Slashdot Mirror

And the carrier decks will need to be modified before you can use the F-35s (all three of them). You're much better revamping the Harrier - small, technologically sound upgrades - rather than spending billions on pie in the sky techno wizardry. Let the skunk works play magician. Line of battle machines should be relatively cheap, easy to fix and fit some reasonable need.

This problem is laced throughout the Pentagon. When the Army needs a troop carrier that weighs more than an M1A1 tank, you know you've got a couple of problems stuffed in their. Americans aren't that fat.

OK, so you think this is a one off aberrantcy? That the military requisition and supply chain basically works?

Check this out. This new concept for a troop carrier has been in the works since 2006, hasn't produced anything other than some parts and a bunch of reports and is on target to create something heavier than an M1A1 tank. Just to carry nine soldiers.

If you can't even get a truck right, how are you supposed to develop something actually complicated?

"An elephant - a mouse built to government specifications" (Heinlein)

Wow, that was impressive. Did Faux News tell you all that?

Nope. If you had bothered to look, I stated that I referenced http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm for my "selective quotes". "My" arguments are quoted from this source. Their references for this work included:

• Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War, Marine Corps Historical Publication FMFRP 3-203 - 10 December 1990
• Iran and Iraq: A Prediction for Future Conflict Francis V. Xavier

I proved you wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. Eat it. You were wrong. Wrong.

Upon what basis, other than "It's well established..." did you "prove" anything?

.

Shit- After stepping back and re-reading this exchange I realize that I've been feeding a troll- my bad. You got me.

I understand why so many slashdotters browse at +1 and ignore AC's...won't make that mistake again, starting now..Bye.

I'm going to give them some benefit of the doubt, just to be diplomatic. I'm going to assume that it is indeed a real airplane and that it was indeed flying in the video. (Global Security disagrees with this assumption at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm but I just want to state my two cents on the plane as an enthusiast.) That said, just because they say it's a stealth fighter doesn't make it a stealth fighter. In the footage provided there's no documentation of its stealthiness, nor even a general discussion on what makes it stealthy such as vaguely stating "radar absorbent materials", "carefully calculated angles", or "continuous curvature" like you get in History/Discovery/Military channel overviews of the U.S.'s stealth and stealthy aircraft. It's just "we have a stealth fighter." Even the roll-outs of the F-117A and B-2 contained more information about their stealth designs than was discussed in that video.

Lets give them another benefit of the doubt, that they were too intelligent to discuss those facts for strategic purposes.

I'm no expert on stealth, but I have fundamental problems with the aircraft's design in terms of stealth. The down pointing wingtips are sufficiently disjunctive with the rest of the flow of the aircraft that I can't help imagine that they'll generate a larger radar cross-section as a result. It has a forward wing-canard which helps with maneuverability (at least when paired with thrust vectoring), but I imagine that the tips (as seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image06.jpg||| ) would also trigger a larger cross-section from some angles. Hell, this image, http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image18.jpg||| , to me screams that there's no way in the world this wouldn't reflect radar signals back to the source...

Global Security does point out that the air in-takes are too small for any reasonable modern fighter jet, but perhaps the Iranians couldn't make it stealthy with any significant jet engine. They also point out that the nose cone is too small to hold a radar system, but that might be explained by a very involved ground control team; it hasn't been unheard of for officers on the ground to order fighters to certain locations and engage certain enemies. This was a Russian and Chinese strategy though I don't know if they still hold to that. Not including a radar system in an aircraft would make the pilot dependent on its ground control, less capable of independent action, and less likely to be detected by an enemy's threat detection system. They wouldn't be locking on to a target with their own radar, so missiles fired from them would be fed telemetry from a remote location, which means it couldn't give away the aircraft's position (specific or broad) prior to firing. Of course, that's speculation; it's possible that it has a small radar system that is comparatively weak by the standards we use in the West. Global Security quotes David Cenciotti who noted "It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane" and it appeared "nothing more than a large mock-up model" but then, so does an F-16 up close. The F-16 looks like a toy next to the F-15 or F-22.

Nonetheless, I don't imagine the DoD is losing any sleep over this announcement... Even if the plane is real and really does have some stealthy features, I'd wager that it would still be a large enough radar target for AWACS to pick it up at a distance, and relay lock data to a squadron of F-15s that are well outside of visual range. I think that its possible stealthy f

I'm going to give them some benefit of the doubt, just to be diplomatic. I'm going to assume that it is indeed a real airplane and that it was indeed flying in the video. (Global Security disagrees with this assumption at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm but I just want to state my two cents on the plane as an enthusiast.) That said, just because they say it's a stealth fighter doesn't make it a stealth fighter. In the footage provided there's no documentation of its stealthiness, nor even a general discussion on what makes it stealthy such as vaguely stating "radar absorbent materials", "carefully calculated angles", or "continuous curvature" like you get in History/Discovery/Military channel overviews of the U.S.'s stealth and stealthy aircraft. It's just "we have a stealth fighter." Even the roll-outs of the F-117A and B-2 contained more information about their stealth designs than was discussed in that video.

