troops realize this approach can get people killed and injured, so the program is being adjusted to consist primarily of field work. The new curriculum has troops receiving a brief run-through on tactics and then rapidly sent out into the field to apply maneuvers hands-on. Instructors plant mock IEDs along the roads which the troops have to avoid. After that usually comes a mock village with "combatants" and civilians intermixed. The soldiers are forced to apply their know-how under pressure, just like in actual combat. Once the exercise is over, performance reviews are conducted in the field. Assessments are made on what went right and what went wrong. Then the troops do it again until they get it right. The idea is to put the recruits under as much pressure as possible, see how they perform, and quickly fix the mistakes before the troops are actually under fire.
The Army has realized even supply clerks and repair technicians are likely to be engaged by enemy fighters in an environment that has no front lines. In certain situations, logistics and support personnel are likely to be targeted even more than troops in the combat branches because they are frequently perceived as being less prepared to shoot back and therefore "soft" targets.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20090615.aspx
that video needs a few more seconds to show if the M1 was damaged at all
North Korea is probably hoping they arent on the end of that hook
Special Operations For Smart Civilians
June 13, 2009: "Mercenaries" have gotten a bum rap since 2003, yet these "contractors" (as they prefer to be called) have proved to be invaluable, and a literal life saver in combat zones. But many of these contractors do their best work away from the combat zone. Take the many firms that have been formed in the last eight years to provide intelligence and translation services. Most of these were formed by former military officers, many of them with a U.S. Army Special Forces background. For example, one five year old firm, Mission Essential Personnel, was founded by two Special Forces veterans, and found over 3,000 translators for languages the military needed (Arabic, Pushtun, Dari), from among native speakers in the United States and overseas. The founders of the company also developed techniques to quickly get many of their translators Top Secret security clearances. This is necessary before translators can work on intelligence related projects. Other Special Forces vets founded firms that provide experts in local politics and culture in current, or potential, combat zones.
But most nations, and government officials in general, are understandably nervous about trusting foreigners to get involved with supporting their armed forces. Yet mercenary troops have long been a logical way for rulers to control their subjects while avoiding revolutions spawned in the local military barracks. Often, mercenaries are hired mainly because it's cheaper, or not enough of your citizens are willing, or able, to be effective soldiers. The Iraq war reminded Americans that the United States was also a major employer of mercenaries. This has been the case for centuries, although it became more common in the 20th century, as the U.S. became more involved with small wars.
Iraq saw extensive use of mercenaries, mainly because the Iraqis with the most security and military experience, the Sunni Arabs, were the least reliable. It was safer to bring in foreigners for security work. You could use soldiers for this, but the troops were needed for more dangerous, and complex work. Over thirty firms were used to hire people for security work. This included three types of security. First, there was guarding of bases. The Green Zone (a large chunk of central Baghdad) employed thousands of these mercenaries. Other large bases employed them as well. The second type of work was convoy security. On the main supply routes, the guys driving the trucks, as well as the security guards, were all foreigners. The most dangerous routes were generally used only by military run convoys. The third type of security was as bodyguards, and this is where the most expensive mercs (usually former commandos) were employed.
Most of the Iraq mercenaries had military or police experience and they came from all over the world. By 2005, some countries were passing law outlawing the recruitment of their citizens for this work. The main reason for this was that active duty soldiers and police were being recruited. In many countries, the mercenary pay was much more than what they were making at home. These laws didn't really work. The word was out that high paying, not-too-risky work was available in Iraq. The recruiters could operate via the internet, or potential recruits could simply go to a neighboring country and apply there.
While there was some danger, the casualty rate was low (less than one sixth of what U.S. troops experienced in Vietnam.) The security companies usually paid life insurance benefits, as well as covering medical expenses. The risk was no deterrent to the many people who kept applying for the jobs.
Getting reliable mercenaries has always been a problem, but the security firms in Iraq screened their people pretty well. There were only a few terrorist attacks inside the bases guarded by the mercenaries. This was in line with past U.S. experience with mercenaries. During the Vietnam war, many mercenary combat units were formed, some for commando operations. The U.S. Army Special Forces is trained to recruit and use mercenary troops. Most of the Special Forces experience goes back to World War II, where mercenaries were common in many of the more obscure theaters of war (where there were never enough U.S. troops.)
