Ministers

Kneebiter

Dreams of someday becoming disembodied rat nipples

Not so much evil as savagely dyspeptic

Patton: tastes good, and is good for you

Crafty, but in a knit-you-a-nice-hat way, not a lure-you-into-a-concealed-punji-pit way

Capitalist tool

Minister Emeritus

Windy City Mike
social democrat, ca. 1930 trade-unionist, and professor of alleged history

Perfidious Advertising

This, too can be yours

Perfidious Merchandise

Perfidious Store Thingy

Most recent entries

Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Join our Mailing List

Calendar Thingy

<<	May 2012					>>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hosted by:
Bloghouse, a Home for Wayward Blogs

Powered by Expression Engine

War

Monday, September 11, 2006

Remembrance

It has been half a decade. Unlike that day five years ago, today is chill and damp. I remember how gorgeous that September 11th was; it would have been a perfect day but for the evil that was visited on us. There are lots of remembrances of 9/11 around the web, read them and remember, pray for the souls of those we lost, and pray for peace even if that seems a forlorn hope.

Wizbang has an excellent web roundup which is well worth your time, and there is 2996, an effort to memorialize each of those who died in the attacks. The server for the homepage is swamped, but several friends have participated, Cat, Army Wife, Rocket Jones, Blackfive (who also memorializes Rick Rescorla), and the Oldsmoblogger. If I’ve forgotten or missed anyone, let me know and I’ll add you to the list. Read of all of them, and thanks to all of you who wrote these wonderful posts.

Finally, from our gracious webhostess Kathy Kinsley, we also have two truly excellent links about other 9/11s, and Lilek’s 9/11 movie.

Posted by Buckethead on 09/11/06 at 03:20 PM
War • Permalink

Friday, September 08, 2006

Probably the last thing alot of people ever saw

Apropos of nothing in particular, I found this kickass pic of a commie attack helo. Seemingly a late-model Hind variant:

Pretty flippin’ cool, huh?

Posted by GeekLethal on 09/08/06 at 05:28 PM
War • Permalink

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Wednesday Funtime Quizzery

Over at Naked Villainy, we find a quiz that warms the cockles of our heart. A soft and fuzzy quiz that probes at the feminine side of our soul. This quiz asks, “What WWII Army would you be?”

The answer is clear: Finland

You scored as Finland. Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.

Finland

100%

Japan

81%

British and the Commonwealth

75%

Italy

69%

Poland

69%

France, Free French and the Resistance

69%

Germany

44%

Soviet Union

38%

United States

31%

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
created with QuizFarm.com

[Wik] And what rule insists that the authors of these verdamt quizzes can’t write or spellcheck their way out of wet paper sack?

[AlsÃ¸ wik] While I am utterly unsurprised that I ended up as Finland, given my genetic heritage and disposition, I am surprised that I ranked so low as America. Granted, I don’t believe that the American strategic campaign was terribly useful, or even terribly moral, but I don’t think that those answers should have bumped the ‘ol US of A that far down the rankings.

[AlsÃ¸ alsÃ¸ wik] If I were to get all reckless and shit, and attempt to rank those nations without the assistance of an interweb quiz engine, it might go something like this:

Finland
USA
Britain/Commonwealth
Poland
Italy
Germany
Japan
Soviet Union
France, Free French or Resistance

[Wi nÃ¸t trei a hÃ¸liday in Sweden this yÃ«r?] If I were to choose purely on the basis of prowess, rather than ideological preference, the list might go like this:

Finland
Germany
USA
Britain/Commonwealth
Poland
Italy
Japan
Soviet Union
France, Free French or Resistance

Strangely, the lists are nearly identical, with the exception of Germany moving up rather precipitously.

Posted by Buckethead on 09/06/06 at 04:21 PM
Entertainment • War • Permalink

There’s a million Chinamen at the door, and they ain’t deliverin’ lunch specials

Operational Art of War III
Scenario “Taiwan 2015”

People’s Republic of China: Programmed Opponent (PO)
Taiwan: Yours truly

This scenario is a hypothetical sketch of an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. Discussion below the fold.