Lets give them another benefit of the doubt, that they were too intelligent to discuss those facts for strategic purposes.

I'm no expert on stealth, but I have fundamental problems with the aircraft's design in terms of stealth. The down pointing wingtips are sufficiently disjunctive with the rest of the flow of the aircraft that I can't help imagine that they'll generate a larger radar cross-section as a result. It has a forward wing-canard which helps with maneuverability (at least when paired with thrust vectoring), but I imagine that the tips (as seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image06.jpg||| ) would also trigger a larger cross-section from some angles. Hell, this image, http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image18.jpg||| , to me screams that there's no way in the world this wouldn't reflect radar signals back to the source...

Global Security does point out that the air in-takes are too small for any reasonable modern fighter jet, but perhaps the Iranians couldn't make it stealthy with any significant jet engine. They also point out that the nose cone is too small to hold a radar system, but that might be explained by a very involved ground control team; it hasn't been unheard of for officers on the ground to order fighters to certain locations and engage certain enemies. This was a Russian and Chinese strategy though I don't know if they still hold to that. Not including a radar system in an aircraft would make the pilot dependent on its ground control, less capable of independent action, and less likely to be detected by an enemy's threat detection system. They wouldn't be locking on to a target with their own radar, so missiles fired from them would be fed telemetry from a remote location, which means it couldn't give away the aircraft's position (specific or broad) prior to firing. Of course, that's speculation; it's possible that it has a small radar system that is comparatively weak by the standards we use in the West. Global Security quotes David Cenciotti who noted "It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane" and it appeared "nothing more than a large mock-up model" but then, so does an F-16 up close. The F-16 looks like a toy next to the F-15 or F-22.

Nonetheless, I don't imagine the DoD is losing any sleep over this announcement... Even if the plane is real and really does have some stealthy features, I'd wager that it would still be a large enough radar target for AWACS to pick it up at a distance, and relay lock data to a squadron of F-15s that are well outside of visual range. I think that its possible stealthy f

I'm going to give them some benefit of the doubt, just to be diplomatic. I'm going to assume that it is indeed a real airplane and that it was indeed flying in the video. (Global Security disagrees with this assumption at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm but I just want to state my two cents on the plane as an enthusiast.) That said, just because they say it's a stealth fighter doesn't make it a stealth fighter. In the footage provided there's no documentation of its stealthiness, nor even a general discussion on what makes it stealthy such as vaguely stating "radar absorbent materials", "carefully calculated angles", or "continuous curvature" like you get in History/Discovery/Military channel overviews of the U.S.'s stealth and stealthy aircraft. It's just "we have a stealth fighter." Even the roll-outs of the F-117A and B-2 contained more information about their stealth designs than was discussed in that video.

Lets give them another benefit of the doubt, that they were too intelligent to discuss those facts for strategic purposes.

I'm no expert on stealth, but I have fundamental problems with the aircraft's design in terms of stealth. The down pointing wingtips are sufficiently disjunctive with the rest of the flow of the aircraft that I can't help imagine that they'll generate a larger radar cross-section as a result. It has a forward wing-canard which helps with maneuverability (at least when paired with thrust vectoring), but I imagine that the tips (as seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image06.jpg||| ) would also trigger a larger cross-section from some angles. Hell, this image, http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image18.jpg||| , to me screams that there's no way in the world this wouldn't reflect radar signals back to the source...

Global Security does point out that the air in-takes are too small for any reasonable modern fighter jet, but perhaps the Iranians couldn't make it stealthy with any significant jet engine. They also point out that the nose cone is too small to hold a radar system, but that might be explained by a very involved ground control team; it hasn't been unheard of for officers on the ground to order fighters to certain locations and engage certain enemies. This was a Russian and Chinese strategy though I don't know if they still hold to that. Not including a radar system in an aircraft would make the pilot dependent on its ground control, less capable of independent action, and less likely to be detected by an enemy's threat detection system. They wouldn't be locking on to a target with their own radar, so missiles fired from them would be fed telemetry from a remote location, which means it couldn't give away the aircraft's position (specific or broad) prior to firing. Of course, that's speculation; it's possible that it has a small radar system that is comparatively weak by the standards we use in the West. Global Security quotes David Cenciotti who noted "It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane" and it appeared "nothing more than a large mock-up model" but then, so does an F-16 up close. The F-16 looks like a toy next to the F-15 or F-22.

