Slashdot Mirror

I too was somewhat surprised that underground Nukes weren't used in Afghanistan. The attack on the WTC was the equivalent in destructiveness of a small (100t-1kt) nuke, and used on civilians. That the US didn't use Nukes in return is a sign that someone up there was thinking. A bit of research shows why they didn't use them. Have a look at report called "Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons". The standard penetrator (B61-11) has piss-poor penetrating performance. Even a 100t nuke needs to be 70 metres down to avoid contamination.

Most of the Great Unwashed out there in slashdotland don't make any distinction between a 100t nuke and a 50 Mt nuke. But it makes a big difference to people nearby. For example, if you're 100 km downwind of a 100t underground nuke, you'll only detect it by watching CNN. If you're 100km downwind of a 1 Mt groundburst, you're dead from fallout. It's Ten Thousand Times more powerful. Both India and Pakisatan let off dozens of kiloton-range weapons not so long ago. Using nukes doesn't mean Instant Thermonuclear Global Death.

For everything you ever wanted to know about Nukes, see the High Energy Weapons Archive. The Federation of American Scientists may not be the most neutral and unbiased of commentators (very Liberal), but the facts they base their commentary on are unimpeachable. Anyone who pretends to hold an opinion worth anything should read the facts first.

Incinerating Baghdad - and a whole heap of babies, schoolkids etc - would be a really bad idea, literally unthinkable even if Saddam Hussein nuked the US. But using nuclear bunker-busters to target the people who pushed the button, rather than leaving them untouched and massacring civilians, that makes sense to me. And obviously to the US Military too.

after the first time that you don't use a nuclear weapon in response to an apparent breach, you lose considerable credibility.

Credibility is a difficult thing to calculate, particularly when dealing with essentially irrational opponents like Al Qaeda. If enemies like Al-Qaeda were unimpressed by Desert Storm and the Serbian bombing, or Hiroshima for that matter, I can't imagine how America's credibility enters into their calculations.

It is likely that careful use of nuclear munitions could have made collapsing many of the tunnels much easier...

According to the newspaper articles, which constitute my complete knowledge of the subject, the caves were widely dispersed over 10 square miles. Using tactical nukes to carpet bomb caves sounds like massive overkill. If the location of the caves were known, as they apparently were, conventional ordinance should have been more than enough to deal with them.

Modern TNW minimize the size of their fireballs, while maximizing blast overpressure. This has the effect of placing immense pressure against the target while leaving almost no fallout.

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons appears to be online here. I'm not claiming to be an expert but the paper seems to say that for zero radiation to reach the ground from a 20 kiloton weapon, the device would have to be detonated 2 miles in the air. If this height did not produce the cave-crushing shockwave you need, it would have to be detonated lower, which would produce radioactive debris. In addition, Tora Bora is mountainous terrain, which means that to affect a cave near the base of a mountain, the nuclear explosion would necessarily be nearer the top of the mountain, which would therefore produce fallout. Further, the higher the altitude of the explosion, the fewer caves would be affected by the explosions and the more nuclear explosions would be necessary.

In fact, a nuclear use might have sent an important message with regard to US policy in regard to the "war on terrorism".

There must be better ways of sending such a message without appearing to legitimizing the use of weapons of mass destruction and conceding the the moral high ground in the mind of America's allies.

Funny you mention Australia.
There is a large group of hippy people that intend to storm the Pine Gap listening post at Easter and shut it down.

I had to google that up and found this informative link about the Japanese atomic weapons program, including evidence of Japanese-German collusion in the development of such a weapon.

