Slashdot Mirror

I find it amusing that if the missile is pointed at us we call it 'Satan'. If we point it at them, its called a 'Peacekeeper' whose role is 'Nuclear Deterence'.

There is a little about it (and the missile) here and here

The US MX (Peacekeeper) missile was also designed to be cold launched. You can read about that here

You do realize that by far more American soldiers have died since the "war" has been over right?

You do realize that the total number of American soldiers killed since the invasion began is still less than 1,000, right? The invasion started in March, 2003, and it's now nearly July, 2004, which means the rate of American soldiers dying in Iraq is roughly comparable to the murder rate of Chicago, Illinois.

And that guerrilla warfare has been taken up by the true believers in that country.

Which "true believers in that country?" The various militias? Disbanded. The Madhi Army? They're fighting with us now. Zarqawi's Tawhid organization? They're not even Iraqi! They're Jordanian!

We "beat" Afganistan and the Taliban is coming back there.

The legitimate government of Afghanistan would be shocked to learn that the Taliban is coming back. The hundreds of tribal and clan representatives who participated in not one but two loya jirgas would be shocked to learn that the Taliban is coming back.

Please. A couple of guys holed up in a cave does not mean "the Taliban is coming back."

Please take your pessimism, your negativism, and your Chicken-Littleism somewhere else. Slashdotters are, as a group, far too thoughtful to fall for those lies.

You're going to have to come up with much better lies if you want to make any headway here.

There's a much better and more interesting list.

Here's a couple pictures of architecture from Iraq:

Shaheed Monument

Monument to the Unknown Soldier

al-Rahman Mosque (under construction)

(How many more buildings do you want? I'll get you as many Iraqi architecture pictures as you'd like.)

It's really sad to see how much of it was destroyed in the war... an awful lot. There's even a missile hole at the artful entrance to the Iraqi Museum's facade, right in the center of its arch. And after the war, the US has been tearing down all the palms that line the streets and walls that obstruct unsightful views to "increase visibility" of snipers. It's really a shame, they're tearing down a lot of Baghdad's beauty.

Here's a couple pictures of architecture from Iraq:

Shaheed Monument

Monument to the Unknown Soldier

al-Rahman Mosque (under construction)

(How many more buildings do you want? I'll get you as many Iraqi architecture pictures as you'd like.)

It's really sad to see how much of it was destroyed in the war... an awful lot. There's even a missile hole at the artful entrance to the Iraqi Museum's facade, right in the center of its arch. And after the war, the US has been tearing down all the palms that line the streets and walls that obstruct unsightful views to "increase visibility" of snipers. It's really a shame, they're tearing down a lot of Baghdad's beauty.

Here's a couple pictures of architecture from Iraq:

Shaheed Monument

Monument to the Unknown Soldier

al-Rahman Mosque (under construction)

(How many more buildings do you want? I'll get you as many Iraqi architecture pictures as you'd like.)

It's really sad to see how much of it was destroyed in the war... an awful lot. There's even a missile hole at the artful entrance to the Iraqi Museum's facade, right in the center of its arch. And after the war, the US has been tearing down all the palms that line the streets and walls that obstruct unsightful views to "increase visibility" of snipers. It's really a shame, they're tearing down a lot of Baghdad's beauty.

You're thinking of an arsonal ship:

It SEEMS like a cool idea, unfortunately there are problems.

First off, the support for that many VLS boxes requires a decent size crew of gunners mates (GMs) for simple maintenance purposes. Now the ship is getting larger for more crew quarters, larger mess deck etc.

So, now you've got MOST of a platform in this ship, and it can't really defend itself. OK, add a CIWS - but now you need more GMs and Operations Specialists (OS) to maintain and use it.

Assuming all that, there were several war-games to determine how it would shift power around. The games often resulted in the opposing side looking for (and often finding) the arsonal ship as it can't defend itself well.

So, at the end of the day, it turns into a destroyer.

Smells like pork to me.

Smells like pork to me.

Doh! I looked at the second link, not the first.

Here are some actual other sources. DD(x) Frigate info

Cost of the DD(x) frigate, and rollout schedule

I thought the same thing, but it turns out the the DD(X) program is a Multi-Mission Surface Combatant. Seems to blur the distinction between destroyers and frigates altogether.

2. Nitpick: the term 'DD' generally denotes a Destroyer, not a Frigate ('FF').

" Isn't hypersonic flight research better suited to the Air Force?