Nonetheless, I don't imagine the DoD is losing any sleep over this announcement... Even if the plane is real and really does have some stealthy features, I'd wager that it would still be a large enough radar target for AWACS to pick it up at a distance, and relay lock data to a squadron of F-15s that are well outside of visual range. I think that its possible stealthy f

I love these guys: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm

David Cenciotti noted that the plane featured “implausible aerodynamics and Hollywood sheen” and was laughably small for a fighter jet. He also commented thatthe cockpit was far too basic for a sophisticated aircraft, and appeared “similar to those equipping small private planes. ... The nose section is so small almost no radar could fit in it ... The air intakes are extremely small, whereas the engine section lacks any kind of nozzle: engine afterburners could melt the entire jet. ... It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane” and it appeared “nothing more than a large mock-up model.” Iran also broadcast video footage of the Qaher F-313 in flight, which Cenciotti said appeared to fly like a “radio-controlled scale model more than a modern fighter jet.” He also noted it was suspect that Tehran did not release takeoff and landing footage of its new aircraft.

I'm not saying the jet is real, but releasing takeoff and landing footage would give away some secret technical information about the aircraft. If you wanted to keep that information secret, not releasing the footage would be a good idea. For example- a video of a takeoff could be used to calculate minimum takeoff speed, thrust to weight ratio, etc. Probably more. A landing video might contain useful information also. For a country which is basically hostile to every other country in the world, keeping such a video secret is a good idea. Regardless of whether the plane is real or not.

I love these guys: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm

David Cenciotti noted that the plane featured “implausible aerodynamics and Hollywood sheen” and was laughably small for a fighter jet. He also commented thatthe cockpit was far too basic for a sophisticated aircraft, and appeared “similar to those equipping small private planes. ... The nose section is so small almost no radar could fit in it ... The air intakes are extremely small, whereas the engine section lacks any kind of nozzle: engine afterburners could melt the entire jet. ... It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane” and it appeared “nothing more than a large mock-up model.” Iran also broadcast video footage of the Qaher F-313 in flight, which Cenciotti said appeared to fly like a “radio-controlled scale model more than a modern fighter jet.” He also noted it was suspect that Tehran did not release takeoff and landing footage of its new aircraft.

And they are complete and helpless victims of "open spying by satellites", with no spy satellites of their own.

When China finally reaches the modern era and actually lets its people have free access to information, such ignorant posts as yours might become less common. Well, no, this is Slashdot.

One of the reasons the people are so poor is because they spend so much on their military.

The main reasons they are so poor is incompetence, corruption, and hardline Stalin era communist economics that even the Chinese "to get rich is glorious" Communist Party has abandoned, and their unfortunate policy of "self-reliance." They then take the results of that mess and channel resources into the military on a high priority basis, including priority for food. They could get away with it while the Soviet Union was underwriting them, but not anymore, not without an enormous price.

In the days of Chairman Mao Zedong, capitalists were considered enemies of the state. Some business owners were persecuted and most enterprises became government property.

That changed in the 1980s and in the early 1990s when paramount leader Deng Xiaoping was said to have declared that "to get rich is glorious." A 2002 constitutional amendment established that the Communist Party henceforth would consider valid the contributions of private enterprise, therefore providing a place for private entrepreneurs in the party system. -- Defying Mao, Rich Chinese Crash the Communist Party

As part of a long-planned training evolution, United States Central Command is deploying about 750 people from its Tampa headquarters to its new forward headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base, Doha, Qatar.

From: http://www.heritageofqatar.org/sites-to-visit-in-qatar/

Qatar has a close relationship with the United States military and is “U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center.”

From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/qatar.htm

An extremely advantageous (for the U .S.) Defense Cooperation Agreement governs the U.S. military presence in Qatar, which as of 2008 hosted approximately 9,000 U.S. forces, some 100 U.S. and Coalition aircraft, as well as the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters, the Combined Air Operations Center, SOCCENT Forward Headquarters, and other important DOD facilities. Qatar had no objection to stationing B-1 bombers and Patriot missile batteries here, and regularly sent military personnel to the U.S. for training.

The contaminated material at the Gore site is 20 million metric tons of source materials in the form of uranium, uranium oxides, uranium fluorides, thorium, radium, and decay-chain products in process equipment and buildings, soil, sludge, and groundwater.