More Perfidious Goodness...

The area of operations is the northern quarter or so of Taiwan. The north-central area is dominated by Taipei and environs; to the west, there is dense urban terrain around the airport. Much of the map outside the cities is open/cropland that favors fairly easy mobility.

The PRC starts out aggressive, but is not consistently so. Turn 1 finds large airborne attacks that seize the airport and much of the surrounding city; the harbor; and most of Taipei proper. Subsequent turns see further airborne drops, as well as marine infantry flowing into the harbor. By about Turn 4, Taipei was in commie hands, their grip on the western areas was strong, and the marines were poised to blast south between them.

The good news for the Taiwanese player is that victory is tied to Taipei. The city center is worth 90 vp alone; counting up the broader urban sprawl surrounding it, itâ€™s in the neighborhood of 200 vp. This is good, because the mission is pretty cut and dried: hold Taipei, win.

In order to do that, a couple of things needed to happen. The strong marine forces lollygagging around the harbor could not be allowed to flow into the city; I had a feeling that once in there theyâ€™d never be dug out. As it was, the light units dug into the city were trouble enough. The enemy marines had to be either destroyed, fixed in place, or otherwise prevented from linking with its forces in Taipei to the E or the force in the W. Such a link would establish a solid line of invaders across a fairly narrow frontage, stretching across nearly half the island. The Taiwanese player does not have enough combat power fielded to destroy them; fixing them might be feasible with a strong force, but most of my heavy units were trying to wrest the airport or the capital from the bad guys.

So it looks grim in the opening turns- strong PRC units appear everywhere you donâ€™t want them, and do a lot of damage. Friendly forces are dispersed and, early on, inadequate to do much beyond meeting engagements. But, as with NATO/Pact scenarios, the invaderâ€™s reinforcements peter out as the defenderâ€™s increase. Although parity is never reached, Taiwan is able to field some robust armored and mech units, as well as several attack helo units that are very effective against PRC artillery.

What ended up happening was that I had basically 3 forces. The west had armor and mech units leavened with some reserve leg battalions that, in time, were enough to destroy most of the PRC airborne and push back the rest until the enemy line thickened up with reinforcing marine units. In the east, everything I had went toward retaking Taipei, an ugly fight. The only way to keep attrition to a minimum in the destroyed, dense rubble of the city is the application of overwhelming, concentrated firepower. There are no political consequences of reducing the city to ash, or for making the rubble bounce, so go for it. The defenders donâ€™t retreat readily, so itâ€™s fairly easy to maneuver around and isolate them, but then itâ€™s time consuming to eradicate them. The center, though, was my biggest concern.

Even though the game would be won by whoever held Taipei at the end, the PRC marines in the center were the key element in the fight. After committing everything I felt was needed to recapture the capital, there was very little left to drive between the city and those enemy marines. For most of the game, I had a thin line of leg infantry and a couple small mech formations as a speed bump for them, and that was it. At any moment, the PRC marines could have burst out of the harbor area and swung east to relieve the capital, or west to maneuver across the open terrain and envelope my force there. The PO chose neither. It made a few thrusts that pushed the line back pretty easily, but it never really went for it. Once all the PRCâ€™s units were committed to Taiwan, it just sort of let them hang around. An aggressive human opponent wouldâ€™ve eaten my lunch, Iâ€™m sure.

This scenario is really the PRCâ€™s to lose; with Taipei and the airport the game is all but won. The rest of the game should be spent holding them, and parrying efforts to dislodge them. There is plenty of space and favorable terrain for bold maneuver, but in this scenario itâ€™s not strictly necessary for the win. Iâ€™d like to try this fight again, but as the Chicoms, and see what kind of damage I can do with those marines.

Too Goddamn Much Perfidy...