How about some hypersonic sub-orbital artillery with your fries, Sir? Granted that's the navy version, but whatcha wanna bet that the Army could put a land based platform to good use?

I haven't been in Baghdad, as a disclaimer. However, I am quite likely going to serve a 2-3 month stint there sometime in '05. The contract I'm working on (and this is tech geek computer stuff) has a continual Baghdad presence, so here's what I know.

First off, if you want to work in a tech geek capacity you're most likely going to need a security clearance. These aren't things you pick up overnight! The investigations usually take about 1-2 years (sometimes longer), require lots of paperwork, have personalized background checks (they'll talk to your coworkers and neighbors), and so on and so forth. Maybe there's a way to super expedite things. I know expediting it usually means '12-15 months' instead of '24 months'. There's interim clearances you can get quicker that might work. Also, you can't just walk down to NSA and ask for a clearance, you'll need a sponsor. In addition to time and resources these things are costing someone money. Maybe if you don't have a clearance you could work in an unclassified environment for a couple months while getting an interim, and I imagine there are some jobs that don't need it, but the folks I'm aware of in Baghdad and Afghanistan need one.

Second off, ask lots of questions. Figure out where you're going. Where you'll be living. How much travel you'll be doing. What the security arrangement is. Standard line is that you're unarmed as a contractor. Now, maybe some people get their hands on guns, I don't know, but I can't imagine the soldiers are going to like you toting one around a secured base if you're not supposed to have one. They don't want to risk friendly fire incidents, someone starting a huge flare-up because they aren't following Rules of Engagement, etc. That said, I plan on getting some experience at civilian equivalents of what's commonly used over there. It's not like I plan on shooting but if something really really bad happened, it'd be nice to know that I had the option. Probably if all hell breaks loose you can find a gun.

Now, travel. There are different things you can be doing over there. I'm familiar most with Baghdad. But if you check out this link and the section on 'Coalition Facilities' midway down you can see there's a lot of soldiers and bases large and small over there. Camp Victory North is the safest from what I hear. It's the biggest, it's the closest to the airport, it has a Burger King at the PX. :) You're unlikely, as a contractor, to get shot there (though we had a guy who was, but it was a freak occurrence and a very minor wound) or blown up if you're not hanging around the gates. But there are other bases, mentioned in the article. Are you going to need to travel between them? That, boys and girls, is where you're at most risk. Find out the details on how often, and by what means. There are convoys, and no they don't all get blown up, but yes some of them do. Armor on your humvees can protect against some things. You'll probably have a flak jacket. That won't help in the case of an IED (Improvised Explosive Device), though. Neither will a gun. There's also helicoptors but those are much less likely to be used. Personally, those are my preference.

I could ramble on and on but I'll ony ramble a bit more. There's a lot of things to think about but why you're there is a big one. Sure, there's money, and that's a good draw for a lot of people. If you're risking your life (and you are) it helps if there's more than money motivating you. At the least, you don't want to be against the situation over there, or you will be miserable and so will those around you. If you're going over there to help build infrastructure for the country, fine. If you're going over there to help protect Coalition lives, great. If you're going over there to get a bunch of money and think the whole Iraq thing is a big screw-up that you in no way support except for the desire to make a buck, I'd seriously reconsider.

Oh, and one final note: Royal Air

Get home, open up the DVD and then there is a power outage (anbody remember the Great Northeast Power Blackout of 2003?) for 6 hours. Better hope its a short movie!

The M1A2 is fortunately for US forces, one of the most protected tanks, especially against HEAT charges like the one employed by the RPG.

As near as I can tell "HEAT" == "shaped charge". I mention this because initially I assumed they were different things. The RPG-7, according to this link, can penetrate 330 mm of armor. That's plenty to take out an M1A2, depending on where you hit it. IThat's why you have infantry and armored vehicles.

Also, it appears that what is usually called an RPG in today's news is pretty much what would've been called a bazooka or LAW in earlier times. It's probably precise terminology for the military folks, but confusing for the rest of us.... and I'm pretty sure the news media don't have the faintest foggy idea what it is. Something like the "assault rifles" that always figure prominently whenever someone busts a cap anywhere.

You're right, the Abrams was not designed for urban combat. The most lightly armored part of the tank is the top. There's even less armor there than on the hull. This makes the tank susceptible to RPGs fired from rooftops.

M1's are also huge; when patrolling roads, they tear up pavement and will not fit through some streets in densely populated areas. They pose a danger to civilian passerby and vehicles.

For day-to-day patrolling, the Army relies mostly HMMWVs. The HMMWV, or "Humvee," can also be "up-armored" with a kit.

This "electric armor" sounds like a fantastic idea, but I have a feeling it will be too heavy to equip a HMMWV. It could probably work wonders for the roofs of M1's though.

3/4 of the iraqi population identify themselves with a tribe.

iraq is not unique in this respect. strong tribal influences exist today in SA, the saudi minister of defense emphasized their importance to the kingdom.

pakistan today is rife with tribal problems.

If you are offended by the facts, that's your problem.

I think he meant the F-16, which took three years for the final design to be accepted after the release of the specs requirement. A boat is a much larger structure, but like the F-16, they were constructing the boat using different technologies already available and tailoring a production model to the swedish army's specs.

There's also a French frigate with comparable characteristics, its design is not as stealth and it's not made of carbon but other composite material and it's twice as big. The French Navy has five ships of this type.

Not only is the predated (by a long shot) by the US Navy Sea Shadow program in the mid-80s (as pointed out by another poster), but also by the French 'La Fayette' stealth frigates (circa 1988). Modified versions of that ship are also in use by both Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.

I've seen the article you're quoting, and that was probably the case when it was written. However, to quote another source, the processor in the F-22 is capable of 10.5 Billion Ops/sec with 300MB of RAM. Hardly "two cray supercomputers" today. globalsecurity.org

How about their former Deputy Prime Minister getting his own vanity site?
tar.iq

Actually, a hydroshock is a semi-jacketed hollowpoint with a lead column that assists in controlling expansion. They're pretty good loads, but they and nearly all hollowpoints don't expand well if if clothing plugs the cavity.

Sounds like you're talking about frangible rounds. They're actually pretty safe (in that they don't over-penetrate or travel through walls very well). They're not super good at pure knockdown though. They lose mass too quickly to penetrate well. A controled expansion bullet is usually better.

I've never heard of ANY of these rounds being loaded with mercury. I think that Glaser Safety-Slugs were filled with Teflon liquid.

Check out this site for a good intro.

Hollowpoints and frangible ammunition are legal in most of the USA.

We did mostly nothing for 10 years to Iraq.

Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998. That was 6 years after the first war.

Sarin was found last week.

The point is that the ultimatums had been layed down time and time again over the past 10 years and nothing had been done about their non-compliance. Someone finally steps in and decides to do something about it and he gets shit for it. I don't see you whining about Clintons attack. Bush did what should've been done years ago, possibly even the moment the inspectors were first kicked out, back in 1998. Or have we forgotten that regime change was a US policy since Clinton was in office.

You're not talking about Africa, I'd guess. Most of the nations in Africa have low GNPs anyway, and they're not exactly trying to exert their influence around the world. They're trying to fight AIDS and keep their people fed.

You're not talking about Australia, as they're involved in the Iraq operation and had a military budget of $7.6 billion for 2003-2004.

You're not talking about Asia, as Russia, China and Japan alone had a combined military budget of $154.6 billion.

You're not talking about South America, as Brazil and Argentina alone spent a combined $11 billion on their militaries.

You're obviously not referring to North America, as the US alone spent $399.1 billion dollars last year and is continuing to spend billions more this year.

Maybe you're referring to Europe. Nope, that can't be right. After all, the military budgets of the top four European spenders (Russia not included) add up to $112.2 billion. That's certainly nothing like 0% of GNP. But maybe you were referring to the fact that European forces are never actually fielded in real-world operations.

Wait a minute. They actually ARE fielded in real-world operations. There are German troops in Afghanistan, and Norwegian troops in Afghanistan. There are British troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are Italian, Portugese, Polish, Ukranian, Dutch, Romanian, Danish, and other European soldiers in Iraq.

Their numbers pale in comparison to the number of American troops, but one wonders if the numbers would be higher had the Bush administration not bullied its allies into acquiescence on Iraq, rather than building a strong coalition the way the first Bush administration did. Perhaps the presence of forces from Germany and France, the most militarily powerful and politically influential of the continental nations, would have changed the overall calculus of the war.

But to say that Europeans are seeking diplomatic relevance without putting forth the force to back it up ignores the fact that many European nations are fielding units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many more might have been engaged had it not been for the brain-dead approach taken by the Bush administration.

All budget figures from the Center for Defense Information.

Over at www.globalsecurity.org an article about the Future Force Warrior, the "FFW "restores to our infantry the same technological superiority that the rest of our military has".
And: "They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed" because "Cleaner software needs less energy to run".
Now, the war between M$ and Linux isn't really fair. The war between the US Army and M$ however...
Not sure The US Army can win this though... And don't tear down Abu Ghraib yet!