Citation needed. Here's the description of the site: http://www.wise-uranium.org/edusa.html#GORE (11-14 acres) and here's what I could find on the reclamation: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/gore.htm. In fact that link uses the exact words you used, which leads me to believe you have read it. It also says, in the same fucking article, that "The total radiological and hazardous waste volume is estimated to be 141,600-311,520 m3 (5-11 million ft3)." I leave it as an exercise to get the density of your material using these numbers and find something on earth that dense. The latter site does mention that they have a licence to "possess" up to 20 million tons of stuff including groundwater.

In fact, do you have the foggiest notion of what 20 million tons is? Assuming a density of 5 tons per cubic meter (rough approximation, within one order of magnitude) that's 4 million cubic meters. Since I bothered to google, I know that the area where the waste will be stored is 11 to 14 acres, or around 4.5 hectares. 4 million cubic meters over 45,000 square meters is about 900 meters tall. So tell me, is your claim bullshit or are they building a mountain of contaminated material?

@JakaraDean

Thank you for this, it didn't sound correct to me and I was about to do the same as you to figure this out.

The contaminated material at the Gore site is 20 million metric tons of source materials in the form of uranium, uranium oxides, uranium fluorides, thorium, radium, and decay-chain products in process equipment and buildings, soil, sludge, and groundwater.

Citation needed. Here's the description of the site: http://www.wise-uranium.org/edusa.html#GORE (11-14 acres) and here's what I could find on the reclamation: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/gore.htm. In fact that link uses the exact words you used, which leads me to believe you have read it. It also says, in the same fucking article, that "The total radiological and hazardous waste volume is estimated to be 141,600-311,520 m3 (5-11 million ft3)." I leave it as an exercise to get the density of your material using these numbers and find something on earth that dense. The latter site does mention that they have a licence to "possess" up to 20 million tons of stuff including groundwater.

In fact, do you have the foggiest notion of what 20 million tons is? Assuming a density of 5 tons per cubic meter (rough approximation, within one order of magnitude) that's 4 million cubic meters. Since I bothered to google, I know that the area where the waste will be stored is 11 to 14 acres, or around 4.5 hectares. 4 million cubic meters over 45,000 square meters is about 900 meters tall. So tell me, is your claim bullshit or are they building a mountain of contaminated material?

i think you'll have a hard time convincing people over there to do that. Part of the us domination is derived from the fact that it has the best (worst?) army in the world, the force in the world you wouldnt wanna cross, hi-tek, modern ninja squads, bulk spacemarines, name it, they got it. Another part is that the modern weapons business is quite some business and i'm guessing the weapons lobby is even a bit more hardcore than your average copyright trolling-congregation
check these guys out, you'd think you're in a fringe eps

This is from the article, "India quite naturally did not want Pakistan to become a nuclear state. A second nuclear state cramps the style of the first. It is hard to imagine one nuclear state acquiescing easily or gracefully to its adversary going nuclear. But certainly in the long run, the nuclear weapons have meant peace on the subcontinent. This is in GREAT contrast to the expectations that most people entertained. Statements abounded by pundits, academics, journalists that suggested that nuclear weapons would mean war on the subcontinent. These experts all denied that the nuclear relationship between India and Pakistan could be like that between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. When two countries have nuclear weapons it becomes impossible for either to strike at the manifestly vital interests of the other. It remains very possible, however, for nuclear states to engage in skirmishes, and those can of course be deadly. A historical example is the Soviet-China border disputes (1969), and a more recent one is the Mumbai attacks. But never have any of these skirmishes gotten so out of hand as to escalate to full-scale war."

Mr Waltz missed something very important - the Kargil War (or Incident or Debacle as it's also known). At one point, Pakistan moved nuclear weapons forward. President Clinton contacted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief, who was unaware of this according to his autobiography. Prime Minister Sharief then ordered General Musharraf to stand down.

Here's a more detailed explanation of the incident - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm.

I doubt any person in charge of fighting such a fire would trust that sealing off the compartments would starve the fire. In the Stark incident, the ship's metal was burning. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14057_ppr_ch4.pdf http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051805/met_18768709.shtml

Nice try, but White Phosphorous and Napalm are not "chemical weapons", the Guardian notwithstanding. They are not being used to poison, but to burn. They are incendiary weapons, also known as flame weapons, and are not covered under the Chemical Weapons Convention in that capacity.

Legal Status of Incendiary Weapons

The use of flame weapons, such as Fougasse, the M202A1 Flash, white phosphorous, thermobaric, and other incendiary agents, against military targets is not a violation of current international law. They should not, however, be employed to just cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.