Posted by GeekLethal on 09/06/06 at 10:04 AM
Entertainment • War • Permalink

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Crystal Clear on Iraq-9/11

Once again, Bush makes it crystal clear that he, personally, does not believe there’s a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq. Doesn’t it wear this guy down even a little to have to go out there and push this crap, continuously? Bush speaks.

We’re approaching the fifth anniversary of the September the 11th attacks—and since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy. Yet this war is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.

He spoke to the Seafarer’s union too:

And my message to the world is this: Just treat us the way we treat you. That’s all we expect.

Posted by Ross on 09/05/06 at 01:19 PM
War • Permalink

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Hey, look at this, Satan

It makes me proud to be an American to learn that the United States Marines responsible for the care of ex-Dictator and genocidal fucko Saddam Hussein have been making him watch the South Park Movie.

Posted by Buckethead on 08/29/06 at 07:08 PM
Entertainment • War • Permalink

Monday, August 28, 2006

What’s “revanche” in binary?

Not too long ago, in response to a discussion about wargames and such, I explained that my fave was The Operational Art of War. My preference for such games is big- leave the squad-leader stuff for people who like Squad Leader. I like big games of bold maneuver, and TOAW had it. Usually the basic unit of maneuver was a regiment or division, and the maps were pretty large. Depended on the scenario, of course, but maps spanning an entire country and its neighbors were common. The graphics and sound were simple, but so what? The action was on the battlefield; so long as the player could determine the terrain he was fighting over, he was in. He didnâ€™t even have to know standard NATO symbology; one could presto-change-o the whole affair, rendering the units as little tanks and infantrymen.

But, as I wrote, it was gone. Didnâ€™t run on XP without kludgy workarounds. A spiffy little game that came and went, forever to be referred to in the past tense.

And itâ€™s back!

The Operational Art of War 3 is out, itâ€™s fun, and itâ€™s all that with a slice of cheese.

More Perfidious Goodness...

I have a lot of rust to work off my warbrain. The first scenario I tried, Tannenberg, I went balls out as the Russians and was getting my ass irredeemably stomped by about turn 3. After some re-education and refamiliarization, I tried an Operation OLYMPIC scenario, which models an attack on Kyushu by the Allies in November of â€™45. I went in as the Americans, and most of my landing forces were crushed on the eastern and southern beaches. I was successful in the west, but it didnâ€™t look like I was going to have enough combat power left to break out and conquer the island. Pretty much lost by about turn 6.

After some other short re-training exercises, I tried a WW1 scenario, playing as the Hun. I was most successful at this one so far.

The opening turns followed history fairly closely. The sweep through Belgium was not as simple as the schrifters of the General Staff had predicted, but I did OK. By about turn 7, Antwerp and Brussels were firmly in my hands; lead elements had secured Dunkirk, with small light recon units at the city limits of Calais. The BEF showed up though, and got all uppity; after some changing of hands, the hated nation of shopkeepers firmly held Calais and Dunkirk. By the last 3d of the game, fresh French forces leavened with the BEF were able to push me back to I believe itâ€™s the river Scheldt in the NW, and small counterattacks pushed me back north, away from the border.

In the center, my line went roughly Charleville-Verdun-Metz. I had one heavily attritted and isolated unit occupying Reims, the remnant of a thrust from the NE that the AI managed to thwart; he lasted about 4 turns there but was eliminated before the final turn, so no victory points for me for Reims.

It was in the south though where I had almost comical success. All of a sudden and completely unforeseen, the French effort utterly fell apart. I had been working on building up a drive on Nancy; once it fell, I found I was in a position to seriously threaten the larger French line. Once French delaying forces along the southern border were gone, I was able to drive units SW from the Nancy area and NW from Belfort/Besancon. I gambled that the French were weak there, but had no idea how weak they were. In essence, the French army in the field south of Nancy was caught in a respectable- if I do say so myself- double envelopment.