The correct links for the US-administered GPS satellite constellation, known as NAVSTAR:

NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office - responsible for operational maintenance of NAVSTAR GPS equipment, services, and infrastructure

Interagency GPS Executive Board - executive management of NAVSTAR GPS

GPS fact sheet - US Air Force facts about NAVSTAR GPS

US Naval Observatory NAVSTAR GPS home page

Further information:

FAS GPS background info

Global Security GPS background info

Ack! Here is the URL I intended! Guess I didn't cut when I thought I did...

Tim

Remember: a small group of what were basically graduate students were able to build a city-buster bomb in the middle of a desert with access to only 1940's-era technology, and not really that much of it.

Funny, 'cause I've heard it took about 90 PhD level physicists, many of which were Nobel Prize recipiants.

Maybe you're confusing the real Manhattan Project with the movie "The Manhattan Project"?

Go check out the satellite pictures of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan pre-November, 2001, and notice how similar they look, from a distance, to Los Alamos circa late 1944.

Go check out the satellite pictures of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan pre-November, 2001, and notice how similar they look to a generic group of buildings!

=Smidge=

"Outsiders estimate the more advanced versions of the Patriot's missile cost $2 million apiece."

Source LInk

Granted it doesn't give much details other than that it happened, but it also talks about a Chinese civilian airliner who landed at an Alaskan air base and whose passengers were given medical care... So yes, unless they're defecting, the US has a policy of respecting the sovereignty of foreign aircraft that are forced into emergency landings.

another article about the laser point defense on C-17's and AF1

In any case, the problem with aluminium is that it is softer and melts more easily, which is also part of what happened to Columbia. There's more on aluminium in ships here.

If you have powdered alumimium (or indeed most metals, including iron) and preferably a strong oxidiser mixed with it, then you can get aluminium to burn. In a thermite reaction, powdered aluminium reacts directly with powdered iron oxide in an extremely exothermic reaction which is self-sustaining. But these aren't the conditions you'd get on a ship under attack.

Realistically, the missile and or explosion would just rip more easily through the softer metal, and any resulting fire would weaken the structure. In a vessel of that size and with the thinner dual hulls, that would be fatal enough even with a steel hull. A ship like this really has to rely on stealth or countermeasures to survive.

The characteristics of a scramjet powered missile would allow the military to attack deeply burried bunkers and highly mobile targets with cruise missiles launched from hundreds of miles away. It's a military wet dream.

Globalsecurity.org, as always, has a nice write-up.

Speaking of the Newton: Did Microsoft's monopolistic policies actually hurt our national security? Are there Al-Qaeda / Redmond links? Did Microsoft weaken our anti-terrorist defenses enough to allow 9/11?

Ummm... prob'ly not. But if the idea of a bunch of grunts with Newtons intrigues you, you might find these interesting:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/hunter- warrior.htm

This one's PDF, takes a while to load:www.cadrc.calpoly.edu/pdf/feat4_brochure.pdf

The Dalai Llama
I got your Sea Dragon right here...

yep, gps has nuclear blast detectors. I'm not sure if it's the original purpose, but the two roles are very similar (both requiring accurate high-altitude clocks and a little trig).

I programmed for an old TRANSIT reciever and it's amazing these things ever worked. Basically, you had to listen for the satellite's signal and follow the doppler over the course of about 10 minutes. Knowing the orbit and the doppler profile would put you at one of two places on the earth, and you had to estimate from your previous position to tell which one. And you couldn't move a significant distance in those 10 minutes.

Since we're all friends now and trust former KGB officers turned quasi-dictators, how bout the Russians give us some of the advanced weapons they've developed since they decided to become friendly members of the world community.
For isntance, how about they give us the new Topol-M road mobile super accurate nuclear missiles that can wobble in flight to avoid ABM systems.
They could give us the supersonic sea skimming nuclear tipped Sunburn missile which does a maneuver before it hits so it can slam into the decks of carriers.
They could give us the docs on how they make their high-speed cavitating torpedoes work.
Or their new Tupelov supersonic bombers.
Or the new Russian Infantry carried fuel air weapons that they used so well in the war in Chechnya.

DEPLOYING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
ACQUIRING TARGET
LOCATION: LINDON, UTAH, USA
TARGET DESTROYED
SEND NOTIFICATION
TO: LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM
CONTENT: It's Miller time!