If you look at the current aircraft carrier deployment, you'll notice that 'hanging around the middle east' is a very popular activity among aircraft carriers, with 'maintenance' the runner up.

Further, given that it was CNV-72, the very much not obsolete yet, Abraham Lincoln that had the dubious honor of passing through the Strait of Hormuz(ie. within range of practically anything not classified as a 'small arm', the Enterprise certainly hasn't been obviously singled out as the sitting duck.

With a 400 pound payload, this machine can carry (maybe) the full combat gear load of four soldiers, or more practically half the load for 8.

Global Security documents that the average rifleman's combat load is 91 pounds. Some of this is going to stay with the soldier. Remote special forces units packs will be much higher, as they must be more self sufficient. Combat pack weight is almost directly determined by the capability of (and the soldiers confidence in) the supply train.

If you have the luxury of going in with full air support and helicopter resupply you don't need heavy packs, but you aren't going to surprise anyone either. This walker device wouldn't be needed where you have helicopter support. Where you do need this device is where you may not want it, such as rough terrain missions, with small numbers of soldiers, trying to be reasonably stealthy.

An couple of chain saw motors coming thru the outback is going to be easy to hear. In the woods you can easily hear a chainsaw two to five miles away. Having one right next to you means you can't hear anything else. Not the breaking twig, not the thump of a distant mortar tube, probably not even bullets smacking the trees right next to you.

So unless they can do something about the noise this seems to me to be a re-supply tool for use in already controlled rugged areas rather than something that accompanies combat troops. But if you already control the area, just use a chopper. Even if you do quiet the engine, I suspect this thing is less than stealthy.
And left unsaid is the weight of the second day's fuel.

The use case seems vanishingly small in its current state.

These numbers are from what they've "heard". No official specs available.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mop-specs.htm

"60 meters (200 feet) through 5,000 psi reinforced concrete
40 meters (125 feet) through moderately hard rock
8 meters (25 feet) through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete
(these number seem suspiciously high and may in fact be first in feet, not meters)"

- note: their warning not mine

5000psi reinforced concrete is typical building concrete - a cheap bunker might be made of this.

10000 psi reinforced concrete is what you'll find good bunkers or structures that need high strength are made of. Even higher strength concrete is available.

So it probably won't go far into a well made bunker.

How about a fact check? The GBU-57 is "Designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers". The B-52 can carry two 30,000 lb bombs.

How about a fact check? The GBU-57 is "Designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers". The B-52 can carry two 30,000 lb bombs.

North Korea must have the best stargazing, there's almost no light pollution at all! http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

Skimming the actual report, the number in there is predictably "500Mbits", it seems to be Wired who got that mixed with megabytes. Still as some earlier posters point out one needs to go no further than Wikipedia to find out that number is still likely off by a magnitude as the real figure seems to be 50Mbps. I assume the 500Mbits figure came from people trying to get funding for more bandwidth, and may be based on theoretical maximum, such as the capability of the link installed on them.
The report in question does, however, warn that "The finite bandwidth that currently exists for all military aircraft, and the resulting competition for existing bandwidth, may render the expansion of UAS applications infeasible and leave many platforms grounded". This sounds slightly dubious, as the report itself notes that moern UAV's are autonomous-capable, and all the bandwidth is basically for sensors, which can be switched on and off on the basis of need. Unless there is need for 24h uninterrupted surveillance, the bandwidth isn't such a limiting factor.
From a satellite bandwidth link we learn the supposed total bandwidth available is somewhere in the ballbark of 12Gbps. This would mean a single Global Hawk uses 1/240th of the total available bandwidth when ran over satellite. Granted, that may seem bit of a andwidth hog, but it's important to notice there's no difference between that and a manned airplane running with equivalent sensors forwarding data. As such it's hard to see this as a "drawback".
If one looks for a drawback from the report in question, it's their reliability, as according to the report in 2005 Global Hawk for example had 13 times as high "Class A Mishap" rate as U-2 spy-planes. On the other hand, the report claims that in 2009 Predator-drones reached a lower mishap rate than small single-engine private airplanes in the USA.

500Mbps seems to be the original source. However, this source, which seems considerably more reliable, being written by an expert in the field, states it could be up to 500 megabytes, and points out how a high-res camera can use 75 megabytes to stream. Speculative, but by far the best source I've seen. 50mbit/s is far too low. Even a single truly highres camera (keep in mind these are probably more than HD cameras) can use more than that.

OP is incorrect, he paraphrased from here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/bandwidth.htm

However, he translated 500Mbps (megaBITS per second) to megabytes per second. 500Mbps is actually closer to 62.5MB/s -- still a lot compared to residential bandwidth in the US, but not half a terabyte every second.