It took several turns to destroy that pocket in detail but I had enough combat power to hold the encirclement and still send something like 15 divisions on the roads to Paris, which is ridiculous. I had cavalry in the front; on the left, threatening Orleans; and on the right flank, expecting the computer to strip units from his dense center to take me on the right. Heavier leg infantry and supporting units found a knot of French defenders anchored in the Troyes area, but I had enough to both bypass and isolate them for future reduction. All told, by what my screening units told me, very little stood between the Kaiser’s mailed fist and the City of Lights.

And then the scenario ended.

I forgot that this game is strict with its turns. Unlike Civ, which allows you to keep playing even after you’ve technically won, TOAW ends the game after you’ve finished your last turn. Period. I was pissed I didn’t even get units into the Paris suburbs; doubly so because the game ended a “draw”, with a brief bit of text tersely predicting a long war. Draw? Long war? I have like 3 corps, at about 90% capability, tearing virtually unopposed toward Paris and it’s going to be a long war? Feh! I just wasnâ€™t paying attention, and it cost me the whole fight.
So going forward, I learned to watch that more closely. Or, instead, employing Bucketheadâ€™s solution and changing the scenario parameters. But whichever- I had a lot of fun crushing the poilus, and even had fun when I lost those earlier games. Sort of.

Iâ€™m just tickled the game is back.

Too Goddamn Much Perfidy...

Posted by GeekLethal on 08/28/06 at 02:09 PM
Entertainment • War • Permalink

Thursday, August 17, 2006

I spy with my orbital eye…

"Is it bigger than a breadbox?”

“Probably. What the fuck is a breadbox?”

For anyone needing to scratch their naval aviation itch, peep Google Earth’s imagery of the Intrepid Museum. Just scroll up the West Side Highway into the West 40s until you see the building laying in the water with the jets on it. That’ll be the Intrepid. Resolution is pretty good, even cranked down to max. Clearly visible are an SR-71, F-14, F-4, other carrier stuff; at least one MiG product; and various and sundry helicopters.

Google Earth doesn’t have a 3D simulation for the carrier proper, which rather understates its size. I drove past it once; it towers over the road below and looks a helluva lot closer than the 100 or so feet the map suggests. It seems quite insane, really, to be tooling along the west side and suddenly seeing what looks to be a huge warship nuzzling Manhattan, and then to realize that in fact that’s precisely what it is.

Posted by GeekLethal on 08/17/06 at 01:26 PM
Just So You Know • War • Permalink

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

We get mail!

Or at least I do. In between inane-but-cleverly-crafted spam pushing the latest pump and dump stock (It’s on the Pink Sheets now, but Honest! It could be the next Exxon!), I get the occasional email message that doesn’t intend to offend, but still does, all the same.

Like this nugget, peristaltically placed in my inbox within the last hour, from Grassfire.org:

Despite a truce to end the current fighting, lasting peace in the Middle East will never take hold so long as anti-Semitic Islamic leaders continue calling for the elimination of Israel.

But that isn’t the only battle front facing Israel. They are also battling the liberal media who seems to accept the spin that this latest battle is about some ancient claim to land--when in reality the fighting is based on a hatred of Christians and Jews.

A look at the media coverage during the incursion underscores that fact. Doctored photos and misleading reports have all found their way into mainstream
reporting.

That is why Grassfire, along with our partner the Media Research Center launched a national petition supporting Israel against these anti-Semitic attacks.
Over the next 30 days, we want to rally 75,000 “Friends of Israel” petitions to present to the Israel Embassy. Click here to sign:(link expunged)

It’s not clear to me whom Grassfire is accusing of “anti-Semitic attacks” - I know it’s either the various Muslims, Islamic leaders, the press, all three, or someone else entirely.

And when I saw the note, I got mildly irked, possibly at the imprecision of their rationale for requesting an electronic “signature” on a truly meaningless “document”.

First off, as strange as it sounds, even as I type it, nobody is attacking Jews, per se. They might be attacking Zionists, and are definitely attacking Israelis, but I’m quite comfortable asserting that neither the press, the more murderous and adventuresome of the Islamists, nor the area’s governments, is attacking “Semites”.

