Slashdot Mirror

http://www.janes.com/article/7...

The Obama administration planned to upgrade all legs of the âtriadâ(TM). This includes a new nuclear-capable Long Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, 12 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Ohio class, Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to largely replace silo-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range nuclear bombers.

The Trump administration will continue those efforts, plus add low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and a new nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM). Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood told reporters the funding numbers for this new plan would not be revealed until the fiscal year 2019 budget is submitted later in February.

You can argue that the Columbia subs are necessary - the UK is doing the same thing. I suppose the same argument applies replacing the Minutemen. The LRSO is basically an updated version of the ACM - a missile the US deployed and then withdrew

And one of the justifications for the LRSO was that it has selectable yields, unlike other US nukes. However the new SLBMs and SLCM duplicate this. Actually the US did have nuclear SLCMs before but phased them out - there were nuclear armed Tomahawks.

I.e. there's a fair bit of fat that could be trimmed off either proposal.

If it were up to me I'd build new subs, keep the current Trident II SLBMs, replace Minutemen and keep the cruise missiles and spend any spare cash on missile defence.

Or you could go really radical and go to a pure SLBM/SLCM system because subs are very hard for an adversary to zap in a first strike and then use all the spare money on missile defence. Those silo based missiles are vulnerable to a first strike.

Maybe do a deal with Russia and China to phase out silo and bomber based missiles? I'm not sure they go for that though - they presumably fear that US missile defence would at some point give the US nuclear primacy. Still the US had that in 2006 and it didn't seem to worry them then. Since then they've both introduced SLBM subs which are not vulnerable to a first strike on patrol.

Which is good, because given how much smaller an economy Russia has than the US, France, Britain, Germany et. al. meaning there's no way it can both maintain a 5th gen fighter programme, and still manage to afford to keep up the maintenance to the same degree the West does, it'll have far less in the first place.

Once you factor in lower numbers, poorer stealth, general cheaper lower quality design, and higher maintenance requirements the PAK-FA isn't the great money efficient super-fighter many suggest. If it ever sees combat against the West there wont be enough of them flying to make much of an impact. Mostly it's only going to be useful in theatres like Georgia and Ukraine where it's got the backing of overwhelming force and is up against old Russian kit that might be able to detect and shoot down say, a Mig 29, but not a PAK-FA.

You have to remember that Russia is great at propaganda, much of what we know about the PAK-FA is overhyped. The F-35 didn't suffer it's first engine fire until about 100+ were produced and had logged thousands of flying hours. The PAK-FA was burning after only 5 had been produced:

http://www.janes.com/article/4...

That's assuming the whole programme even remains financially viable in the first place:

http://theaviationist.com/2015...

Reduced order numbers already leaves the programme precariously close to cancellation. Another downturn in the Russian economy through sanctions or oil prices mean the programme will be dead and buried.

1) Russians have a lot of things that can kill an Apache. Tunguska for example. And fixed wing aircraft.

Apparently you don't know what NOE means. Fixed wing aircraft and AAA's cannot engage an heli flying NOE because they cannot pick it up on radar. Because of the radar configuration on the AH-64D it can engage armor while NOE - that is unique to that heli and it was made to counter exactly the threats you listed. Also, AAA and SAMs are loath to turn on their radar because of F16s and F18s flying constant wild weasel missions, so even if they did try and engage it would be like turning on a homing beacon for a HARM missile.

2) Aircraft carriers can be destroyed by supersonic anti ship missiles - something Russians can and do build very well, making the carriers just huge targets. Even the Brits during the cold war were aware of this kind of an asymmetrical answer.

Seriously? Yes, the US has many answers to anti ship missiles. From the phalanx cannon arrays to the AIM120 fired from aircraft screens. Anti ship missiles are not some sort of panacea against aircraft carriers - in fact, thats one of the reasons carriers travel with so many phalanx cannons!. If you really want to know how that might play out, read Tom Clancy - there is more than one engagement with anti ship missiles fired from Russian TUs. It's fiction, but it's hard science using the real stats. Which is a hell of a lot better that pure conjecture. (that's what you're doing btw, pure conjecture)

3) USA does not use stealth aircraft before achieving air superiority anymore because they are too afraid to lose one of the very expensive birds because they aren't that stealthy

Woah, you mean the first stealth aircraft ever, one designed in the 1970s, was shot down? I guess we should scrap the B2, F22 and F35 projects! The F117 has always been a nightmare, I don't even think it's in service anymore. But more to the point, yes the US would use B2s against C&C targets, you're just being foolish if you don't think so. And your logic is flawed too. You're saying the US is afraid of losing its stealth tech - but at the same time you say the stealth tech is worthless - sounds like you have some shit to figure out there.