I couldn't tell you why OP didn't copy/paste, he's only a few words off from the original anyway.

So the upshot is to secure GPS communications to prevent spoofing using countermeasures as discussed here.

Anyone who has seen the "earth at night" and the part of North Korea will immediately know this is South Korea boasting that they have electricity at all hours of the night.

Clearly North Korea is trying to keep their people in the dark about this, and are succeeding extremely well.

'Cause they don't HAVE any light when the sun's not shining.

N Korea at night:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

Hmm.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2011/12/mil-111208-dod01.htm

DOD News Briefing with George Little and Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon

Q: But you did put out a statement last week saying you'd lost a drone, and you thought this might be it.

MR. LITTLE: We said, you know, all week that, you know, we did have a UAV go missing. But you know, when it comes to sensitive reconnaissance missions, we call them sensitive for a reason. So we're not going to add to what we said over the weekend.

You don't really know what you are talking about. Ask any nuke-rated pipe welder or fitter what sizes they work with.

Note the vessel thickness, which isn't hard to breach for someone who doesn't mind dying. An RPG will go through much thicker armor, or a thermit package could be attached and ignited. Don't be so impressed by metal.

The Fukushima vessel is listed as four inches thick. Note the PERSONNEL DOOR in the drawing. Open THAT and the thickness of the REST of the vessel doesn't matter!

http://nei.cachefly.net/static/images/BWR_illustration.jpg

http://www.cbi.com/markets/project-profiles/georgia-power-nuclear/

Vessels are in concrete structure, but not "potted" directly, for they and their piping must be inspected. That means they must be accessed.

See the nice building. Note that once you enter it, it's defensible after you kill the workers. The same concrete that protects the reactor by from the gentle caress of incoming aircraft makes a fine bunker and covers your door breach operation.

An RPG can penetrate about ten inches of steel armor once you are inside.

EFPs can punch armor from a distance. Ignore the delivery system but note the small size of the munition on the Fire Ant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syuu_g7svoE

A shaped charge is plenty capable. Note the listed effects of this smallish one:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

"The Charge, Demolition, Shaped, 150mm is designed to make holes of considerable depth and breadth in a variety of materials. It consists of a 150mm diameter conical steel liner with three removable legs which provide a standoff of 145mm. The Charge, Demolition, Shaped, 150mm contains 3.1 kg of HE and its total mass is 4.9 kg.

"Target Material Depth of Hole (mm)
Armour Plate 178
Mild Steel 250
Hard Rock (Granite) 380
Reinforced concrete 760
Soft rock (Sandstone) 910"

Any questions? None of this info on reactors or metal cutting or explosives is obscure. Metal is cut and explosives are used to demolish industrial structure all over the world every day!

Terrorists could smuggle the illegal bits the same way drug smugglers get tons of weed and coke and illegal immigrants across borders. A roll of demolition cord could sit in the open among coils of wire. Semtex can be poured into all sorts of innocent containers like drink coolers. Detonators and blasting caps can be neatly fitted into consumer appliances and pass even x-ray inspection.

The gear and the perps can't get into action if they are killed before they enter the premises, so killing them is what to do.

Some remote controlled aircraft can carry JDAMs, Hellfires, Mavericks, and other pretty lethal ordnance.

A home-built kit would obviously carry less than a B52 or a B2 could carry, but a reasonably small home-built RC aircraft could easily carry a couple pounds of explosives and fly, provided you didn't intend to do all kinds of acrobatics with it. If you don't think a pound or two can be dangerous, perhaps you'd reconsider after looking at the damage a claymore mine, grenade, or molotov cocktail can do. None of these weigh that much, but can cause extensive damage kill people with ease..

Was the kid going to destroy the Pentagon? Of course not. Could he have still killed people? You betcha.

How about this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/blue-marlin-pic1.jpg?

Maybe the other Korea should start making home Internet access available to the majority of citizens. They already have enough trouble with lighting (scroll down).

Yea because this airplane is soooo scary http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/images/arl_ARL.jpg|||
There are some missions that you can not do with with a spy sat. The US at one time used converted bombers for this type of mission like the RB-29, RB-50, and RB-47. They later decided that a converted bomber was both scary and kind of cramped and start to use converted transports so that they would be less threatening. That is also why they are never armed. There is no real reason to get bent over these aircraft because they really are not threatening.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/arl.htm

It appears to be a comint prop-job. :) The fact that it got hit by what apparently was a UWB signal is interesting, given the Air Force's interest in that area of emissions the last decade or so. Let's not get too hasty in crowing North Korea "electronic warfare kings" just yet, though. :)

"How are ground attack missions part of a "No Fly Zone"?"