Actually, they are comparing the simulation with real world physical test results. When the simulation is tuned well enough to match the actual results of a test shot, then they will probably change the device parameters of the simulation code to model a differnt actual test and see if the results are still valid. At some point the simulation code will be deemed first order reliable and can then be used for testing new concepts for weapons designs. As an example of why this might be usefull, consider that there may have been advances in the chemical high explosives used in the systems as well as advances in the command/control and safety systems relative to what was designed into weapons made in the 1950s or 1960s or even later. If it were possible to re-use the nuclear components of old weapons in a new bomb design with modern insensitive high explosive and more reliable detonation/control, denial of use and other safety systems, how could we put such a new weapon design into the stockpile without testing ? Accurate computer simulation may provide enough confidence in such a re-design to allow its certification for stockpile use. The ability to re-use the old nuclear components would eliminate significant hazards of handling these dangerous and exotic nuclear materials in processes such as re-casting and machining. If you are interested in learning more about the physics and history of nuclear weapons, check out the Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions.

Z

official gov't info

Rigging for a demo is one thing but rigging for testimony in a cout of law is another.

found a couple of sites that explain the law a little more clearly. I hope
Maine Law
and Vt Law

an excerpt from the VT law.
"RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;"
followed by
"Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense. Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense. Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information."

to note: computerized information!!

If we were in china it would look a little diff.
China
"Article 306. During the course of criminal procedure, any defender, law agent destroys, falsifies evidence, assist parties concerned in destroying, falsifying evidence, threatening, luring witnesses to contravene facts, change their testimony or make false testimony is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention; when the circumstances are severe, to not less than three years and not more than seven years of fixed-term imprisonment."

Well if it were anyone besides MS I believe the trial would start new now.
Oh well I'm not an expert on these things.

from the faq:
"We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway."

Oh that's a nice feature to plan for ;)
I suppose the original plan was to add big nerf-style bumpers instead so that at 25mph the unobservant kiddies would just bounce off gently :P

Nope. This was the original idea for keeping the way clear. It may still be implemented in less civilized parts of the world, like nyc.

.

-Mark

Tethered Aerostat Radar System does this with teathered balloons at 15,00 ft or so.

They have 12 and tend to operate about 50% of the time. They can carry up to 3400 pounds and are costing about 2.8 million per site per year.

One of these is sending signals TV to Cuba.

The article forgets to mention one of the most stunning weapon in the intelligence world: suitcase nuclear bomb.



Finally, something makes Duke Nukem real!!!

http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?sec tion_id=51,53&document_id=3071

Bush cuts the nano technology budget.

Oh science is so competitive, why dont you ask the Scientists for once and not the businessmen.

Ask a programmer working on an open source project if hes competiting, ask a Scientist who wants to solve the mysteries of the universe out of curiosity if they are competiting.

Some people are in science to compete, but the great elite scientists are fueled by a passion greater

And when you go to places like China where everyone is poor, people suddenly arent as selfish, they share.
Sharing is going to be key because you can only compete so much before it starts to harm you

If everything in life were a competition alot of people wouldnt become scientists because they cant compete, people wouldnt try sports because they cant beat everyone they play.

Competition is good for business, bad for science, this comes directly from the scientific community who happens to be against patents.

FAS

Think about it, if all scientists were in it just for the money, why be a scientist, you can make more money being a CEO, have you ever thought that some people do things because THEY want answers? THEY likee creating information? They enjoy it?

"many people chose to vote with their pocket book."

It sure would be nice if I had a pocket book I could vote with. Except these are the real voters. Enron is a classic example. They got their guy elected, set the US's energy policy and placed their executives into positions where they could do the most good for big oil. This is not new and it's not going to stop. Moron defending big business. Brainwashed into thinking that they are on your side.

"many people chose to vote with their pocket book."

It sure would be nice if I had a pocket book I could vote with. Except these are the real voters. Enron is a classic example. They got their guy elected, set the US's energy policy and placed their executives into positions where they could do the most good for big oil. This is not new and it's not going to stop. Moron defending big business. Brainwashed into thinking that they are on your side.

Come on, we all know the best way the army has for clearing mines is a MICLIC. I mean did you ever get to see one of those babies go off? The entire mountain shook beneath our feet. It was awesome. I didn't get to work with the combat engineers, but I did get to work in EOD for a little while. Anyways, go army, huh?