If this is what your phallus looks like maybe you should see a doctor

Just so somebody else doesn't have to look this up, geosynchronous orbit is at 19,323 nautical miles, while the various radar and broadband blimps are proposed to be at around 12 miles up. So satellites have an inherent 100ms delay each way, the blimp version would only have a one-way delay of 0.06 ms.

First it was Honda and their dancing robot. How cute.

Next it's Toyota and a trumpet playing robot. Amazing!

Do you notice a trend with these auto companies creating more and more sophisticated robots to one-up the competition?

How long before Honda unveils their Asimo complete with a 120mm M829 Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot-Tracer Depleted Uranium cannon?

Will Toyota fire back with their trumpet playing metalstorm wielding automation?

Permanent Denial of Service.

Fonda's actions may have been a little over the top in going to North Vietnam

That is not "a little over the top," but traitorous.

The "illegal war" that you moan about, but fail to correctly identify, was the war of aggression launched by the Communists of North Viet Nam to conquer South Viet Nam. The Communists of North Viet Nam repeatedly violated cease fires, peace treaties, international law, and the Geneva Convention. Why you feel sorry for them is a mystery, unless that is where your sympathies lie.

If you were really an American patriot you wouldn't blindly support the proposition that its OK for the U.S. to kill anyone it feels like, whenever it feels like it.

If you were a decent human being you would protest the war of aggression by the North. Isn't the best protest to make a protest against the first aggression, not against those who come to the aide of those who are attacked? Isn't that like blaming the victim? And how do you think South Viet Nam fell? It was from a conventional invasion of South Viet Nam by the North Vietnamese Army using tank and infantry divisions, and plenty of artillery. After capturing the South, the Communists killed large numbers of people, and imprisoned many others. For a taste of the things to come you only have to look at the battle of Hue in which the Communists executed about 3,000 people that we know of, due to mass graves, and left several thousand more missing.

As to the Law of War, if you actually knew anything about it you would know that civilians are not absolutely priviliged from harm. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is. No magic shields, not fantasy charms of protection. That is part of what makes war so terrible. Part of the reason for that is it is well known that some will try to exploit the priviliged status of civilians by using them as "peace shields" or putting arms and supplies in civilian areas. Sadly, once again, there was no outcry when Saddam did that, although a few luck ones lived and emerged a little wiser.

I find the sensitivities of the left about war revealing: there was no protest against Iraq in Europe or the US when Iraq invaded Kuwait, captured it, and incorporated it into Iraq. There were howls of outrage against war when a large coalition of nations went to war to remove Iraq from Kuwait and free the people of Kuwait. Viet Nam was much the same. No outrage about the invasion and war of aggression by the North, but howls and outrage when the US and other nations helped to defend South Viet Nam. That pattern repeats in other times and places. It reveals the moral bankruptcy of the left.

my info on this was incorrect.
indeed...

The f-22 and the su-35 were counter parts. in mid 90's the su-35 was further along in developement then the f-22

The Su-35, while possibly a good aircraft (refit of the Su-27) never went into service . Vaporware aircraft do not count.

A "super sonic" torpedo?
this is implicit. 'the SR-23 is super sonic'. Is a statement that it can go faster then the speed of sound. No ammendments need eb made

Let's get this straight. There is no underwater torpedo that travels faster than sound. None, zero, nada. Not ever, not anywhere.

The fastest torpedo I have found in unclassified documents is the Russian "Shkval", which has a claimed speed of 200 knots, or 230mph. However....this speed prevents any actual guidance, so it is merely point, shoot, hope. A weapon of last hope, after you've lost the actual battle. An unguided underwater rocket, as opposed to a homing torpedo.
Normal torpedo speeds are around 50-60 knots.

Now..if you have some factual info on this mythical super sonic, underwater uber-weapon, please share...

The Apache is a mixed bag. It was sent but never got operational in Kosovo, then did fine in Afghanistan, which is nice except I don't think the Taliban had any weapons besides AK-47 and RPGs. It's a lethal platform but it crashes a lot and takes a lot of maintainence, and isn't that tolerant of dusty environs. It's also vulnerable, even to small-arms fire (the Apache in this photo was later bombed into oblivion by one of our own fighter jets). The Apache's performance in Iraq wasn't all that stellar, but of course it will depend alot on whom you ask, and the articles I'm linking aren't presenting the glamorous side. The Apache had a lot of kills in Gulf War I.

But strangely, there's no mention of it.