The UN resolution was for more than a No Fly Zone. It also specifically allowed protection of civilians. And in the nighttime video shown on that page what do you think was happening? You were seeing Libyan government forces firing artillery at the city of Misrata -- not at a military base, not specifically at opposing army forces, but just shelling the city. Shelling civilians. They did that with artillery and rockets for MONTHS, indiscriminately. All over the city. Hundreds a day sometimes. The UN resolution empowered the NATO forces to stop that shelling, which in a practical sense would mean bombing those artillery pieces and any forces using them in such a manner. The Libyan government always had an option to avoid such an option: stop shelling civilians.

"And was the Libyan government any more evil, corrupt, and dangerous than Iraq?"

Probably not, although Libya actually did have chemical weapons and still had a small stockpile that had not yet been destroyed. In Iraq the case was trumped-up charges of weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed and it was not a UN authorized action. In Libya the world was about to witness another Yugoslavia where government tanks, bombers, artillery, and rockets would have been used to shell the city of Benghazi into capitulation, and that would have been only half the massacre that would have resulted once the government forces had control (Ghaddafi has previously inflicted terrible retribution on cities who crossed him).

War is a terrible thing. But this is one case where the need to intervene was pretty clear-cut. Where people can argue is whether NATO strayed from it's original mandate, but on the other hand, even when Ghaddafi's forces retreated from Benghazi in the face of NATO intervention they didn't exactly stop shelling civilian-filled cities. In fact, they intensified it in many other places, such as Misrata, Zintan, Zawiyah, and many others. Any city that had a popular, civilian uprising they basically surrounded and shelled with tanks, artillery and rockets until the city submitted (which happened in the case of Zintan and Zawiyah, almost in the case of Misrata). Imagine what he would have done if there wasn't a No Fly Zone -- he also would have been bombing the cities with aircraft. He had already started doing that in Benghazi before NATO intervened. At least NATO wasn't indiscriminate when they bombed ground targets, and they weren't dropping unguided bombs intentionally on residential areas filled with civilians. I mean, sheesh, early on some of Ghaddafi's *own*pilots* refused orders to bomb the cities, ejected from their planes or flew elsewhere, and defected to the rebels. This was not some hypothetical risk. It was in progress. That immediacy was why you even had the Arab League supporting intervention.

As for US politics and authorizing this sort of thing, I think there were serious problems with the way it was done. Obama was foolish to assert executive power over the decision and not get Congressional approval early, and I don't think using drones and eventually acting in a support role excuses the need for approval. But I strongly feel that intervention of some kind was the right decision. It was that or stand by and watch the massacre unfold. Does that set a dangerous precedent for intervention in other conflicts? Maybe. On the other hand, maybe dictators will think twice about ordering their armies to start shooting their own people, and maybe those armies will think twice about following those orders. We'll see.

"Luxembourg doesn't have a navy, ..."

Not anymore. We have half a navy ship, shared with Belgium. :-)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/clst-h.htm

Navy or not, there are 150 ships registered in here in Luxembourg and running under its flag.

No, the PLAN has one aircraft carrier.

Chinese aircraft carrier: ex-Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, 43,000 ton conventional steam-turbine powered aircraft carrier, was commissioned/launched 2011.

On June 8, 2011 the chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) confirmed that China's first aircraft carrier was under construction. On the morning of August 10 the ship began her first sea trials.

The ship does not, as of yet, have an air wing, and is only on sea trials for now.

In late December 2008 and early January 2009, there were multiple reports of China building two conventionally powered aircraft carriers displacing 50,000–60,000 tonnes, possibly to be launched in 2015. In December 2010 China's State Oceanic Administration announced that this vessel would be finished one year earlier, in 2014. A nuclear powered carrier is planned for launch around 2020.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2010/china-100921-voa01.htm

if China's experience is similar to the Russian Federation's experience, the ships will spend the bulk of their time in dock training up crews.

Horseshit.

The US is also partner in the operations of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command (CFC), an integrated headquarters established in 1978, and is responsible for planning for the defense of the Republic of Korea.

The role of Combined Forces Command (CFC) during the armistice is to deter war. CFC's wartime role is to defeat external aggression. Its mission statement is: "Deter hostile acts of external aggression against the Republic of Korea by a combined military effort of the United States of America and the ROK; and in the event deterrence fails, defeat an external armed attack against the ROK."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/usfk.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/dcgs.htm

There, now I can say the system is COTS based - no specialized platforms. This isn't the bad part. The bad part is the poor engineering. It's very data-transfer oriented - this would make sense, it's a queue database of intel. The data is bulky in some cases. The problem is that armed forces are usually at the end of a long, thin comm pipe - satellite latencies of 600ms and maximum 4mbps down pipes. Less reliable than civilized leased lines, also. The problems with the system revolve around the latter point.

It's less capable than the system it replaced, ASAS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/asas.htm

Essentially, to talk about this I have to find an unclassified link for what I am talking about, and that's hard. Imagine writing in Wikipedia-style [citation needed] terms, if you want to understand what it is like.

Fratricide is nothing new, its been part of warfare since the first missile weapons were used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Historical_examples
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_chap1.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_appene.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_append.htm

Up to 36% of casualties from artillery and airstrikes are from fratricide, that number is dropping because of better communication, but its nothing new.

Fratricide is nothing new, its been part of warfare since the first missile weapons were used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Historical_examples
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_chap1.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_appene.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_append.htm

Up to 36% of casualties from artillery and airstrikes are from fratricide, that number is dropping because of better communication, but its nothing new.

Fratricide is nothing new, its been part of warfare since the first missile weapons were used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Historical_examples
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_chap1.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_appene.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_92-4_append.htm

Up to 36% of casualties from artillery and airstrikes are from fratricide, that number is dropping because of better communication, but its nothing new.

And remember kids, the places outside the prison camps are the "garden spots" of North Korea, with a much better night life, and day life, or any life at all, for that matter.

"WHO IS NOT allowed to have a military (Plus they have the balls to use the word "dong" to name their missile name... Type-of-Dong which would make getting deep-throated by one that much more humiliating) 5) Any threat to Japan is a threat to the US who is in charge of protecting them in exchange for giving up the military."

Totally false. Japan spends almost as much on their military as the United Kingdom. They just don't call it one.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?cid=GPD_42

Japan: (1/100)*5068996399491 = 5.07 10^10 UK: 2174529808278*(2.7/100) = 5.87 10^10

By some (possibly more reliable) estimates, it is more: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm

I worked on the American Rocket Company's proof of concept hybrid launch vehicle in 1989, which went under various names in the press, but the working name in house was Single Engine Test One (SET-1).

SET-1 failed on the pad at VAFB, also due to a frozen LOX valve. There's a good account of the Oct 1989 vehicle accident attached to the Original Post here. I'll summarize from my experience.

All of the engine testing took place at Edwards AFB, where the humidity was approx 10% on average. At Vandenburg, humidity was more like 100% during cryo fill/drain operations in the mornings. I suspect that similar condensation and freezing problems affected the Copenhagen Sputnik valve.

After two days of dry-run fill/drain ops, there was a nice casing of ice around the 4" gate valve that separated the He-pressurized LOX tank from the polybutadeine rubber fuel cast into the combustion chamber, so it only opened about 10% of full -- just enough to ignite the engine but not enough to produce any effective thrust.

The LOX valve failure was listed as the "cause," but it was only the proximate cause, and could have been predicted and/or mitigated. But a number of other contributing factors (human error, subcontractor interference from competing companies, and design shortcomings) led to the thrust vector control fuel, 60% hydrogen peroxide, pooling in the flame bucket and catching fire. As a result, the outside of the vehicle caught fire, and eventually the whole thing became a burning mess on the pad, sending a huge black cloud of smoke over Santa Maria, CA.

The proof of concept failure was the direct cause of the failure of the AMROC startup. I joined in Feb 1989 when the staff was about 50. By the time of (company President and chief inspirational figure) George Koopman's death in July, the staff was four times as large. By the end of the year, the company was only 25 people, and closed its doors a year or so later, selling its IP to Westinghouse, which then transferred it to SpaceDev. So some of the work we performed did prove useful, eventually. And we succeeded in proving that hybrid rockets were "safer" than solid -- during SET-1 development, some Rocketdyne folks down the road at EAFB dropped a solid rocket section from a crane. The resulting explosion killed 2 people iirc. The SET-1 accident caused only $2000 of minor damage to the pad at Edwards.

I was a young engineer just out of college. It was an awesome experience to work at a startup like that, and I have dozens of entertaining stories to tell as a result, and learned many lessons I used regularly over the next two decades. I'll never forget it.

Soviets had much better nuke delivery system in space (fractional orbit bombardment system - FOBS) than the Space Shuttle in 1960's. It was called R-36-O:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-36o.htm/
It was phased out in 1983 because depressed trajectory SLBMs were cheaper and better.

Physics

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mh-x.htm