American army was already overstretched fighting under-equipped savages in two countries, staying in Afghanistan for a decade and still losing that war.

In other words, the US has bases that surround Russia that it can launch strikes from? And you're posing that as a disadvantage? Hmmm... Shaky reasoning. And I'm not so sure about the overstretched part. Did the US start the draft and I missed it?

But I can see you have read too much Tom Clancy for your own good.

For my own good? Maybe for your own good. I read some Clancy, and other other publications, like Janes. So yeah, educating myself on the topic has really worked out well. I'm able to articulate my point in detail. How's that whole "lack of meaningful knowledge" working for you? Do you feel like you're able to argue your point succesfully without any actual citations or facts to backup your conjecture?

Russian military.

Exclusive: Over 100 Russian soldiers killed in single Ukraine battle - Russian rights activists

(Reuters) - More than 100 Russian soldiers were killed in eastern Ukraine in a single battle this month while helping pro-Russian separatists fight Ukrainian troops, two members of the Russian presidential human rights council said on Thursday, citing accounts from eyewitnesses and relatives of the dead.

Ella Polyakova and Sergei Krivenko, both members of the council - an advisory body with no legal powers and an uneasy relationship with the Kremlin - said around 300 people were wounded in the same incident on Aug. 13 near the town of Snizhnye, when a column of trucks they were driving, full of ammunition, was hit by a sustained volley of Grad missiles.

Update: SHAPE confirms Russian forces fighting in Ukraine

NATO sees the Russian military fighting in Ukraine.
Ukraine sees the Russian military fighting in Ukraine.
The rebels admit the Russians are helping them.
Russian NGOs state Russian military are being sent to Ukraine and killed.
But you "don't believe." At this point I think if you still "don't believe" it is really not a question of evidence but rather your motivation.

http://www.janes.com/article/4...

Janes the defence intelligence organisation disagrees with you FWIW. They claim that IFF in the Buk systems simply asks if it's a friendly and if it doesn't reply with a friendly signature it assumes it's a foe.

I know you claim you've been trained in the system but I'd rather believe Janes given that their description makes much more sense. If what you said is true that surface to air missile systems can be disabled from firing at a target by simply claiming to be civilian in their IFF response then they'd be less than useless as every military jet would be flying around pretending to be civilian.

See here:

http://www.janes.com/article/4...

Quote in question:

"Although it has its own identification friend or foe system, this is only able to establish whether the target being tracked is a friendly aircraft. It is the electronic equivalent of a sentry calling out: "Who goes there?". If there is no reply, all you know is that it is not one of your own combat aircraft. It would not give you a warning that you were tracking an airliner."

Janes suggests that whilst training is needed, the launcher can operate in stand alone mode and even be set to fire autonomously at anything approaching it:

http://www.janes.com/article/4...

I suspect setting it in this mode could be done by a Ukrainian military defector, a Russian operative, or possibly even just by a smart operative being told over the phone or whatever how to set it into this mode. I doubt there's something mystical about it that stops someone being able to be talked through it, people have been talked through how to land aircraft before over comms with zero experience so it seems reasonable.

Besides, it was only the other day the rebels were gloating about having shot down an actual Ukrainian transport at that sort of altitude, so they've already admitted they have the capability to launch this sort of missile anyway so that's not even in doubt at this point either way.

It's not as if they haven't been able to launch massively succesful MLRS attacks in the last week either. There's clearly some extremely skilled military players working for the "rebels". I say rebels in quotes because the entire lineup of the rebels top team are actual Russians, or Ukrainians who have served with the Russian military I believe without exception. They're more actual Russian than they are Ukrainian rebel or separatist.

But people have landed Boeing 747s with no training.