The actions of the aggressors in the current unpleasantness are distinctly terroristic, distinctly anti-Israel, and reek of “please, kick my ass”, but they’re not anti-Semitic, because if they were, then there’s a chance they’d be killing some of themselves, too. Neither, then, are the noticeably biased (against Israel and, by extension, the US) reports in the popular press. There’s anti-American and anti-Israeli froth in full flower, but to call it anti-Semitic is both lazy and unhelpful.

The world’s made up of two types of people: Those who believe the world’s made up of two types of people and… No, scratch that.

If the world could be said to truly be made of two types, one possible classification would be those who dislike anything Israel or the US does to protect itself and those who don’t. Another possibility would be a preference for “the little guy”, no matter how cynical and childishly lame his protestations of correctness. Reflexively being against the US or Israel is not a new phenomenon, and neither is a preference for David (ironic, that) over Goliath.

But an email trying to get my knickers in a twist by playing on some silly-ass claim of anti-Semitism shows a lack of intellectual seriousness on Grassfire’s part, and on the part of those who share their lazy methods of eliciting support.

I prefer that the attacked be allowed to defend themselves, vigorously, and that if they happen to be in the right, they prevail.
I prefer that opportunistic militants who play with fire get burned, preferably badly enough that they stop playing with fire.
I prefer that the weaker-constitutioned nations of the world desist in their (successful, it would seem) shaming of Israel into a cease fire whose purpose is solely to allow Hizb’allah to rearm, in the manner dictated by the prophet himself (piss be upon him), who thought truces were good ways to lick one’s wounds and live to fight the same fight another day, or later on the same day.
I prefer the simple, unvarnished truth in the reporting that I read, rather than being told, obliquely or not, what I should think of a given situation. If I care what someone thinks, rather than what they saw, I’ll read the op-ed page (and I do)
I’d prefer that “we” could stop pretending to be shocked when propaganda is used as a tool of war, and that instead, when a non-party to such a war intentionally spreads propaganda, they should be punished in the marketplace of reputation, ideas, or business

And I’d prefer that those allegedly well-intentioned souls who seem to think that 75,000 imaginary signatures on an imaginary document will do fuck-all for the Israeli people go find some better use of their time and my mailbox. Such an imaginary signature has no effect on any of the things about which they’ve gotten their bowels in an uproar.

Posted by Patton on 08/16/06 at 02:14 AM
War • Permalink

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Security, terrorism, and flaws in our current approach to both

I’m perhaps overly sensitive to the inanity of the supposed security at our nation’s airports, having seen too many instances of Barney Fife syndrome on the part of puffed up losers at various airports. While I’m sure there are many competent screeners, they all seem to work shifts that keep us coming in contact. My typical encounter with the breed makes me certain that they had three choices: TSA, some form of work requiring a white paper hat and a name tag, or one or another variety of animal husbandry. Sadly, in each case, they didn’t read past the first item.

Watching these folks, in fits of mild sadism, drag uniformed pilots (to say nothing of blue-haired grandmothers and crying 6 year olds) through baseless subjugation has always struck me as misguided and fruitless.

But, on a recent trip through this month’s opinings from Bruce Schneier, I saw another of his recent essays (in addition to the item I’ve added as an update to the drug-related post below). This one is entitled “Focus on terrorists, not tactics”. I found it an interesting read, and commend it to your attention.

Key points include:

Everything you know about airport security, you can pretty much ignore as a device to keep you safe
No fly lists, secondary screening, prohibition of fingernail clippers, Richard Reid inspired shoe-checks, and the rest, had nothing to do with foiling the plot at Heathrow
Neither did banning box-cutters
Old-fashioned intelligence work, however, did
The resulting intensified security measures are prudent
But will cease to be, shortly

His point, well and succinctly articulated, is that strategy is more important than tactics. Standard fare, really, but he expounds:

It’s easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it’s shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we’ve wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we’ve wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets—stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security—and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that require us to guess correctly don’t work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It’s not security, it’s security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it’ll catch the sloppy and the stupid—and that’s a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely—but it won’t catch a well-planned plot. We can’t keep weapons out of prisons; we can’t possibly keep them off airplanes.