/August.

This thing seems way too small to fit some kind of weapon. For this to be useful in combat, it'd have to carry a machinegun or maybe a small rocket launcher. A machinegun with 1000 rounds would weigh, say, 15-20 kg, and the recoil would probably be too big for this chopper.

The recoil of a rocket launcher, on the other hand, would be minimal. Problem is to aim the pod, since you can not adjust fire during firing in the same way - since you would carry only, say, 10 rockets. The aiming problem would mean you'd probably have to include hydraulics for tilting and rotating the pod, wich means more weight.

'course, you could just pack the thing with 15 kgs of plastic explosive, fly it into a building full of your opponents of choice, and set it off.

The Hellfire missile used on the Predator UAV, for example, weighs 45 kgs. Obviously, this is too much for this litte chopper.

I wonder how this extra weight affects flight performance. Does anyone have any more info on this?

This thing seems way too small to fit some kind of weapon. For this to be useful in combat, it'd have to carry a machinegun or maybe a small rocket launcher. A machinegun with 1000 rounds would weigh, say, 15-20 kg, and the recoil would probably be too big for this chopper.

The recoil of a rocket launcher, on the other hand, would be minimal. Problem is to aim the pod, since you can not adjust fire during firing in the same way - since you would carry only, say, 10 rockets. The aiming problem would mean you'd probably have to include hydraulics for tilting and rotating the pod, wich means more weight.

'course, you could just pack the thing with 15 kgs of plastic explosive, fly it into a building full of your opponents of choice, and set it off.

The Hellfire missile used on the Predator UAV, for example, weighs 45 kgs. Obviously, this is too much for this litte chopper.

I wonder how this extra weight affects flight performance. Does anyone have any more info on this?

The Comanche costs (will cost? may cost? link is from 1997) $26M each. Even at the current cost that means approximately 650 of these helecopters for the cost of one Comanche. They are (were?) taking about buying 1600 Comanche helicopters. That works out to 1,040,000 drones for the same cost.

Imagine you add a saturday night special to the helicopter and you send a million of these things sweeping into Iraq. Now the only problem is finding enough trained pilots.

Wait. Scratch that thought. I just had a vision of a million, unsupervised 14 year old boys in control of armed, remote control helicopters.

But MIRACL is using a far more reactive fuel at far higher temperatures than anything you find in auto exhaust.

by killthiskid on Wednesday January 30, @01:47PM

My first thought was to use the body of an M113 APC, but the vehicle must fit in a 8 x 8 x 20 cargo container for shipment to England. The vehicle can be disassembled for transport, but it has to be able to be put back together in under four hours. Damn!

We could actually see something based on military vehicles entered. The Scorpion family of vehicles fits the bill quite nicely, even if all you are allowed to use is the motive system. You should also see converted bulldozers and the like. Except for speed, tracks will probably have the advantage.

It isn't totally unbelievable that defense contractors will enter or sponsor teams. If so, the sky is pretty much the limit. Will the final be Alvis versus General Dynamics or KMW versus United Defense?

I will certainly be looking out for this!

Death on tracks!

According to this, the M1 won't fit in a shipping container in any direction. Damn.

According to this link, however, it will fit the height requirement, but you'd still have to smash the hell out of it.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm Here are the stats from another site:

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

UNCLASSIFIED

Crew 4
Length overall 9.766m
Width 3.653m
Height 2.885m
Ground Clearance 0.432m
Max speed on road 72.5km/hr
Range 500km
Engine power 1,500hp
Main gun 120mm
Weapon Range 1,846m

Not to mention the fact that the three teammates would be really busy doing the work of four soldiers. So NO, the M1 won't fit into a shipping container.

While well crafted, it is full of glaring inconsistencies that detract from it.

1. ...Chicago sprayed with anthrax...millions of innocent men, women and children were exterminated like insects.