Mercenaries are increasingly being used for peacekeeping. While the UN is uneasy with this practice, relief workers in need of protection are not so sensitive. Some of the major security firms, like Blackwater, have offered to provide brigade size unit of peacekeepers, staffed by former soldiers and police, to do the work that many nations are reluctant to send their own troops to do. The UN turned this down, mainly because of an institutional dislike for mercenaries. Too many UN member countries are vulnerable to mercenary backed coups, and this translates into the institutional bias.
The mass media failed to cover the real story with the mercenaries, and the rich history of civilian employees of uniformed armed forces. That's the result of willful ignorance, laziness and the herd mentality the mass media often adopts in order to remain "competitive."
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20090613.aspx
The U.S. Navy does not view the incident as a deliberate move by Beijing to harass military ships operating in the region, CNN reported.
were they stopping by for cake and coffee?
thats what caught my eye also. thats one hell of weapon!
drop a couple of those successively (if you could do that) and imagine the hole you could create
B-2 Gets The Biggest Bomb Of All
June 12, 2009: After three years of effort, the U.S. Air Force has developed a new bomb rack for the B-2 bomber, so it can drop the new, 13.6 (30,000 pound) Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). Six years ago, MOP replaced the proposed nuclear bomb penetrator. MOP can be carried by a B-52, but a B-2 is more likely to get through an intact, modern, air defense system. The MOP is finally entering production, and a number (not announced) will be stockpiled.
The air force is putting a lot of money into developing new bomb racks for the B-2. Recent additions are racks which allow a B-2 to carry eighty 500 pound smart bombs, or sixteen 2,000 pound smart bombs. Another new rack allows the B-2 to carry over a hundred of the 250 pound SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) which has a ground penetrating ability. The B-2 is also now equipped with a phased array radar and targeting pod capabilities, to enable it to find targets, as well as bomb them.
The MOP is 20.5 feet long, with a 31.5-inch (80 cm) diameter. The MOP contains 2.4 tons of explosives. This is more than 10 times the explosive power of, the BLU-109 (2,000 pound bomb). The MOP can penetrate about 65 meters before exploding.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20090612.aspx
he should try a drive down any of the interstates leading into/out of chicago. 75-80 mph 8 ft off of the bumper of the car in front of you. now that is dangerous, but its fun
great link! what a great lesson to teach kids and yet they dont.
European Robotic Jets
June 11, 2009: A European consortium is building an "Advanced UAV" and have determined that each of these jet propelled vehicles will cost about $40 million. Called the Barracuda, the 3-6 ton aircraft would be able to carry a ton of weapons, as well as sensors. This UAV would not enter service until late in the next decade. It's similar to the U.S. X-45 and X-47 combat UAVs, although intended more for combat support jobs performed by the American Reaper (recon and lite strike duties).
Meanwhile, late last year, the U.S. Navy rolled out its first combat UAV (or UCAS, for Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System). The 15 ton X-47B has a wingspan of 62 feet (whose outer 15 foot portions fold up to save space on the carrier). It carries a two ton payload and be able to stay in the air for twelve hours.
Six years ago, the U.S. X-47A UCAV made its first flight. Development of this aircraft began in 2001. The U.S. Air Force was also testing the X-45 UCAV, which also had a naval version (the X-46). The X-45 program began in 1999, and the eight ton (max takeoff weight, with two ton payload) aircraft was ready for operational tests in 2006. The X-46 has a different wing layout, and a range of 1,100 kilometers, carrying a payload of two tons. The X-47A also has a two ton payload and a range of 1,600 kilometers. Unlike the X-45, which is built to be stored for long periods, the X-47A was built for sustained use aboard a carrier. All of these aircraft are stealthy and can operate completely on their own (including landing and takeoff, under software control). The UCAVs would be used for dangerous missions, like destroying enemy air defenses, and reconnaissance. Even air force commanders are eager to turn over SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) missions to UAVs. SEAD is the most dangerous mission for combat pilots.