(emphasis mine)

Given the choices of capitulation, constant and counterproductive “pretend” security measures, or applying a bit of brainpower and shoe leather to the problem while still treating it like a life-or-death chess game, I’d choose the latter. And not just because I have a fondness for cheesy spy thrillers.

Posted by Patton on 08/15/06 at 04:55 PM
Just So You Know • War • Permalink

Monday, August 14, 2006

Weird

Red Sox ace pitcher Kurt Schilling founded a wargames company to keep Advanced Squad Leader in print.

Posted by Buckethead on 08/14/06 at 06:44 PM
War • Permalink

Friday, August 11, 2006

Frickin Swedes

The other night I finished up a game of Axis and Allies on the old computer. This I do more for relaxation and nostalgia than for any sort of challenge, because the PC version of A&A is rather pathetic. The AI opponent couldn’t fight its way out of a wet paper sack with a chainsaw. Once, I started with just the Eastern United States, two armor, two infantry and a fighter. I conquered the whole world.

But anyway, this was the final order of battle as I attacked the last stronghold of my tenacious, canny and ultraviolent opponent:

I won, in case you were curious

Posted by Buckethead on 08/11/06 at 10:48 PM
War • Permalink

Giving Haji the Big One

You don’t step on Superman’s cape.

You don’t spit into the wind.

You don’t pull the mask off the ol’ Lone Ranger.

And you don’t pop unaimed mortar rounds on howitzer batteries.

Stars and Stripes discusses life for a Paladin gun crew in Ramadi here. Great primer for how the crews operate, how seriously they take their counterbattery role, and their relief that they can quit operating as the Queen of Battle and get back to being the Kings. Good stuff.

Posted by GeekLethal on 08/11/06 at 08:47 AM
War • Permalink

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Can you print me a light saber?

Aah, the miracle of modern technology. It makes the cockles of my heart feel all cockly. The geniuses what brought you the P-38 Lightning, the U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird, and the F-117 Nighthawk have come up with another wonder. The Skunk Works has long been renowned in the aviation world for not only its designs - some of the most impressive planes ever to fly - but also the speed at which the Skunk Works could develop them. Back in the late days of WWII, the Skunk Works team developed the first prototype for the P-80 Shooting Star, America’s first operational jet fighter, in just 143 days. This feat is even more remarkable when you consider the absence not merely of computers and modeling software; but also even of calculators.

The new wonder is an unmanned vehicle dubbed the polecat. What is remarkable about this craft is not its performance, but rather the means by which it is made. 3D printing, or 3D rapid prototyping, has been around for a little while. A 3D printer shoots finely focused lasers into a vat of plastic or metal powder, and the heat of the lasers causes the plastic to solidify, or the metal to sinter together. This method allows solid shapes to be built up out of layers, without the need for expensive hand-crafting or retooling. This is nifty. But up until now, the objects you pull out of a 3D printer were merely prototypes - objects that were not fully functional but which could be used to test designs. For example, by seeing if all the computer drawn shapeys all fit together.

The Skunk Works has now taken this to a new level. The Polecat UAV is actually constructed largely of parts made by means of 3D fabricators.

“The entire Polecat airframe was constructed using low-cost rapid prototyping materials and methods,” says Frank Mauro, director of UAV systems at the Skunk Works. “The big advantage over conventional, large-scale aircraft production programmes is the cost saving in tooling as well as the order-of-magnitude reductions in fabrication and assembly time.”

By mixing composite polymers with radar-absorbing metals, it is thought that the aircraft can be built with a certain amount of stealth characteristics already built in.