Anyhow, your comments are irrelevant now, as we have evidence from a professional organisation that actually knows their stuff and has explained why you are wrong. They make it clear that whilst you need training to run this thing, you don't necessarily need to know what your firing it, specifically:

"However, a Buk launcher can also operate in stand-alone mode. Its built-in radar is normally used to track the target being engaged, but can be operated in a target-detection mode, allowing it to autonomously engage targets that were present in the radar's forward field of view."

http://www.janes.com/article/4...

Looks like all that nonsense about you couldn't fire one of these things without knowing what your tiring at really is bollocks propaganda, if it can be set to fire autonomously then someone may not have even known it was about to fire, let alone what it was firing at if they set it in that mode not realising civilian airliners were still flying overhead.

All it would take is one defector, or potentially one trained captured soldier along with the launcher to set it in this mode, possibly not even that, possibly just a phone call to Moscow to ask "How do we use this thing?" is all it took.

Either way, doing this with or without knowing what was being launched at is clearly well within the capability of the Russian operatives fighting in Ukraine.

You didn't even read the various articles, available with a simple Google search, did you? ... Everyone involved knew that Boeing was the front runner. Everyone. No one expected the contract to go to anyone, other than Boeing.

I could ask you the same thing.

L’aventure brésilienne du Gripen

The inside word in Brasilia is that the Brazilian Air Force had always favored the Gripen. No wonder Dassault officially took it very badly; the Gripen was dismissed as not nearly as sophisticated as the Rafale.

Brazil expects a better jet fighter deal

French jet fighter Rafale was the hot favorite after former French President Nicolas Sarkozy canvassed for manufacturer Dassault Aviation during talks with former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Dassault Rafale for Brazil

Following the announcement that the Dassault Rafale had emerged as the lowest bidder in the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender for the Indian Air Force, it appears that Brazil could select this aircraft against the F-18 Super Hornet and Sweden’s Saab Gripen.

Based on some of your comments in another post discussing one of the news stories it looks to me like you either missed or misinterpreted various points in that story as well in regards to the fighter competition.

You also apparently didn't read many of the posts from people commenting favorably on the Grippen in this story on Slashdot:

US Spying Costs Boeing Military Jet Deal With Brazil

So we have the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16, Sukhoi Su-35, Dassault Rafael, and Boeing Super Hornet in competition with Saab's Grippen, but all lost to Saab's Grippen. Do you think that the winner didn't offer the best deal overall? Do you think it isn't possible that the US was given a twist of the knife since it only cost a few anonymously spoken words in a newspaper, with no documentation to back it up? Do you think that only the US spies on Brazil? The Russians, British, and French don't? Do I need to answer that for you?

You know, I'm slow to accuse people of being paid shills, but I'm getting close to that point in your case.

Believe what you will. If you want to engage in honest, open, respectful discussion, fine. But understand I won't be neutral about how you address me. If you want to refer to me as a "paid shill," then I will have to conclude that you are a narrow minded jackass that has such a stunted view that you are unable to fathom the possibility that of the tens of millions of people that have views similar to mine in some respect that one of them could have showed up on Slashdot, and long before you at that. On the plus side you'll have plenty of company since Sturgeon's law applies here.

There's a good bit of bartering that happens with these "sales".

The DSCA proposal of sale from June 2013

Another article from June 2013 regarding the sale, with an important quote.

"France requests these capabilities to provide for the defense of its deployed troops, regional security and interoperability with the U.S,"

Here is more on what was purchased.

So.. We sold them to France, so they can operate them. The intention is that they will cooperate with the US. So if we want "surveillance" of a target, and France has one that's closer, we can use their intel. There's nothing unusual about that. It's similar to ICBM early warning systems that were "sold" during the cold war. Sure, they were being operated in another country, but we still used the intel from them.

Well, I'm no rocket expert. But there's a diagram in the linked report of the remnants of the 330mm rocket, and it makes a pretty convincing case that the rocket was loaded with chemical weapons and not with explosives.

Jane's did an analysis and basically concluded that the rockets could be chemical, Fuel Air Explosive, or conventional explosive with equal plausibility without any reason to conclude one was more likely than the other. FAE and some conventional explosives can evaporate/dissipate thus the hollow area that humanrights watch is claiming is chemical -can equally likely be the fuel for a fuel air explosive or a conventional explosive.

http://www.janes.com/article/26414/syrian-military-allegedly-used-makeshift-rockets-in-chemical-attack

The page you are referring to is only trying to validate the testimony of various people from that time regarding one specific photo. The photo was lost, but we have lithographs that reportedly were based on it, like this one. So the investigation is only about checking whether witnesses who claim they saw the photo at the 1906 exhibition were credible. It's not inventing the reports, it's checking them. As for the reports, Jane's writes:

Syndicated reports of Whitehead's exploits contemporaneously appeared around the globe, from Australia to Austria. One, mentioned here not entirely at random, appeared on page 3 of the Portsmouth Evening News of 21 August 1901. At the time, this was the local newspaper of Southsea resident, Fred Jane. As a man keenly interested in technology (and author of four published science fiction novels) it is difficult to imagine Jane not reading the report with utmost interest. However, it would be stretching credibility beyond its limits to suggest that this was the Genesis of the annual now achieving its hundredth volume.

In short, there are numerous articles indicating that Whitehead achieved sustained controlled flight in 1901, and demonstrated a 360 degrees turn in 1902 with a different plane. Whitehead's planes were taking off the ground under their own power, something that the Wright brothers didn't have in 1903.
So why didn't we hear more from Whitehead? It's not a conspiracy theory. To quote Jane's again:

when selecting a partner to commercialise his invention, Whitehead exhibited catastrophic misjudgement....three times over. After two false starts, his third investor proved to be the serial convicted criminal (and, subsequently, lunatic asylum patient) Herman Linde who, early in 1902, attempted to appropriate the venture and had Whitehead locked out of the factory containing his production line of between four and six aeroplanes. To recover solvency, Whitehead turned all attentions to his other great skill: the manufacture of light and powerful engines, which became much in demand by a growing number of aspiring aviators. It is as such that he has been remembered.

The airframe is very similar to O. Lilienthal gliders, which actually flew.

This story is acknowledged by Jane's All the World's Aircraft which I think is a reliable authority, including the stinky deal "the Smithsonian shall [not state] any aircraft...earlier than the Wright aeroplane of 1903...was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight"
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065976994

Contemporary newspaper reports (85+ of them!), including that from an eye-witness, Chief Editor of the Bridgeport Herald, says it took off from a flat surface:

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065976994

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Land-Based-Air-Defence/Starstreak-United-Kingdom.html

We don't know it's a bullshit contract until we have the name of the contractor to research some background (please include those details in the summary in future). I'm admitting that I haven't RTFA, but as soon as I read headlines like these I want to research the contractor.

I am the story submitter. The contractors are Finmeccanica and Northrop Grumman. Some research background is given in the last link in the summary.

About the only two groups who haven't waged wars for their religion (or lack of one) are atheists and Buddhists

You mean like this:this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_African_Satellite_Communication_Organization
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Space-Systems-and-Industry/Rascom-Libya.html
"'ground network includes gateway Earth stations and low cost," -
It made parts of Africa spend less on Intelsat and a lot less on big telco interconnection fees.
Now the West is back and wants their telco interconnection fees back... all of them.

Sounds like a replacement for GEODSS.

GEODSS, from 1980, was the first fully computerized telescope system. It basically looks at the sky, section by section, subtracts out all known objects, and reports the rest. So it finds new satellites, space junk, and even dark objects that occult stars. Three GEODSS sites are still running; a fourth is loaned out to Lincoln Labs to find and track near-Earth asteroids. (Somewhat to the annoyance of astronomers who had been discovering comets and asteroids manually, the automated Lincoln Labs GEODSS discovered them by the thousands.) Each site has at least two identical telescopes, and some have a wide-angle Schmidt.

One of the less-often mentioned features of GEODSS is that it can illuminate a target. One telescope can be used to aim a laser at an object in low orbit, to get a clear picture of darker objects.

Jane's Missiles and Rockets maybe? http://jmr.janes.com/public/jmr/index.shtml

Yeah, but there are counter-measures available. Just for example, the Ramses Missile Jammer. Which is capable of deterring missiles, even when traveling at supersonic speeds. It's primary goal is to jam sea surface skimming missiles such as the ss-n-22 sunburn, among many others. I'm sure the Navy has even better stuff then this.

Soyuz. The rocket exploded twice, in 1975 and 1983, and each time the crew survived. See http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jsd/jsd030203_3_n.shtml

Reducing? They seem to be upgrading.

I saw on the Science Channel show "Brink" about experimental LASER communication for close-range ship or sub-to-sub communications or sub to aircraft communications. Here is a link to the people trying to perfect it: http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_0184.html. It seems to hold some promise.

No link, as for obvious reasons the Navy is not keen on talking about the operating frequencies of its gear

From there : "Operating frequency is 3 kHz with a peak frequency of 192 kHz."

There's going to be a whole lot of pissed off Navy pilots if they make a UAV that can land on a carrier deck at night in crap weather. Their main reason for superiority over all other pilots will be shot to hell.

I'm the senior Landing Signal Officer for the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet, and we've actually had fully automated landing systems on carrier aircraft for a long while. The first test of any Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) was in August 1957, and after extensive development the system was regularly used in Vietnam. The current AN/SPN-46 is the latest iteration, but essentially it's just a glorified missile tracking radar that feeds into the airplane's autopilot via a simple UHF datalink. It's all old tech.

While not all aircraft since Vietnam have done it well (my old F-14B Tomcat was actually worse at "Mode I" (fully coupled) ACLS approaches than the F-4 Phantom it replaced) today's Hornets and Super Hornets are very smooth when coupled up -- much smoother than the typical manual landing.

The problem comes when the system fails (something that can happen in any large automated system - in the air or on the ground). Pilots regularly practice landing by hand, because they never know when the ACLS might not be there for them. They could perform coupled approaches every pass, but they wouldn't have the skills to confidently get aboard if the system ever went away. Those skills require lots of practice to stay sharp, and landing at sea is really hard. I've been doing it for ten years, and it's still just as challenging as ever.

Sometime in the next decade the N-UCAS is supposed to demonstrate truly autonomous UAV operations in a carrier environment. It will rely on a draft version of our next-generation GPS-based replacement for the SPN-46: JPALS. It's stated goal is to fully integrate with our normal manned carrier air traffic procedures. Having seen highly trained aviators struggle with the challenges of operating around the boat, I'll be impressed if it lives up to its goals.

Also in soviet Russia F117's shot down in Serbia years
ago are reverse engineered to make stealth cruise missiles
for the Bear Bombers that recently went back on patrol.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0485.html

I have never looked at my shovel so fondly before.

Sucked in you mother fucking, cock smoking, gun humping, tobacco chewing, christian, imbred, redneck little bitches

When the KH-55/555 stealth cruise missiles levels the large cities
and you show up in the country with that attitude.

The people you consider an insult will be the only thing
between you and your role as worm food.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0485.html

Part of me hopes you get a new attitude, the other half hopes
you turn into a roentgen receptor.

When the neo cons use the nuke bunker busters on Iran
here in a few weeks, the only place you will have to go is the
rural areas when the Russian bear bombers release
6 radar invisible missiles per plane.

See you in hell...

Ex-MislTech

Also there's credible suspicion that they haven't really abandoned the development of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a "tactical" nuke intended for deeply buried / hardened bunkers, which would be likely to create considerable fallout.

If they can really synthesise jet fuel they'll make a bucket load of money. Pure biodiesel is too viscous to be used at high altitude, ethanol's energy density is too low, liquid hydrogen's volume too great. There really just aren't many alternatives to good old kerosene.

The US DoD recently had a successful trial of synfuel on a B52 but it was synthesised from natural gas, which is also finite. Successful production of kerosene from sugar would be a great achievement.

What do you want to bet this is really aimed at the Chinese? A much more plausible (and imho serious) threat is that of the PRC - the 'terrorist' threat is so overblown it's laughable. Should Taiwan ever flare up, without this type of system the US is screwed. I just read about the Chinese having developed a tactical ballistic missile to take out a capital ships at sea. US carrier in other words. This also happens to be a threat the US currently has no real defense against. If you're interested in a better description, see a story from Janes a while back http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061219_1_ n.shtml...

No terrorist entity has anywhere near the capability to launch a ICBM at the US or US interests. And any nation (North Korea?), or quasi-nation (such as Hezbollah) that you might wish to label a 'terrorist state' knows full well that if they got their hands on a nuclear armed ICBM and launch it at the US then they, and their population base, will be obliterated by the US nuclear response. (On a side note, the missiles that Hezbollah was launching into Israel attain nowhere near the altitude that THAAD is talking about. They're far too low range to require this type of system. Now 'Dear Leader Kim's' on the other hand...)

Try Janes for the weapons counts, they tend to be the gold standard.

The US has pulled back from the border. That should actually increase their combat power and flexibility if it comes to that.

The first tenet of present jihadist ideology is that early Muslim society, when Islam was dynamic and all-conquering, is the single, perfect model for human existence as represented in the divine revelation of the Koran, the acts and statements of the Prophet, and the conduct of 'al-salaf al-salih', or virtuous ancestors.

The second is that the only way back to this ideal is through jihad, understood as a war fought by any licit means against all enemies, infidel or Muslim, and viewed as the core obligation of all true Muslims at this historical juncture.

The third is that the enemy-world, "kufr" or unbelief, led by the Jews and US and abetted by quisling regimes throughout the Islamic world, is committed to the destruction of Muslim identity and the subjugation of Muslim lands.

The fourth tenet is that history, which began with the Prophet Mohammad's message but stalled when Muslims went astray after his death in 632 AD, stirred anew with the jihad that liberated Afghanistan in 1992.

The fifth is that the forces of jihad now stand arrayed to fight a decisive battle against the US empire, Israel and the quisling regimes of the Islamic world.

The sixth tenet is that the infidel forces, despite their apparent wealth and military might, are weak and vulnerable to blows of the sort Al-Qaeda struck on 11 September 2001. The lesson jihadists take from this last tenet is that faith and a firm hand on the trigger will topple their foes and ensure the global triumph of the true Islam of the Prophet.

I don't know how neutral Jane's is, but their articles are always fun to read.

The following books show some of the history of the U.S. government's secret agencies, and help explain much of the underlying reasons for U.S. government violence in the Middle East. Often the secret agencies have acted for special interests and against the good of the people. For example, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected president, President Mossadegh, because he wanted his country to receive more of the profit from oil pumped from his country. The U.S. government's political interference eventually resulted in a violent revolution in Iran, and a determination by Iran to strike back.

1. Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America, and international terrorism by John K. Cooley, 2000, Third edition, Pluto Press, London, England and Sterling, Virginia, USA. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

   Osama bin Laden is "the personification of blowback". You can read more about how the CIA created a political climate very supportive of Osama and his ideas in an article by Jane's, a very well-respected publication devoted to military issues. The article was published 3 days after the second World Trade Center bombings, on September 14, 2004: Why? An attempt to explain the unexplainable.

   The CIA brought Arabs to the U.S. and trained them in terrorism. The rules by which al Qaeda operate seem to come from the CIA training.

2. Blowback: The costs and consequences of American empire by Chalmers Johnson, 2000, Metropolitan Books, New York, New York, USA. Also, there was a new edition in 2003 with a new introduction. Reviews: Powell's

Perhaps it has something to do with the recent finding that China has more spies in Canada than in any other nation? The government can't be too happy about that - they may be feeling they've been too lax.

"Hive-like would be a wet-dream"

Depending on your definition of robot, we may already have a "hive mind" controlled robot in operational use. The AEGIS Combat System is a combat control system that integrates a wide variety of sensors and weapon platforms into a single, computer controlled system. The central control computer receives data from linked sources such as radar arrays, satellites and aircraft located anywhere in the battle space. Using various algorithms, the system can track over 100 separate targets, assign priorities, choose the appropriate weapon from any of the assets under its command and target and fire the weapon remotely. An entire fleet of ships can thus act as one in presenting an integrated defense. Once the system is enabled the computer makes the individual decisions without human interaction. The humans just sit back and watch it go. That's pretty close to a hive mind. AEGIS has been around for about thirty years.

There are also examples of "fire and forget" weapons that may be classified as robots, although not in the traditional sense. Sea mines exist that can hover, scan the area with passive sonar and deploy only when certain conditions are met. These conditions can include the detection of the acoustic signature of a single ship or group of ships. Missiles and torpedoes can lock on to a target and independently proceed to an intercept, dealing with evasive behavior and counter-measures. Some munitions, upon losing target lock, can throttle down and cruise in search patterns in the attempt to reacquire the original target or aquire a new target of opportunity. Once any of these weapons is fired, they proceed without further human input.

The reason any of these weapons can be safely (well, safely in a battlefield sense) used is that they are confined to limited areas that are designated "free-fire zones" or are capable of differentiating between targets. That's fairly easy for ships and planes, not so easy for troops on the ground. It's easy to see how robot controlled guns could be used to repulse waves of attackers advancing through no-man's land. It's less clear how they would tell the difference between probing enemy scouts and a lost squad of their own men. Initial deployment might be on the basis of "go over HERE and let me know when you get there or detect anything on the way". Options might include "laser illuminate THIS target until follow-on munitions arrive then return to base" or "let me know if THIS target proceeds in THIS direction". It should also be remembered that acceptable levels of safety are quite different in times of war and on the battlefield. "Let loose the bots" may become the last ditch effort of desperate men.

billy - AEGIS is currently being migrated to Open Software...could it be...Linux?

However -- rail guns are on the cusp of military viability. The University of Texas at Austin's Institute of Advanced Technology got 10 million dollars to develop viable rail guns. Just a month ago Janes reported that a prototype of the military rail gun had been tested, and that it was nearing viability.

UT-IAT has devised a common low-cost projectile concept for both naval surface-fire support and army non line-of-sight (NLOS) engagements using an EM gun launcher. It has a flight mass of 15 kg and contains either multiple kinetic-energy flechettes or a smaller number of sub penetrators made of tungsten. In its naval guise it has a muzzle energy of 64 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 2,500 m/s; a maximum range in excess of 500 km and an impact velocity of 1,600 m/s. From a more size-constrained land tactical platform it would be expected to have a muzzle energy of 20 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 1,400 m/s and an impact velocity of 700 m/s out to ranges in excess of 100 km.

Incidentally, a fun game, if you're ever bored, is to imagine what would happen to the human body if one were to hold and fire a rail gun (even a wimpy one that shot at a mere 1,600m/s and not at "near the speed of light"), and the law of conservation of momentum actually worked. Really! Try at parties!

Fond wishes,

Moiche

Parent is not merely funny but rather insightful as well. The quickest way to get Canada to keep things the way they are is for GW to make some public statement/appeal.

The largest reason Canada decided to nix participation in the missile defense shield* after making positive noises for so long was George W Bush. Someone needs to inform him that he personally doesn't play well up here public opinion-wise, and tell the entire US that trying to force the Canadian hand merely pisses us off. If Bush hadn't jumped Martin in public pressing him to join the missile shield, Canada would almost certainly have acquiesced (but quietly, and without fanfare.)

So please, by all means George/US Corporate Interests, step right up to that mike.... : )

*irregardless the fact that the missile shield will not work against any of the newer ICBM systems out there Janes Defense and will almost certainly lead to the weaponization of space (a longstanding concern or the canadian population.)

Even if one accepts this argument, it doesn't justify the way most of the people held prisoner by the US are being treated, because most of them are certainly NOT terrorists. Aside from the fact that an unknown percentage seem to be innocent bystanders, most of the people captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo bay were Taliban SOLDIERS. I have no sympathy whatever for their cause, but they were part of an organized military force. Here is a review of the Taliban forces as of October, 2001 by Jane's. They may not have been organized in quite the same way as most armies, but by any reasonable standard this was an organized military force, not a bunch of terrorists. However much we may dislike the Taliban, the fact is that they were the de facto government of Afghanistan and had armed forces, most of whom had nothing to do with terrorist operations.

How about Tunguska or Shilka? Or S-200 Angara used in Ukrainian excersises?

• Why? What's illegal about posting the names and addresses of delegates to political conventions?

Is it? Your statement depends on the laws (american) that exist and is open to interpretation. Also it is not clear what exact information was released.

• an anonymous poster to nyc.indymedia.org published the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of 1,600 delegates to the Republican National Convention in New York City along with a message for anti-RNC groups to use the information "in whatever way they see fit.

this was reported by the 'post-gazette'. No mention was made of the address type (work or home). But in the context read above it can be interpreted as a potential *threat*. In the current climate and US elections coming up this reported incident will certainly trigger this kind of (heavy handed) response.

Also consider that the source of the information may also be the *interest*. Cynics among you may well think the info (if harmless) maybe a plant to shut indimedia down for a bit :)

If indeed this was a terrorist pointing the laser, would it not be far more leathal if the laser was being used, not to injure the eyesight of the pilot, but rather, to paint the airplane as a target for a Man Portable Air Defense System?

Early generations of MANPADS that rely on the heat signature of the aircraft's engines are now much more easily defeated by onboard decoy/chaff/flare systems. A laser guided missle may have much better success rates vs hardened targets (civillian/commercial aircraft probably don't have countermeasures, yet, so this may have been a test?)

That said, 5 miles out of SLC airport puts most planes on approach paths at or below surrounding peaks. One could drive a high-powered system in the bed of a pickup to the top of surrounding mtns and fire away from a realively higher vantage point than the plane.

They're also getting some pretty reliable delivery technology going: http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw040802_1_ n.shtml

Sounds a bit like this.
Jane's is a serious publication, isn't it?

The first example that you could think of is Abu Ghraib, but from what I've read the incident was quite isolated, and it doesn't reflect American culture very well.

You clearly don't read much, or if you do, you spend a lot of time in the fiction section. Try reading some news. Here I'll help you out:

Israeli interrogators in Iraq

Terror defendant: U.S. interrogators threatened life

Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture

Leaked Torture Memo: Full Text

Apart from the fact that RGPs took out several Abrams M1A1 tanks during the course of the conflict. It would seem that the M1A1 has a flaw when dealing with close combat situations, its engine compartment isnt as protected as the rest of the system and could be taken out using an RPG.

Links:
Tank destroyed by mysterious weapon
Same story as above
Better story

Who is Janes?

Jane's Information Group. Jane's is more than 100 years old. I think they began with Jane's Fighting Ships - detailed info on the Navies of various countries. Lately, they've moved beyond military intel into commercial/trade info. Not surprising, really. It's all the same.

I just grabbed their sitemap link. That's probably the best overveiw of the organisation.

Who is Janes?

Jane's Information Group. Jane's is more than 100 years old. I think they began with Jane's Fighting Ships - detailed info on the Navies of various countries. Lately, they've moved beyond military intel into commercial/trade info. Not surprising, really. It's all the same.

I just grabbed their sitemap link. That's probably the best overveiw of the organisation.

There is also the case of Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam's secret police who was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief. Abu Zubayr was apprehended in May, 2002, while putting together a plot to mount suicide attacks on U.S. ships passing through the straits of Gibraltar. He has allegedly since stated that Iraq trained and supplied chemical weapons to al Qaeda. In the fall of 2001 al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan took refuge in northern Iraq until they were driven out by Coalition forces, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda terrorist active in Europe and North Africa, fled from Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has reportedly been sent back to Iraq to coordinate al Qaeda activities there.

Take note of Al-Zarqawi. You can read some of what he has to say about the war in Iraq in my next response.

Iraq also sheltered Abu Nidal, one of the most notorious terrorists of the 70s and 80s who appears to have links to 9/11. Oddly enough, Nidal committed "suicide" by shooting himself multiple times, in the head IIRC, not long before the war.

and now we're handing it over to Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda doesn't feel that way. Here is what their leader in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, has to saw about their fighters and efforts there only a few months ago:

1. Most of them have little expertise or experience, especially in organized collective work. Doubtlessly, they are the result of a repressive regime that militarized the country, spread dismay, propagated fear and dread, and destroyed confidence among the people. For this reason, most of the groups are working in isolation, with no political horizon, farsightedness, or preparation to inherit the land. Yes, the idea has begun to ripen, and a light whisper has arisen to become noisy talk about the need to band together and unite under one banner. But matters are still in their initial stages. With God?s praise, we are trying to ripen them quickly.

2. Jihad here unfortunately [takes the form

According to what little info is avialable from Janes The ship is one of two which were initially ordered in 1995. Military procurement being what it is, no matter where you go, the ships were probably designed with NT in mind, circa '95. However, I doubt NT will last longer than the first refit or post-sea trials.

The US and UK navies are both experimenting with a number of computer-control options ranging from MS solutions, to various *nixen. Of course there is the now aporcyphal story of the NT crash that put the USS Yorktown dead in the water. Short answer, it may have been built on the NT platform, but lots of replacement systems exist now and I doubt NT will survive long enough for the ship to enter the active list.