Slashdot Mirror

->What makes you think we are behind?
What they did to all the systems on the USS Donald Cook and https://www.defensenews.com/ho...

You can be trusted to wage war, at least.

The victory — which you earlier renounced as hollow and worthless — increases the trust, you'll win too.

This encourages your friends to invest in defenses against you specifically.

Except, it does not happen. To a fault — for many years many European countries did not invest in their defenses, counting on the US to help them. You may have heard about it from the press criticizing Trump for "endangering NATO". For example, France, Germany, and Czechia have fewer tanks (combined!) than the Russia-supplied separatists in Eastern Ukraine... For another example, Germany's entire submarine fleet (6 ships) was grounded last year.

Israel — another friend — does keep their defenses top notch, but not against the US. China and Russia also try to improve their militaries, but they aren't — and never have been — our friends.

Why would you even post such bullshit to begin with?..

Forget Nuclear power. It's not going to happen because when you break ground for a new plant thousands of crazy people

Some nuclear-friendly federal regulation and funding could fix that. Research funding into next-gen safer designs? Streamlined permit approvals toward pilot programs? Tax incentives, perhaps to convert aging coal plants? A little DARPA action, enough to encourage universities to offer nuclear engineering degrees again?

When the Soviets were around, propagandizing a nuclear world with nuclear plants that fit on trucks to show off how nuclear they were, the U.S. was red hot to show how nuclear it could be. Now with the Soviets and their propaganda gone, U.S. politicians have no balls for moon-shot beat-the-russians tech stuff.

Or maybe it's not completely gone. The Russians and the Chinese are getting back into nuclear, even in spite of the Russians sitting on shit-tons of fossil fuels. The Chinese want to quickly power up these little islands they're building in the China Sea to claim as their new territory. The Russians want to fill the melting Arctic with flag-flying nuclear ice-breakers to get at all the stuff up there (the U.S. hasn't built an ice-breaker since the late 1970s). Gosh, if we would only elect Congress-people who gave a fuck, we might be able to get in on this while there's something still to get got.

Especially if you consider that almost two-thirds of US navy planes can't fly.

Hope this administration can deliver on their [campaign] promise.

Why not direct some of your anti-government animus towards companies like Lockheed Martin (a military contractor) that receives almost all of its revenue from the government? Most of the sugar you eat is subsidized by the government through corn subsidies (why do you think it's so cheap?). General Motors would have gone bankrupt if it weren't for government money given after the 2008 crash. And of course the biggest one would be gasoline; fossil fuel companies receive massive direct and indirect government subsidies.

In an instance of war or a strategic hit precision guided bombing sequence requires gps. If there is no gps they will have to use laser guidance or some other less 'fire and forget' tracking method. Bomb makers knew this day was coming Guided-Bomb Makers Anticipate GPS Jammers http://www.defensenews.com/sto...

The RD-181-equipped Antares rocket

Mentioned only in passing, the RD-181 is Russia-designed and created rocket engine...

While lower-level Democrats are gleefully spreading rumours about Trump being a Putin's man, the Democratic Administration continues to buy this high technology from the adversary. In a typical manifestation of hair-splitting, even though Congress banned the use of RD-180 in 2015, NASA claims, use of RD-181 is acceptable...

http://www.defensenews.com/sto... :

India ordered 45 MiG-29K aircraft and equipment worth $2.2 billion in two separate orders — in 2004 and 2010 — from Russia. It is the primary combat platform on Vikramaditya, which was acquired from Russia when it was known as the Admiral Gorshkov...
On problems with the engine, the CAG report said: "Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engined MiG-29K have been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design-related defects." ...
Additionally, the serviceability of the warplanes was low, ranging from 21.30 percent to 47.14 percent, according to the report. ...
Detailing the defects of the engine on MiG-29K, the report noted that "even as the RD-33 MK engine (mounted on MiG-29K) was considered an advancement over the engine of the MiG-29K, its reliability remains questionable."

Is software ever actually finished?

It's working fine at the moment, so it's unlikely to cause another $4 Billion in cost over-runs.

Yes, the F-35 absolutely can dogfight - for whatever that's worth these days.

Also, all of these financial comparisons completely miss the point, as if the US wasn't going with the F-35 program, they'd be going with a different program instead. It's not like the US is just going to say, "Meh, I think our fighters are good enough, even though all of our potential adversaries keep advancing theirs..." And they would have again sought to go big, since there's a lot of aircraft to replace, and the more they produce the smaller the unit cost.