   Anthrax doesn't kill instantly. It'd be a couple of weeks before the millions of people ended up exterminated. Since this is "breaking" news, they likely wouldn't be dead yet.

2. Nuclear explosion in New York City...somewhere in the magnitude of 15 megatons...

   15 megatons is large even for military weapons. Most weapons in the US arsenal are 100-500 kt weapons, with only a few reaching above 1 megaton (Yes, we used to have a 25 megaton monstrosity, but those have been retired). It takes a lot of complex engineering and expensive materials to create a thermonuclear device. It's more likely they'd use a fission device which would peak at 500 kt (Largest ever fission device - Ivy King 1951).

3. All of these countries have been hit by at least five Titan II ICBM's.

   This is the most glaring error. Titan IIs were deactivated throughout the 1980's, and were completely deactivated in 1987. So unless you're implying that one of our embassy workers went out and threw model Titan II paperweights at people, this isn't too likely.

   Also, your target choices are kinda sketchy. We aren't upset with India, we're not too upset with Pakistan and the Phillipines, and Afghanistan and Somolia are festering shitholes. Iraq is really the only target in that list with even a remotely realistic chance of getting nuked.

Oh, and one more thing, before anyone responds to this and says "YHBT blah blah blah," this is Troll Feed. I'm allowing myself to be trolled in order to try to get more trolling going on.

While well crafted, it is full of glaring inconsistencies that detract from it.

1. ...Chicago sprayed with anthrax...millions of innocent men, women and children were exterminated like insects.

   Anthrax doesn't kill instantly. It'd be a couple of weeks before the millions of people ended up exterminated. Since this is "breaking" news, they likely wouldn't be dead yet.

2. Nuclear explosion in New York City...somewhere in the magnitude of 15 megatons...

   15 megatons is large even for military weapons. Most weapons in the US arsenal are 100-500 kt weapons, with only a few reaching above 1 megaton (Yes, we used to have a 25 megaton monstrosity, but those have been retired). It takes a lot of complex engineering and expensive materials to create a thermonuclear device. It's more likely they'd use a fission device which would peak at 500 kt (Largest ever fission device - Ivy King 1951).

3. All of these countries have been hit by at least five Titan II ICBM's.

   This is the most glaring error. Titan IIs were deactivated throughout the 1980's, and were completely deactivated in 1987. So unless you're implying that one of our embassy workers went out and threw model Titan II paperweights at people, this isn't too likely.

   Also, your target choices are kinda sketchy. We aren't upset with India, we're not too upset with Pakistan and the Phillipines, and Afghanistan and Somolia are festering shitholes. Iraq is really the only target in that list with even a remotely realistic chance of getting nuked.

Oh, and one more thing, before anyone responds to this and says "YHBT blah blah blah," this is Troll Feed. I'm allowing myself to be trolled in order to try to get more trolling going on.

While well crafted, it is full of glaring inconsistencies that detract from it.

1. ...Chicago sprayed with anthrax...millions of innocent men, women and children were exterminated like insects.

   Anthrax doesn't kill instantly. It'd be a couple of weeks before the millions of people ended up exterminated. Since this is "breaking" news, they likely wouldn't be dead yet.

2. Nuclear explosion in New York City...somewhere in the magnitude of 15 megatons...

   15 megatons is large even for military weapons. Most weapons in the US arsenal are 100-500 kt weapons, with only a few reaching above 1 megaton (Yes, we used to have a 25 megaton monstrosity, but those have been retired). It takes a lot of complex engineering and expensive materials to create a thermonuclear device. It's more likely they'd use a fission device which would peak at 500 kt (Largest ever fission device - Ivy King 1951).

3. All of these countries have been hit by at least five Titan II ICBM's.

   This is the most glaring error. Titan IIs were deactivated throughout the 1980's, and were completely deactivated in 1987. So unless you're implying that one of our embassy workers went out and threw model Titan II paperweights at people, this isn't too likely.

   Also, your target choices are kinda sketchy. We aren't upset with India, we're not too upset with Pakistan and the Phillipines, and Afghanistan and Somolia are festering shitholes. Iraq is really the only target in that list with even a remotely realistic chance of getting nuked.

Oh, and one more thing, before anyone responds to this and says "YHBT blah blah blah," this is Troll Feed. I'm allowing myself to be trolled in order to try to get more trolling going on.

AirBus uses only the finest bugs, lovingly crafted and maintained by the DGSE.

Forest Green Book from the NCSC.

"A Guide to Understanding Data Remanence in Automated Information Systems is intended for use by personnel responsible for the secure handling of sensitive
or classified automated information system memory and secondary storage media. It is important that they be aware of the retentive properties of such media,
the known risks in attempting to erase and release it, and the approved security procedures that will help prevent disclosure of sensitive or classified
information. This version supersedes CSC-STD-005-85, Department of Defense Magnetic Remanence Security Guideline, dated 15 November 1985."

"5.1.3 DESTRUCTION

It is good practice to purge media before submitting it for destruction. Media may generally be destroyed by one of the following methods. (Although
approved methods, options d and e use acid, which is dangerous and excessive, to remove recording surfaces. Options a, b, and c are recommended over d
and e.)

a. Destruction at an approved metal destruction facility, i.e., smelting, disintegration, or pulverization.
b. Incineration.
c. Application of an abrasive substance (emery wheel or disk sander) to a magnetic disk or drum recording surface. Make certain that the entire
recording surface is completely removed before disposal. Also, ensure proper protection from inhaling the abraded dust.
d. Application of concentrated hydriodic acid (55% to 58% solution) to a gamma ferric oxide disk surface. Acid solutions should be used in a
well-ventilated area only by qualified personnel.
e. Application of acid activator Dubais Race A (8010 181 7171) and stripper Dubais Race B (8010 181 7170) to a magnetic drum recording surface.
Technical acetone (6810 184 4796) should then be applied to remove residue from the drum surface. The above should be done in a well-ventilated
area, and personnel must wear eye protection. Extreme caution must be observed when handling acid solutions. This procedure should be done
only by qualified and approved personnel.

For additional information on destruction techniques and emergency destruction, see Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) Report R-321, Emergency
Destruction of Information Storing Media. [6]"

This guide has a lot of info on many types of media too.

According to FAS, it is massive. LD50 (ie 50% killing rate) for 55kGy is
about 80%. The big ass electron gun is really equipped for the atomic age. Maybe, eBay and Amazon will office us a choice of "radiation hardening" as gift wrap for our electronic gadget.

PS: I know how will be the survivers of WWIII. The postal worker who hides within the within that mail disinfecting machine. :-)

According to FAS, it is massive. LD50 (ie 50% killing rate) for 55kGy is
about 80%. The big ass electron gun is really equipped for the atomic age. Maybe, eBay and Amazon will office us a choice of "radiation hardening" as gift wrap for our electronic gadget.

PS: I know how will be the survivers of WWIII. The postal worker who hides within the within that mail disinfecting machine. :-)

I can't remember the numbers exactly, but I believe a 5 MT warhead groundburst will leave a crater 200 m in diameter. It follows, then, that a weapon of this size should be sufficient to vaporize or pulverize meteors in the 100-200 m range (especially meteors of stony, rather than metallic, compostion). The practical size limit for nuclear weapons is ~100 MT which I think should handle anything up to 2 Km diameter. And somewhere in the bowels of the DOE I'm sure someone is busy researching antimatter boosted fusion weapons.

There's some confusion here about gun-type designs vs. spherical implosion systems. Trinity was the first test of spherical implosion, using plutonium. Hiroshima was a gun bomb, with two subcritical pieces of U-238 forced together with a gun-like arrangement.

Incidentally, those aren't the only possible geometries, just the simplest ones. Linear implosion was developed in the 1950s. Other geometries have been developed, but are still classified. As greater compute power has become available, it's become possible to simulate, and thus design, more complex implosion geometries.

This is a major argument for export restrictions of "supercomputers". Still, all the major developments in nuclear weapons were made in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Every desktop machine today has orders of magnitude more power than the supercomputers of the nuclear establishment in 1970. It's not clear why we still have "supercomputer" export restrictions at all.

The BLU-82 Commando Vault (also known as the Daisy Cutter) is a 15,000 lb. thermobaric bomb, not "hyperbaric" as he calls it (although I suppose it makes sense in the way he uses it). And they certainly aren't dropped from unmanned planes. They are pushed out on skids from the back of Special Operations C-130s (or perhaps AC-130s).

For more on the Daisy Cutter and other thermobaric weapons, check the following links:

• Fuel air explosives
• In Afghanistan
• Psychological effect
• FAE animation
• Gulf War usage

Also notable: The bomb used in the beginning of Outbreak (1995) was a fuel air explosive similar to the Daisy Cutter.

The BLU-82 Commando Vault (also known as the Daisy Cutter) is a 15,000 lb. thermobaric bomb, not "hyperbaric" as he calls it (although I suppose it makes sense in the way he uses it). And they certainly aren't dropped from unmanned planes. They are pushed out on skids from the back of Special Operations C-130s (or perhaps AC-130s).

For more on the Daisy Cutter and other thermobaric weapons, check the following links:

• Fuel air explosives
• In Afghanistan
• Psychological effect
• FAE animation
• Gulf War usage

Also notable: The bomb used in the beginning of Outbreak (1995) was a fuel air explosive similar to the Daisy Cutter.

The BLU-82 Commando Vault (also known as the Daisy Cutter) is a 15,000 lb. thermobaric bomb, not "hyperbaric" as he calls it (although I suppose it makes sense in the way he uses it). And they certainly aren't dropped from unmanned planes. They are pushed out on skids from the back of Special Operations C-130s (or perhaps AC-130s).

For more on the Daisy Cutter and other thermobaric weapons, check the following links:

• Fuel air explosives
• In Afghanistan
• Psychological effect
• FAE animation
• Gulf War usage

Also notable: The bomb used in the beginning of Outbreak (1995) was a fuel air explosive similar to the Daisy Cutter.

Hmm... that old chestnut. Missile defense was supposed to take care of asteroids AND missiles, as mentioned in this and this article. Somewhere along the line, the populist (and governmental - often one and the same, but that's another article) opinion was that the system would point in more than out. That's where the problem lies.

Now big tents on the other hand...

From the USAF report Air Force 2025:

Ethical and Public Relations Issues.

Implanting "things" in people raises ethical and public relations issues.112 While these concerns may be founded on today's thinking, in 2025 they may not be as alarming. We already are evolving toward technology implanting. For example, the military currently requires its members to receive mandatory injections of biological organisms (i.e., the flu shot). In the civilian world, people receive mechanical hearts and other organs. Society has come to accept most of these implants as a fact of life. By 2025 it is possible medical technology will have nerve chips that allow amputees to control artificial limbs or eye chips that allow the blind to see.113 The civilian populace will likely accept an implanted microscopic chips that allow military members to defend vital national interests. Further, the US military will continue to be a volunteer force that will freely accept the chip because it is a tool to control technology and not as a tool to control the human.

Designed in response to recent declassification of a Russian "stealth" warship and as a countermeausure to the National Missile Defense.

v = sqrt(B/rho)

Mig-31 has the same characteristics (Mach 3), and is still on duty (it's an evolution of Mig-25).

But i think that the famous U2 (it's called TR-1 in latest evolutions), was shot by a SAM, not that Mig.

BTW, SR-71 shouldn't have been called that way, it's a mistake from Carter. I think it should have been RS-71.

The A10 was originally projected to be good for 8000 flight hours, now they're planning to keep them in service for up to three times that. There's a detailed description of the updates and overhauls they plan use to keep the A10 in service on FAS.org's A10 page.

Yes. The have (had?) the Tu-95 /142, NATO codename Bear heavy bomber. They used to be intercepted over the northsea all the time by aircraft from the squadron where I served.

a propeller plane that could go stratospheric and insanely fast.

It also was insanely loud :-)

After that B1-B crashed in the Indian Ocean last Tuesday, due to "multiple malfunctions," it makes me wonder why we're even using B1-B's in the Afghanistan conflict, after having achieved extreme air superiority. As this article points out, the annual budget to maintain all 94 of our B-52's is about $250 million, while the cost of a new B1-B is $280 million. B1-Bs are faster, can fly lower, avoid radar better, and have better electronic counter-measures, but the biggest cause of loss to our bombers crashing isn't speed, altitude, radar detection, or anti-aircraft missiles, it's that they break! It's hard to say what the cost would be to build new B-52s, since the last active B-52 was built in 1962, but it would sure be cheaper than the $280 million each for B1-Bs.

After that B1-B crashed in the Indian Ocean last Tuesday, due to "multiple malfunctions," it makes me wonder why we're even using B1-B's in the Afghanistan conflict, after having achieved extreme air superiority. As this article points out, the annual budget to maintain all 94 of our B-52's is about $250 million, while the cost of a new B1-B is $280 million. B1-Bs are faster, can fly lower, avoid radar better, and have better electronic counter-measures, but the biggest cause of loss to our bombers crashing isn't speed, altitude, radar detection, or anti-aircraft missiles, it's that they break! It's hard to say what the cost would be to build new B-52s, since the last active B-52 was built in 1962, but it would sure be cheaper than the $280 million each for B1-Bs.

All the armed forces keep weapons around for a long time. The Army has used the M113 armored personnel carrier since '60, and apart from engine swaps (which the B-52 gets, too), they're still running around. It's also been used as the basis for countless other vehicles, and it would suprise me greatly if it didn't hang around another 40 years.

Along the same lines, the Army and Marines hung onto the M1911, the (in)famous Colt .45, for an insanely long time. It was introduced in 1911, and saw action in horseback cavalry charges when Pershing was going after Pancho Villa in Mexico. It started to get replaced by the M-9 in 1986, but was still very much around during the Gulf war. 80 years of service life, unmodified. Not bad.

And then there's the C-130 and all its variants. I know guys whose granddaddies jumped out of them. They're going to be around a long time, too.

All the armed forces keep weapons around for a long time. The Army has used the M113 armored personnel carrier since '60, and apart from engine swaps (which the B-52 gets, too), they're still running around. It's also been used as the basis for countless other vehicles, and it would suprise me greatly if it didn't hang around another 40 years.

Along the same lines, the Army and Marines hung onto the M1911, the (in)famous Colt .45, for an insanely long time. It was introduced in 1911, and saw action in horseback cavalry charges when Pershing was going after Pancho Villa in Mexico. It started to get replaced by the M-9 in 1986, but was still very much around during the Gulf war. 80 years of service life, unmodified. Not bad.

And then there's the C-130 and all its variants. I know guys whose granddaddies jumped out of them. They're going to be around a long time, too.

All the armed forces keep weapons around for a long time. The Army has used the M113 armored personnel carrier since '60, and apart from engine swaps (which the B-52 gets, too), they're still running around. It's also been used as the basis for countless other vehicles, and it would suprise me greatly if it didn't hang around another 40 years.

Along the same lines, the Army and Marines hung onto the M1911, the (in)famous Colt .45, for an insanely long time. It was introduced in 1911, and saw action in horseback cavalry charges when Pershing was going after Pancho Villa in Mexico. It started to get replaced by the M-9 in 1986, but was still very much around during the Gulf war. 80 years of service life, unmodified. Not bad.