The U.S. Department of Defense also wants the new UAV combat aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule (planned in the 1990s). The F-35 is expected to cease production in 2034, more than a decade after the first combat UAVs, that can match F-35 performance, enter service.
Over the last few years, it was decided that the air force and navy be allowed to develop combat UAVs to suit their particular needs. The X45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing and SEAD missions. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.)
In the last few years, the X45A passed tests for formation flying, and dropping a JDAM (actually the new 250 pound SDB version). An X45C could carry eight SDB (250 pound small diameter bombs), or up to two tons of other JDAMs.
The planned X45C would weigh in at about 19 tons, have a 2.2 ton payload and be 39 feet long (with a 49 foot wingspan.) The X-45A, built for development only, is 27 feet long, has a wingspan of 34 feet and has a payload of 1.2 tons. The X-45C was designed to hit targets 2,300 kilometers away and be used for bombing and reconnaissance missions. Each X-45C was to cost about $30 million, depending on how extensive, and expensive, its electronic equipment was. Believing they could do better, the U.S. Air Force cancelled its X-45 program three years ago, and is now looking into different UCAV designs.
The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air. This appears to be the last job left for pilots of combat aircraft. The geeks believe they have this one licked, and are giving the pilot generals the, "bring it on" look. The generals are not keen to test their manned aircraft against a UAV, but this will change the minute another country, like China or Russia, demonstrates that they are seriously moving in that direction.
Meanwhile, many UCAV designers want to equip the UCAVs with sensors (various types of video cams) to give the aircraft the same kind of "situational awareness" that piloted aircraft have. But for this to work, the UCAV would need software that would enable it to think like a fighter pilot. The techies say this can be done. But the fighter pilots that run the air force and naval aviation are not so sure. There also some worry about job security and pilots being replaced by robotic aircraft. All this is headed for some mock combat exercise between manned and unmanned fighters. Such tests will be a competition between pilots and programmers. But the programmer community contains fighter pilots as well, and the smart money is on the geeks to outsmart, or at least outfly, the human pilots. No one thinks it will be a lopsided battle, but the robotic aircraft are so much cheaper, that even a dead even finish favors the pilotless aircraft. The geeks have already demonstrated the prowess of their artificial fighter pilots in simulators, and even flight simulators available in the game market.
The U.S. Navy has invested several billion dollars, so far, in developing combat UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) that can operate from aircraft carriers, and replace some of the manned aircraft on carriers. There are other problems with the combat UAVs, and these concern just how they will be used. Currently, the thinking is that they will be sort of like cruise missiles that return, and will be most useful for reconnaissance and dangerous missions like taking out enemy air defenses. But many UAV engineers, and some fighter pilots, believe that combat UAVs could revolutionize air warfare. Combat UAVs can perform maneuvers that a manned aircraft cannot (because there are limits to the g-forces a human body can tolerate.) In theory, software and sensors would make a combat UAV much quicker to sort out a combat situation, and make the right move. For the moment, this aspect of UAV development is officially off the table. But once combat UAVs start operating, and that will be by the end of the decade, there will be much pressure to let combat UAVs rule the skies, in addition to scouting and bombing. The senior Pentagon leadership have seen this future, and believe it is the real one. Many European aviation commanders agree.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090611.aspx
so thats how you think of our cops?
are you suggesting we take the guns away from the cops also?
well said!
so now i have to restrict my freedoms because i cant protect myself?
i know plenty of people who cnc into bars now, they dont go shooting up the place. they carry them for protection, because all the police will do is clean up the crime scene, when and if it happens
so you are saying there is no reason what so ever to have a concealed weapon in a bar?
how about during an armed robbery?
or, and i witnessed this. during a bar fight in which 3 bikers beat the hell out of one guy? each man out weighed him by about a 100 lbs and one of them used a cue ball to him. kind of sounds like he could have used a gun.
and if a perp is killed during a crime, i believe they forfeited their life the minute they committed a crime of extreme violence
great story! thanks for the link