Yes, the F-35 is estimated at $1,5 trillion. Total through 2070. Aka, $28B per year, versus the Pentagon's $580B budget. And not all go to the US, there are many international orders as well. Procurement is only a fifth of that $1,5 trillion, or under $6B per year.

Again, yes, you could spend that money on, say, college education for people instead. If you're willing not only to let your adversaries out-tech your airforce, but also to scrap the current airplanes you're with that the F-35 is designed to replace, since that money also pays for ongoing operations costs that you'd have to pay for either way. You might be willing to scrap a large chunk of your airforce. Most Americans would not be, I'm sure.

Is it worth mentioning that many of the design decisions of the F-35 are designed to reduce operating costs, such as large production runs, a single engine design, etc - even though the unit cost is high? Again: production is only a fifth of total costs....

"CIA ... trashing the constitution"

Secret U.S. government agencies do whatever they want. There is very little oversight. Those who want to kill people have no need to take a chance on getting arrested for murder. They join one of the many secret or semi-secret agencies.

Those who want to play video games that kill real people could work for the U.S. government in 19 countries. Now only 18 countries since the Uzbek government evicted the CIA killing organization.

Those in the U.S. who want to mistreat other people don't need to risk going to prison.

Those who want easy money that can be wasted in crazy schemes have no need to face bankruptcy. They can join a secret agency and use taxpayer money for things like a $43 million compressed natural gas station that serves only about 100 taxi drivers.

Those who want to find investment opportunities can join the many secret U.S. government agencies like No Sense in America, NSA, and listen to phone calls. Think the NSA is one organization? No, the NSA has contracting companies: How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA.

There is little democracy in the U.S. The U.S. government helps the rich get richer.

The level of arrogance and ignorance in both your post and the grandparent would be astounding if it wasn't for the fact that it appears to be all-too-common. That "landlocked Asian minor country" has the largest coastline of any nation in the world. They are in the midst of rapid deployment of technologies to exploit the resources and opportunities of the arctic region including many new icebreakers in an effort to open a northern sea route (which may become very viable if the global warming predictions come true). Further, their current military campaign in Syria has proven remarkably effective, especially in contrast to the anemic actions of the United States and our western allies before they entered the conflict. They have demonstrated the capabilities of submarines being able to fire missiles while submerged to the effective use of some of their most modern fighters (as opposed to our failed F-35) and effective long range cruise missiles. They are growing increasingly capable while we appear to be stagnating.

It should also be noted that Russia has been signing major deals with some of the world's largest nations at the same time that we seem to be alienating our friends here in the United States. Far from being a needy border-line-third-world-nation, Russia seems to be showing us up time and again. Twice now the United States in the past few years, the United States has been forced to back down when Russia asserted their will in Syria, and despite economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine, they have not backed down at all. A lot of talk has been made over how Russia has a shrinking cash reserve and yet everyone seems to forget that _they_actually_have_a_reserve. Further, their foreign debt is currently decreasing at the same time our national debt has just reached $19 trillion. When one considers that our proposed defense budget is as large at the combined total of the next 8 countries and yet we have a fighter that cannot fight and a high-tech destroyer that cannot float, I don't think we have much room at all to speak of Russian corruption (though it almost certainly exists).

Given current trajectories, it seems to me that our country is more likely to face a future of irrelevancy than the Russians right now. Our press is very selective about what they cover, but reality has a nasty way of asserting itself and often in very painful ways.

You don't need 283 A-10s to fight ISIS. It looks like the number engaged is more like 12. They are flying a lot of missions,but there aren't dozens of them doing it.

Perhaps their should be.

Choppers are more expensive to operate, less effective, and more vulnerable than A-10s.

You don't need 283 A-10s to fight ISIS. It looks like the number engaged is more like 12. They are flying a lot of missions,but there aren't dozens of them doing it.

Remember we originally bought 700 to destroy massive Soviet tank columns in Europe. ISIS is a) much smaller, b) much less well-protected. You don't need a tank gun to take out a Toyota and (since their AA abilities are truly primitive) you can use choppers. The AF's desired number (283) is almost certainly overkill.

You don't need 283 A-10s to fight ISIS. It looks like the number engaged is more like 12. They are flying a lot of missions,but there aren't dozens of them doing it.

Remember we originally bought 700 to destroy massive Soviet tank columns in Europe. ISIS is a) much smaller, b) much less well-protected. You don't need a tank gun to take out a Toyota and (since their AA abilities are truly primitive) you can use choppers. The AF's desired number (283) is almost certainly overkill.

Far fetched claim, you say? Have you read any news, or watched any videos of the air shows around the world? Gen5 and Gen6 aircraft are flying, today. We can't get our shitty Gen5 into service, because it's a non-flying piece of shit. Pilots used to claim that they could fly a brick, if they had enough power. But, I never heard a pilot claim that he could fly a fuckiing turd - and that's the F-35, a huge god-damned turd.

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

Dang - look at this - I'm way behind, myself. INDIA is a co-developer of a Gen5 fighter!
http://www.defensenews.com/sto...

Even Pakistan seems to be in on the act
http://breakingdefense.com/201...

This list is interesting, in that there are ten contenders, some of which only offer photos of static model planes.
http://www.wonderslist.com/fif...
Note that the Chinese offering is photographed while landing on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER - something the F-35 doesn't seem capable of doing yet.

http://english.chinamil.com.cn...

Whether or not you need a catapult is more a function of lift and takeoff weight than what class the aircraft falls into. The Navy is definitely planning to launch drones with cats - they cat launched an X-45B last year.

As this article indicates, United Launch Alliance, the principle competitor to SpaceX has hired Shockey Scofield Solutions to initiate a propaganda campaign against SpaceX. You can see ULA listed as a client in the website listed above. The campaign is indirectly mentioned in the following very informative article, just past the halfway point in the article. You will also notice another client to Shockey Scofield Solutions as Koch Industries, which is a company notorious for its deceptive propaganda campaigns against action on global warming.

Given this fact, I would tend to suspect many of the anti SpaceX comments as being part of an astroturfing campaign. To be honest, I really don't understand why an actual thinking person would have any problem with SpaceX. They build reliable rockets quickly and cheaply. What on Earth is the problem with that?

Your missing the emerging press spin of the wealth of production, wealth of working with new crews, wealth of keeping the systems flying, upgrades. Diverse sales to cities, states and federal agencies. The rush from prototypes to profitable production line sales. A lot of political and private sector interests in seeing drones flying and been worked on as an ongoing pubic/private boondoggle.
Deep in local or tech news you can find 'events'
How a Large U.S. Navy UAV Crashed in Maryland, From 18,000 Feet (Jan. 7, 2013)
http://www.defensenews.com/art...
https://publicintelligence.net...
If a drone was lost in war, the classic propaganda value is often balanced by a hidden sale at a great price to other interested groups.
The main problem for the US is the rush from prototypes to front line units without the budget/time/skill/support that a vast new bespoke project like that needs.
The US took a camera platform and packed in many other mil related systems. Then went big and small at a constant low price in a short time demanding ever more tasks and roles.
The other aspect is the way the US mil saw encryption and how to protect it while saving limited power per drone - just dont use it. Nothing is lost in a crash and more needed systems can get what per drone encryption would have taken. Effortless ready to go realtime communications and data networks for drones without the costs of losing, buying or supporting heavy per drone encryption.
Great for moving prototypes to global front lines fast but long term it gets much more interesting.

The first reason for them to gear up this way is that DHS is selling us back equipment that the military purchased for Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a boost to the MIC, and a nice way to double tax us for the same equipment. Yes, DHS sells them for less money but still are selling them to local police.

I must have missed that the first time I read your comment.

The original cost was $700,000.
The cost to ship back to the USA and refurb is $250,000 to $300,000 per vehicle
The cost to local police is $5,000.

How is that possibly a "double tax us for the same equipment"?

Every war that the USA has been in, we've tried to destroy, give away, or sell as much as possible instead of shipping it home.
I'm honestly surprised that the military is bringing anything that big home and selling it to state/local authorities for pennies on the dollar.

Tell that to Boeing, who just lost a major deal with Brazil over this.

I'll break the code on that for you. The French company Dassault competed for that contract, but the Swedish company Saab made a better bid, so Dassault lost. The US company Boeing competed for that contract, but the Swedish company Saab made a better bid, so Boeing lost. Claiming it had anything to do with the NSA was just a "twist of the knife" at an opportune time. If you want to claim that it was due to NSA, they why did Dassault lose?

Dassault Blasts Brazil's Fighter Decision

You can read a number of comments about the strong position of Saab in the Slashdot story on this.

US Spying Costs Boeing Military Jet Deal With Brazil -- Example

Or go out on the internet and look. Saab has a competitive fighter that has won a number of contracts, both in Europe and around the world.

People are going to be claiming that every lost contract or bid has to do with NSA now, but little of it will be true. But that is an easier explanation to make than how you were underbid, or otherwise made a bad business decision.

>> why there was no quick & decisive Libya-style action?

Probably at least five reasons:
1) Libya's a lot further away from Iran than Syria
2) Russia had Syria's back, not so much Libya's
3) The UK told the US to pound sand, and I wonder how much of that was due to us making fun of their operational capacity in Libya (e.g., http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120207/DEFREG01/302070008/Ability-U-K-Conduct-Future-Libya-Style-Campaign-Questioned)
4) In Libya Qaddafi was still known and hated in the US and Europe blowing up an airline filled with their citizens, whereas Syria's leader was "just" suspected to have used chemical weapons on his own people (sort of a micro-Saddam)
5) Obama's public rationale for going to war with Syria was almost identical to Bush's public rationale for going to war with Iraq (See #4), and Obama's trying as hard as he can to avoid looking like Bush

Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! ...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama is apparently a a keen supporter of intelligence spending.

Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.

That's President Obama. Now, if you were to quote Senator Obama, your point would be valid. You want to know how much he is a pawn? Military action against Syria will happen between next Saturday night and Tuesday morning. He will take action, as Presidents before him have, while Congress is in recess. He has until the 9th. This will be the main focus of his Presidential Address on Sunday; justifying the legality and U.S. interest in doing so. He'll pull at liberal heart strings.

This has been planned for the past 15 years now just like the Iraq war was. U.S. and Britain (primarily) won't miss their chance even though there is more evidence to counter the claim Assad used chemical weapons. They're manufacturing evidence.

The Elites need the Syrian pipeline and this is their chance to take it.

(Did I mention the U.S. and NATO have been funding the destabilization of Syria for the past four years?)

Next stop: Iran

Time to pretend like the president has any actual control over any of this! ...The presidency does not exist to wield power. The presidency exists to distract attention away from the wielding of power.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama is apparently a a keen supporter of intelligence spending.

Jun. 2, 2009

When U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair met with President Barack Obama in February to discuss a proposed new constellation of multibillion-dollar imaging satellites, the resulting series of conversations was unusual and maybe unprecedented in the country's decades-long history of using orbiting cameras to spy inside foreign borders. ...

Obama's personal involvement in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress was "very unusual," said a retired intelligence official. U.S. presidents often receive briefings about spy satellite capabilities at times of crisis, the official said, but he did not know of another president being involved in acquisition planning. That is normally left to the intelligence community, which manages construction of spy satellites and operates them through the National Reconnaissance Office. Acquisition proposals are accepted indirectly by presidents when they sign off on their classified budget requests to Congress.

Well, since Obama was personally (and unusually) involved in formulating a satellite acquisition proposal to Congress, I'd say the argument that he is a mere figurehead doesn't quite fly.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130302/DEFREG02/303020009/Brazil-Get-Its-First-Nuclear-Subs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Space_Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
Brazil has some great academics. Journals in many parts of the world seem to have issues going back years.

Japan is at a crossroads and drones are not the only form of military expansion that is being considered. They are giving a lot of thought to the task of guarding their trade routes along with the protection of disputed islands and areas of sea close to home rich in oil, minerals and fish http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/08/china-japan-drone-race http://defense-update.com/20120917_uas-on-maritime-surveillance-pacific.html and so are seeking to modernise and change the mix of the JMSDF http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ship.htm assets. This has resulted in the 22DDH a new light aircraft carrier http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/cv-newcon.htm built upon ideas gained from the existing Hyuga-class helicopter carrier http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hyuga-class/. Some are already beating the drum be it only in model form http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/06/jmsdf-in-action.html but others in the area may well have other ideas of the future http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2012/12/what-china-wants-for-christmas/

The question isn't how to ward off the zombie apocalypse. The question is how could a zombie apocalypse realistically happen at all. Any explanation is a huge stretch.

The truth is that the military military training exercises against zombies are a politically correct way of practising for the time that Muslims rise against civilisation. We know that they plan to do this because their leaders say so, and the effect will be people indistinguishable in a crowd rising up and violently attacking others. The "Zombie" scenario gives them the chance to try strategies that will minimise innocent casualties while taking care of the Muslims. Of course in this PC world, though all top level strategists know what the Muslim leaders are saying and planning, it has to be presented as "defence against Zombies".

Yes, because [the Republican plans to avoid sequester] are all total BS.

I don't think that's true. There was one suggestion to allow the president to make the choice of what to cut. With such a small cut, it should be easy to find things that won't cause huge damage. Obama threatened to veto it, because of pork-spending, jobs, defense, and kids. Think of the kids.

It's not clear to me the real reason why he opposes that bill.

Make 'em your BUSINESS MODEL.

Google, selling you out since 2003.

Rainey Reitman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that technically, it is indeed all legal, but she emphasized that people don't really understand how their random thoughts, disclosures or opinions on social media may be exploited.

"I think people don't realize when they sign up for these sites that the government is going to be routinely monitoring and sifting through this data," she said.

"If Coca-Cola is reading all my tweets," Dan Zarrella points out, "it's not as scary as if the DOD is reading all my tweets, right?"

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121113/DEFREG02/311130003/Unwitting-Sensors-How-DoD-Exploiting-Social-Media

Besides this, the article is bollocks made up by people who have had too much pot/coffee and not enough exposure to the real world. China's govt doesn't give a shit about your crappy companies secrets. They don't bother stealing technology when it's cheaper and easier to buy it from the Russians. As for corporate espionage, once again not a big problem as it's cheaper to buy it than steal it and it's easier to steal it from the factory (where there are lots of low paid workers to bribe) than sneaking into some gwailo's room and rifling through his shit (also, people capable of stealing secrets from you are typically quite smart).

Oh, really? China has been caught stealing from all kinds of crappy little companies. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111106/DEFSECT04/111060302/Chinese-Cyber-Espionage-Growing-U-S-Report

Because, if you (as the government) insist on getting your money back for a program you cancel after overruns and delays, you get unending lawsuits and are stuck in litigation for several decades. There's a better way to do things, to be sure, but payment on delivery (or from another perspective, 100% refunds) are out of the question for cases in which much of the cost has been sunk into hundreds of man-months of up-front professional (engineers, developers) labor or even purely scientific research.

Major projects in software and aerospace, especially when boundaries are being pushed (frequently, though not always, the case in aerospace--less so in ERP), can require a lot of up-front investment before a single product roles off the line. The B-2, for example, has a flyaway cost of $555M, but the total program cost $44B. We call it NRE--non-recoverable expenditure--and if there were absolutely no guarantees regardless of outcome, boundaries would never be pushed by interested parties of a certain size (i.e., DoD / enterprise software corporations / aerospace companies) because such entities are, by their, nature, VERY risk-averse.

And that's a huge problem with cyber: attribution. Even if an attack appears to be coming from a particular source, that doesn't mean it originated from and/or was ordered by that source. In fact, intentional misattribution or denial of attribution is yet another element of cyber operations. From a US perspective, we still don't have a comprehensive set of rules of engagement for cyber, or even really have consistent, well-understood definitions for what constitutes "cyber war" (though there's certainly a lot of hype...)

Some relevant recent articles:

---

Cyber Command struggles to define its place on a shifting battlefield - Nextgov

The U.S. Cyber Command, which directs network offensive operations for the Pentagon and protects its networks, is becoming more open about the military’s capabilities in cyberspace. Recently, the Defense Department was forced to show part of its hand when leaks surfaced about U.S.-manufactured cyber weapons and cyber espionage missions. Still, since 2011, the department has told the world it stands prepared to protect U.S. national security interests through cyberspace maneuvers.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2012/08/hacker-wars/57438/

---

Confusion Reigns In Cyber Planning - AVIATION WEEK

Pentagon warfighters have for years been asking for a cybercombat policy, rules of engagement, funding and a less-fragmented chain of authority. But those needs remain unfulfilled as bureaucrats, lawmakers and top Defense Department civilian officials thrash about in a pit of indecision while an international complex of digital threats continues to emerge.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FDT_05_01_2012_p38-444018.xml&guid=74908

---

'Turf War' Slows New U.S. Cyber Rules - Defense News

Despite the ongoing concern about the escalating pace of cyber attacks, a new set of standing rules of engagement for cyber operations — policy guidelines that would specify how the Pentagon would respond to different types of cyber attacks — is being delayed by a debate over the role of the U.S. military in defending non-military networks, sources said.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120507/C4ISR01/305070015/-8216-Turf-War-8217-Slows-New-U-S-Cyber-Rules

---

Pentagon revamps rules of engagement for cyberwar - The Hill

The Pentagon is rewriting the book on how it defends against and possibly responds to cyberattacks against the United States, the top uniformed officer in charge of the effort told Congress on Tuesday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/218435-pentagon-revamps-rules-of-engagement-for-cyberwar

1. 1) Cost. A human pilot represents a multi-million dollar engineering challenge, from life support system (such as O2 flow) to aircraft survivability to ergonomics.
2. 2) Capability. As others here have noted, modern fighter aircraft's maneuverability have long since been hamstrung by the physiological limitations of the pilot. A human pilot also represents a waste of space and weight that could be used for fuel, sensors and weapons. The lack of a cockpit also implies smaller aircraft with a thinner profile increasing "stealthiness".
3. 3) Reduced Political Profile. The Navy has just grounded their Firescout UAVs following two crashes. But that grounding doesn't make big news, because no one died when the UAVs went down and the program has a relatively modest budget, at least compared to the F-22 and F-35.

And yet the military still doesn't have a clue - the Navy just released their proposal for a F-18 replacement that includes a "optional manned" variant. In fact, this dictates a design that meets manned requirements first, with "optional unmanned" variant to follow, in much the same way that the F-35B STOVL dictated the design (and timeline and costs) of the JSF program.

UAVs (as well as Unmanned Surface Vehicles) can and should be used to make the US military safer, more cost-effective and more capable.

Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.

Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market. Once foreign firms get access and have spent a considerable amount of resources getting started in China, the state forces them to manufacture a certain percent of their product in China, NOT by themselves, but it should be subcontracted out to a Chinese company (e.g., Honda China can't make, design, and manufacture all their own stuff, they have to transfer technology to some Chinese company so that the Chinese company can make it... if you don't follow their rules, the state can simply legislate your technology away, or worse). Once you've transferred sufficient technology to the Chinese company, you start wondering why no more orders for your products are coming in, and then you realize that it's because the very Chinese company you've partnered with is now making the product 100% in China without your help and "entirely of their own innovation."
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/letter-bombs-11-coming-up-on-the-rail/

So there's our economic domination. And that's just one example of it. There's lots more, and it's in the news very frequently.

Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll. The People's Liberation Army annually ventures into Bhutan dozens of times. The government not only holds onto old conflicts which they have dubious claim, but starts new conflicts semi-frequently. We've also seen that when the CPC is pissed about a border, the Chinese media is used to intentionally and flagrantly lie about the facts in order to stir up nationalism. They have also shown that they will put the government's hand in everything, ranging from travel agents to school exchange trips to locking up the offending country's nationals for "espionage" (punishable by death) to economic embargoes meant to force countries to bend backwards and obey. Of course, the CPC will deny any involvement in any of these actions.

The People's Liberation Army continues to modernize and deploy more force aimed directly at Taiwan. The PLA "defense" budget continues to grow in the double digit percents every year, and it's almost exclusively aimed at Taiwan and the US -- it's still less than 20% of the US def

Who cares? Do you think the J-20 uses "exactly" that formulation?

You do realize that the paint is radar absorbing and the composition is still classified today right? Even the paint composition of the S-71 Blackbird is still classified. There are many things still classified about these once top secret programs even though the existence of the planes themselves are no longer secret. The Chinese would have considered the paint as one the most prized secrets of the F-117 so it would be fair guess that they've would have used the paint in their formulation if they got their hands on it.

So what you're saying is that you're more likely that superpowers around the world learning that a stealth fighter was downed in Kosovo wouldn't send agents to try to recover parts of the wreckage. I would be surprised if Russia, Israel, and China all sent agents. Most recently, China copied the Su-27 and the Su-33 and called them the J-11 and J-15, however, China insists that they were homegrown airplanes even though they are near exact matches to the Russian planes. China is willing to steal technology from a partner and ally. You think they wouldn't do so from an enemy?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5056235&c=AIR&s=TOP

http://sidelobe.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/zhuhai-unusual-models-on-display/

Most Air Force critters aren't pilots. Plus, Air Force Para-Rescue as well as Forward Air Controllers are specialized grunts who happen to work for the Air Force. The military is full of weird situations like this. For example, the Army operates 119 vessels (we're not talking about inflatable rafts here).

As I recall, during WWII, the Japanese Army operated its own submarines because they hated the Japanese Navy too much to ask for a loaner when needed.

Most Air Force critters aren't pilots. Plus, Air Force Para-Rescue as well as Forward Air Controllers are specialized grunts who happen to work for the Air Force. The military is full of weird situations like this. For example, the Army operates 119 vessels (we're not talking about inflatable rafts here).

Air Force Planning Giant Spy Airship
http://www.military.com/news/article/March-2009/air-force-planning-giant-spy-airship.html

ILC Dover has extended its contract with Lockheed Martin to provide lighter-than-air "aerostats", very similar to a blimp. The aerostats are used in Afghanistan and Iraq to provide surveillance and communication for U.S. troops.
http://whyy.org/cms/news/regional-news/delaware/2010/06/24/delaware-company-builds-unmanned-airships-for-u-s-military/40647

Iraqi conflict brings increased interest in military airships
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200307/ai_n9258465/

And in case you were wondering, it's not just the US that's interested in modern airship technology. China has plans for them too.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4649479

I can see why DoD would want to keep the solid rocket companies in business, because those same companies also build and replace ICBMs. But surely DoD can figure out a way to pay to keep those companies in business without forcing NASA to go with solid rocket boosters.

I agree. I think it's quite bizarre that much of the hubbub in Congress has been about how NASA would no longer subsidizing ICBM motor production under the new plans, and that NASA using commercial liquid-based rockets instead would be disastrous for our strategic deterrence capability. I'd argue that it should be the DOD's responsibility to maintain ICBM production capability, not NASA's. A quote from an article providing some context from those unfamiliar with the situation:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4543976&c=AME&s=SEA

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., insisted again March 17 that the cost of solid rocket motors that the U.S. military needs for its intercontinental ballistic missiles will double if President Barack Obama gets his way.

Vitter blames Obama's space strategy, as spelled out in the 2011 budget, which would cancel NASA's Constellation program. ...

While others praise Obama's plan to invest in commercial space companies, Vitter worries that one of the real losers in all this will be the U.S. military.

His logic: NASA is the nation's biggest customer for solid rocket motors, so if NASA drops out of the market, prices for everyone else will double. The military needs solid rocket motors for Minuteman ballistic missiles, submarine-based Trident ballistic missiles, missile interceptors and all sorts of tactical missiles.

The Navy, which has studied the matter, says prices will probably rise, but they won't double.

During a Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, said he expects solid rocket motor prices to rise 10 to 20 percent. He assured Vitter that 100 percent price growth is not likely. Johnson heads Navy strategic systems programs.

Vitter, who has been sounding this alarm since the 2011 budget was unveiled Feb. 1, seemed unconvinced.

NASA provides 70 percent of the business that sustains the solid rocket motor industry, he said. If that vanishes, costs for other customers must increase more than 20 percent.

Not so, said Johnson. NASA's requirements are so different from the military's - think size and weight - that eliminating NASA's demand will not cause military rocket costs to double.

"It's a valid concern," Johnson told Vitter. And costs may rise, possibly 20 percent. But they won't double.

I wonder if this delay extends the set of contingencies (such as reboost, de-orbit, or repair) for the experimental unmanned space plane currently on orbit. The recent X37B liftoff was on a much lower inclination than the ISS's and "is designed to fly at altitudes between 110 and 500 nautical miles, or 126 to 575 statute miles" according to SpaceflightNow. This puts it within reach of Endeavor. The last time a supersecret bird went awry, they had to shoot it before it fell to keep it from raining hydrazine and beryllium on populated areas ... or so they said.

IMHO whatever comes from this DARPA program will inevitably be a more roadworthy helicopter, which may or may not end up having enough advantages over existing helicopters. But to slam it simply because it won't be invisible is just silly.

Except that it doesn't work that way in the real world. The current experimental platform for the CG(X) next-generation cruiser barely has enough power for the new high-powered radar and the railgun, let-alone TBMD ballistic defense and other future weapons systems. The power budget is so anemic and the oil power is so expensive to operate that the GAO and Congress are pushing the Navy to consider going back to nuclear power for this new class of Cruisers.

Further, it turns-out that adding MORE generator capacity, either through nuclear or non-nuclear means, will require a redesign of the hull just to fit it. So, the only way to make this blue-sky concept REALLY work adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost, and necessitates a complete redesign! And after you shove more generation capacity into that sucker, you have a ship that's approaching the massive size of a battleship! Nothing like reality to bring you out of your daydream with a slap in the face, eh?

2017? If DDX is anything to gauge turnaround time by, it'll be 2025 before they ship CG(X), and with about half the orders canceled along the way.

Coincidently enough, your answer was published today.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3927935&c=FEA&s=BUS

Waiting for Profits in Space
GeoEye Fights Delays With New Imaging Satellite
By ANTONIE BOESSENKOOL
Published: 2 February 2009

Anyone who's used Google Earth has likely seen images from GeoEye, a Dulles, Va., Earth-imaging company. The Internet giant allows users to zoom in from a view of a continent to a car on the street by using images from GeoEye, along with ones from competitor DigitalGlobe, the U.S. Geological Survey and elsewhere.

GeoEye has used its flagship Ikonos satellite to provide images for Google and the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), its biggest customer. But those customers - and investors - have been waiting for GeoEye-1, the company's newest satellite, to become fully operational.

GeoEye-1 has faced delays from launch to operation, and as a result, the company has been missing out on revenues under a new NGA contract.

GeoEye-1, a two-story-tall satellite built by a contractor team led by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, is the world's highest-resolution commercial Earth-imaging satellite, according to the company. The first image the satellite took was of Kutztown University in Pennsylvania; a tennis player is visible about to serve the ball.

GeoEye-1's launch, originally planned for the first quarter of 2007, finally took place last Sept. 6. Work went slower than planned, then the launch was bumped to allow Boeing Launch Services to give priority to a U.S. government launch. Once in orbit, the satellite suffered from delays in calibrating its accuracy and testing its software. The process, which normally takes up to three months, has lasted five so far, according to GeoEye spokes-man Mark Brender.

GeoEye has told investors for several months that the company is nearing the end of this phase. Matt O'Connell, the company's president and chief executive, said the GeoEye-1 satellite should be fully operational at least by the end of the first quarter of 2009, though GeoEye is aiming for sometime this month.

"We're still in the process of fine-tuning the accuracy," O'Connell said. "You make a change, you do a couple of orbits, you look at the imagery, you test it, you find what you think might be a bug, you do another change. So it's an iterative process, so it takes a while."

The process now is focusing on aligning the positional accuracy of the satellite with the GPS grid, he said. "We're all disappointed that it hasn't gone faster. But we're excited that we are nearing the end of the tunnel."

O'Connell said testing that he's seen lately makes him more confident that GeoEye-1 is getting closer to becoming fully operational, as more glitches are eliminated and the satellite is "hitting accuracy levels that are near our target."

What's hanging in the balance is a new Service Level Agreement with the NGA that would boost GeoEye's revenues. Once GeoEye-1 is operational and the NGA certifies GeoEye-1 images as meeting the agency's standards, NGA will buy $12.5 million in GeoEye-1 images a month under its NextView program. That will give GeoEye a consistent revenue source after somewhat bumpy revenues in recent quarters. Revenues were down 24 percent to $106 million for the first nine months of 2008.

GeoEye's competitor, DigitalGlobe, won the first contract under the NextView program. Its satellite, WorldView-3, provides black-and-white images to NGA.

"We're comfortable the GeoEye is on a path that's going to have [GeoEye-1] operational and available for NGA taskings," NGA spokesman Dave Burpee said.

In the meantime, the NGA and Google keep buying images from Ikonos, which was launched in 1999 by GeoEye's predecessor company, Space Imaging. GeoEye was formed in 2006 when OrbImage, a company O'Connell also headed, bought Space Imaging, a Lockheed Martin-Raytheon joint venture.

Last year CNET reported on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".

Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout, Global Hawk, Predator 2, and the Dominator, their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.

According to DefenseNews the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).

Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.

Better hope we're not fighting China or one of their allies. That is, unless these things can also mirror China's weapons to said battle-field stations. But then I'd be concerned about an energy spike at the station, or that the weapon gets deflected toward some other location.

Maybe someone will come up with a foolproof radar and AA missile combo or a stealth missile platform that can be maneuvered close enough to a carrier group to sink most of it.

China is trying to develop an ICBM to sink a carrier battle group.

Ok... I watched the WHOLE DAMN VIDEO... and read everything I could find about the Polywell fusor, and it seems universally deemed to be the proven method of fusion; decades ahead of, and orders of magnitude more realistic than ITER.
The resounding story seems to be that Bussard can't raise a simple $200 million after touring the world with his idea and freely presenting his (patented) design for the IEC Polywell fusor to every conceivable entity, from Google Co. to China and the US NAVY.

The articles I read (Eg. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2584496&C=a merica) claim that the funding he requested from the Navy was denied because the IEC concept is a direct threat to the Navy's other fusion baby: ITER.

So why is the Navy funding this other cold fusion technology?
And what is it about Bussard's research that makes it so dismissable?

Boy you guys are dated. It wasn't all that long ago that a Chinese sub surfaced within torpedo range of a US aircraft carrier. Or you can bring up the shooting at US satellites. China sub stalked U.S. fleet
China Attempted to blind US Satellites

What a surprise. A recent leak about US satellites being blinded by Chinese lasers and now a more military flavor to the US space program.