And then there's the C-130 and all its variants. I know guys whose granddaddies jumped out of them. They're going to be around a long time, too.

1. "Stealth ships" are a blue-water navy idea.
   
   • Here, you're half right. But the technologies that arose from the development of Lockheed's Sea Shadow are being implemented into current designs, such as the DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer and the LPD-17 San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship, as seen by their sloping sides and angled exhaust stacks.
     
   
   
2. Armor matters more.
   
   • Interesting you say this, since most modern ships are lightly armored. (Not armed - note the distinction.) Witness the gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole from a small boat of explosives. And many people would say that stealth matters immensely as more and more rogue states acquire castoffs from the former Soviet Union.
     
   
   
3. There's a good argument for heavily armored battleships for shore bombardment...
   
   • The ERGM (scroll down for a description of it) has a range far greater than any 16-inch gun ever did. In addition, guided munitions such as the Tomahawk and the ERGM are much more accurate and precise than 16-inch gunfire is, allowing for fewer shells fired and less chance of friendly fire casualties.
     
   
   
4. The U.S. Navy had an "arsenal ship" concept in the early 1990s, but never built any.
   
   • The Navy is still reviewing this design, actually - you can see an overviews, histories and diagrams of it here, here, and here. One of the many, many reasons that it is currently in limbo has to do with a proposed plan to retrofit some of the oldest Ohio-class submarines to carry 154 Tomahawks and a SEAL team, which would duplicate the effort being expended to design an arsenal ship. The DD-21 is another duplication of effort issue further muddying the outlook for the arsenal ship, as its explicit job is land attack.
     
   
   

1. "Stealth ships" are a blue-water navy idea.
   
   • Here, you're half right. But the technologies that arose from the development of Lockheed's Sea Shadow are being implemented into current designs, such as the DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer and the LPD-17 San Antonio Class Amphibious Ship, as seen by their sloping sides and angled exhaust stacks.
     
   
   
2. Armor matters more.
   
   • Interesting you say this, since most modern ships are lightly armored. (Not armed - note the distinction.) Witness the gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole from a small boat of explosives. And many people would say that stealth matters immensely as more and more rogue states acquire castoffs from the former Soviet Union.
     
   
   
3. There's a good argument for heavily armored battleships for shore bombardment...
   
   • The ERGM (scroll down for a description of it) has a range far greater than any 16-inch gun ever did. In addition, guided munitions such as the Tomahawk and the ERGM are much more accurate and precise than 16-inch gunfire is, allowing for fewer shells fired and less chance of friendly fire casualties.
     
   
   
4. The U.S. Navy had an "arsenal ship" concept in the early 1990s, but never built any.
   
   • The Navy is still reviewing this design, actually - you can see an overviews, histories and diagrams of it here, here, and here. One of the many, many reasons that it is currently in limbo has to do with a proposed plan to retrofit some of the oldest Ohio-class submarines to carry 154 Tomahawks and a SEAL team, which would duplicate the effort being expended to design an arsenal ship. The DD-21 is another duplication of effort issue further muddying the outlook for the arsenal ship, as its explicit job is land attack.
     
   
   

Also, one of the shell's main tasks is to provide material for shrapnel. I served in the Swedish army, commanding a 155 mm FH 77B howitzer unit. In the construction of the projectiles you have to consider that you want as much explosives as possible in a ballistically functioning unit at a feasible price. The shell can't be too heavy, but you still want it to sustain the enormous forces developed as 45 kg is accelerated to >800 m/s during a millisecond or two - and it's supposed to make some shrapnel as well. Only 10 kg of plastic explosives wouldn't waste many Russians (or Pakistanis, as our late peace-loving PM Olof Palme sold these babies to India (and sold our country to the Soviets)).

Of course, the US Army trains, manufacutures, and stockpiles these weapons. It's okay see, because they're intended for use against optics... not the guy looking through them.

A link to the Bradley Stingray.

Here's another.