Here we see the beginning of the future. Much of the objects that we use are identical to thousands if not millions of other objects - production of all the nifty, useful and essential articles that make our lives possible is constrained by the tyranny of the capital cost of expensive capital equipment and the expertise necessary to set it up. Witness:

“This use of rapid prototyping is certainly a revolutionary approach to making an aircraft,” says Bill Sweetman, aerospace and technology editor of Jane’s International Defence Review. “The classic way is to set up a production line with very heavy-duty fixed metal tools that hold everything in the right place.” That is too expensive an approach for the low production runs that reconnaissance UAVs are likely to need, he says.

While the first use of this technology is military, it will have civilian uses. And of course, as clever civilians come up with ever more interesting ways to use that technology, then the military will also benefit.

If someone comes up with a way to print working circuitry with a 3D printer, then you have a general purpose fab. One that could, provided with the necessary feedstock, manufacture essentially any device whose plans are stored in its memory or accessible via google. Think free hardware movement. A lot of the planning that is being done in military acquisition circles is contingent on the idea that moving from idea to production weapon system is a matter of billions of dollars and the better part of decade, and leaves you with balky equipment at a premium price. As this technology takes hold, things will begin to change. By decreasing the design build test cycle, you can move much more rapidly. In the early stages, parts will be made with fabs, and then assembled. We won’t be printing whole aircraft. But if a part is faulty, or can be improved, just change the program. There is no need for expensive retooling, and all subsequent versions of the weapon are the new, improved model. By changing the composition of the feedstock, you can change the properties of the product. Tweak the design, and each model is an improvement.

The advent of industrial manufacture changed a lot of things, warfare being one of the most important ones. Moving to a software, information-age style manufacture will have equaly great effects, perhaps even greater than the changes we’ve seen with the rise of information technology in our media. You could think of it as analogous to the printing press and the factory. The changes are parallel - scribe/printer/blogger and craftsman/factory/fab. Just as we bloggers have the advantages of both earlier modes - fabs will have the advantages of the individualization of the craftsman with the lowered cost of the factory.

Big changes.

[Wik] hat tip to blogger and excellent sf author Walter Jon Williams. His book Voice of the Whirlwind is one of my favorites. D’accord.

Posted by Buckethead on 08/08/06 at 07:35 PM
That Buck Rogers Stuff • War • Permalink

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Knights in Shining Armor

Liquid armor will soon be available in a store near you. As we reported some time ago, in a post I am too lazy to find, University of Delaware scientist Norman Wagner invented a remarkable material that is composed of polyethylene glycol and nanoscale bits of silica. The developers call it a “shear-thickening liquid,” one which stiffens instantly when struck, and then re-liquifies instantly once the stress is gone. New materials for armor have been the focus of constant research ever since the introduction of Kevlar back in the seventies. While Kevlar flak jackets offered a significant degree of protection, astute observers have always been aware that Kevlar armor has never been able to protect from rifle fire, or even all shrapnel. Kevlar armor has been reinforced with everything from steel to ceramic plates in an effort to improve protection, but the sad result of most of these efforts was to greatly increase the weight of the armor. Researchers have also attempted to use a variety of other synthetic fibers, and even cloned spider silk, but these efforts were unable to produce anything noticeably more effective than Kevlar.

Armor Holdings, inc., a company until now primarily concerned with supplying the Army with vehicle armor, bought the rights to this technology, and hopes to be selling suits of liquid armor by early next year. At first, Wagner thought that the liquid armor might be applied almost like peanut butter, in a relatively thick layer. But experimentation showed that the greatest protective effect was achieved by applying many very thin layers of the liquid to sheets of Kevlar. The shear-thickening effect of the liquid is enhanced when the liquid is embedded in layers of Kevlar - the force of a blow is spread wider, resulting in greater protection for the wearer. By greatly enhancing the stopping power of Kevlar - less is needed. AH hopes that its new armor suits - with liquid armor sandwiched between two layers of ballistic fabric - will be significantly lighter than existing models. And, amazingly, it will also be cheaper to manufacture. The first target of their sales effort will be prison guards, for the reason that liquid armor will stop knife attacks - something even the best Kevlar has never been able to do. AH hopes that troops might start getting theirs by the end of 2007.

Liquid armor hasn’t been alone in the field of advanced armor concepts. Back in 2005, we heard that Israeli researchers had developed a nanomaterial that was five times stronger than steel. A detailed and informative article can be found here, but there has been little news since. The Israeli nano-armor is rigid, and can take shock pressures of at least 250 tons per square centimeter and remain unmarred. That’s fairly impressive. They are reportedly working on a newer version of the material - one constructed on the same principles (nanoscale inorganic fullerenes) but with a different base; Titanium Disulfide instead of Tungsten Disulfide. If this pans out, the resultant improved nano-armor should be even stronger, yet weigh a quarter as much.

If all of this research and production bears fruit, we could see American troops significantly better protected in a matter of years. That is, of course, all to the good. The introduction of lightweight, and - importantly - truly bulletproof armor could have a great effect on the conduct of military operations. Those who are interested in this sort of thing, and I am certainly one, spend our free time pondering how technology has changed warfare, and how it continues to change warfare today. We often focus on the complicated products of our computer and military industries. UAVs, missiles, missile defense systems, lasers, VTOL fighters and multi-billion dollar warships. Armor for the infantryman might not seem as big a thing, but it could be much bigger.

Imagine a Marine. He has ApNano armor covering his head, torso, arms and legs. His helmet and armor is made of a material capable of deflecting a shot from a .50 caliber machine gun at close range. The joints between the hard armor are protected by liquid armor cloth. While not as effective as the hard armor, it will fully protect him from smaller caliber weapons and most shrapnel. Imagine further that all this armor weighs half what the current Interceptor plus K Pot weighs, thanks to the miracle of advanced materials science, the whole armor system weighs in at a miniscule 20 pounds.

This Marine is mobile. His lightweight armor does not impede his movement, and does not overtire him. It affords him near invulnerability from anything save vehicle mounted weaponry or artillery. And unlike armored vehicles like the Stryker, he is a much smaller and harder to hit target.

His opponents are armed, mostly, with AK 47s and the like. They canâ€™t kill him with those. What does this remind you of? It reminds me most of all of Cortez and the Aztecs. Cortezâ€™ soldiers in their steel helmets and back and breast armor were invulnerable to all the weapons the Aztecs had. The Aztecs couldnâ€™t kill the Spaniards unless they caught them alone and overpowered them. And we all know what happened to the Aztecs.

US Troops are already vastly superior to most actual and potential opponents in terms of doctrine, training and weapons. The effect of this superiority is, typically, lopsided casualty rates, especially during â€œregularâ€ phases of combat when all of Americaâ€™s advantages in air support, mobility, intelligence and training come into play. Where our opponents gain back some ground is in static insurgency warfare where improvised munitions and house to house combat remove much of our high tech gimcrackery from the equation.

How different will urban combat operations be when a soldier can enter a hostile environment knowing that short of a freak accident, the chances of injury are remote? I think they will be very different indeed.

These technological developments promise real body armor. Body armor proof against almost any weapon an insurgent can get and carry. Even if liquid armor and ApNano breastplates donâ€™t happen now, or next year, the research will lead to the real thing in the short term â€“ five to ten years out at the outside. And when it does, and American troops get it, they will have an advantage more powerful than most of the rest of the panoply of modern equipment can provide â€“ safety. It will also be an American advantage, because insurgents wonâ€™t have access to it.

In an era where casualty figures are a political weapon, this alone may be a boon beyond price.

[Wik] Thanks to the greatUnknown over at Murdoconline for pointing out that it is “shear” and not “sheer.” Every single news or popular science article got that wrong. But, if you go back and look at links to the technical abstracts, they all correctly describe the material as “shear-thickening.”

Posted by Buckethead on 08/01/06 at 05:57 PM
That Buck Rogers Stuff • War • Permalink

Page 3 of 24 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy