Magpul FMG9: Gun in Disguise

31 Oct
Advertisements

Armed Forces

27 Oct

Taken from DefenseTalk.

The armed forces of a state are its government sponsored defense and fighting forces and organizations. They exist to further the foreign and domestic policies of their governing body. In some countries paramilitary forces are included in a nations armed forces. Armed force is the use of armed forces to achieve political objectives.

The study of the use of Armed Forces is called military science. Broadly speaking, this involves considering offense and defense at three “levels”: strategy, operational art, and tactics. All of these areas study the application of the use of force in order to achieve a desired objective.

Organization
Armed forces may be organized as standing forces (e.g. regular army), which describes a professional army that is engaged in no other profession than preparing for and engaging in warfare. In contrast, there is the citizen army. A citizen army (also known as a militia or reserve army) is only mobilised as needed. Its advantage lies in the fact that it is dramatically less expensive (in terms of wealth, manpower, and opportunity cost) for the organizing society to support. The disadvantage is that such a “citizen’s army” is less well trained and organized.

A compromise between the two has a small cadre of professional NCOs (non-commissioned officers) and officers who act as a skeleton for a much larger force. When war comes, this skeleton is filled out with conscripts or reservists (former full-time soldiers who volunteer for a small stipend to occasionally train with the cadre to keep their military skills intact), who form the wartime unit. This balances the pros and cons of each basic organization, and allows the formation of huge armies (in terms of millions of combatants), necessary in modern large scale warfare.

CONTINUED

American Tax Dollars at War

25 Oct

Taken from Wandering American

New US Humvee Burns 70% Less Fuel

24 Oct

The new vehicle, dubbed FED Alpha, will be on display this week in the Pentagon’s courtyard for an Energy and Sustainability Technology Fair. The vehicle has a solar panel on its back hatch to recharge its electrical systems, a custom engine and transmission along with several new features that will drastically increase its range and reliability over other models of Humvees. The new vehicle has all the toughness and survivability of the standard up-armored Humvee but burns 70% less fuel.

While the FED may not ever be mass-produced, it’s a valuable platform for testing the practical uses of environmentally friendly and sustainable technologies. The vehicle features a 200 horse-power 4 cylinder engine, a six speed automatic transmission and low-rolling resistance tires. The tires provide a 7% fuel reduction all by themselves. The savings from the tires alone are expected to save about $45 million annually if applied to the entire Humvee fleet. Their are several computer systems on board, such as one that informs the driver when they exceed the optimum fuel efficiency speed by causing the gas peddle to vibrate and giving resistance against more speed. However, if speed is essential to the mission, the driver just needs to push through the feedback.

Some other features of the FED are its high efficiency 28 volt integrated starter-generator that allows for extensive electronics to be installed, a light-weight aluminum structure except for the armored cab and v-shaped blast protection on the undercarriage. And finally, the FED has a much improved driveline specially designed to reduce friction.It’s been undergoing testing since July and another prototype design is under construction.

Interesting timeline of the vehicle in a PDF file here.

Flying the Flag, Arming the World (1994)

19 Oct

This is a documentary by John Pilger that goes into all the dirty little secrets of the British International Arms Trade.

Japan’s Aging Air Force

18 Oct

Japan faces a big dilemma. It’s two main adversaries in the region, Russia and China, which Japan has several territorial disputes with, have already begun developing the next generation of combat aircraft and have begun massive modernization efforts while Japan has been operating the same fleet primarily made up of 200 F-15s since the late stages of the Cold War. It’s fleet is becoming older and increasingly more expensive to maintain. Finally, after a decade of shrinking defense budgets, the JASDF is getting a big budget with money for upwards of $8 billion worth of air power. While originally eyeing the American F-22 Raptor, Japan has had to look elsewhere due to the ban on exports imposed by the US Congress, which is a shame because I think that if any US ally needs a shot at getting the F-22 it’d be Japan. They need it. Instead, Japan will choose from 3 different aircraft. They are:

The F-35 Lightning II

The F/A-18 Super Hornet

And the Eurofighter Typhoon

Not bad choices. Any one of these aircraft should fair very well against most of what the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans have to throw at them. Japan has currently set aside funding for 40 planes but that number is certainly going to  rise significantly in the face of Russian and Chinese rearmament. They’re likely to choose one of the American fighters due to their military alliance with the US and they already work closely with the American military which uses the same parts and equipment so cooperation would be easier. If Japan wants to maintain stability in the region then investing in its power projection capabilities is paramount and this new fighter deal will go a long way to achieve that end.

The End of the Aircraft Carrier

17 Oct

Since WW2, aircraft carriers have been the premier method of projecting power away from friendly shores. Bristling with weapons and boasting more planes than some countries have in their entire air forces, aircraft carriers can cost up to $15 billion to build and operate and are essentially massive floating fortresses. For decades the carrier has reigned as the undisputed master of the seas but now there are many factors that threaten it’s supremacy.

The first issue is the global financial crisis. Even though it seems like the worst is over, there is still a long recovery ahead before the world’s economic growth picks up. With austerity measures being put into place in several countries, defense spending is often the first expenditure on the chopping block. Carrier construction is a massive undertaking that is enough to bankrupt most countries and developed nations like the US, France, and the UK may soon have to decide between operating an expensive capital ship or paying bills.

The second issue is that no one country rules the seas anymore. The days of post-Cold War American dominance of the seas are almost at an end and new challengers are appearing. China, India, Russia, Brazil and others are in the process of constructing capable blue water navies, often employing advanced submarine fleets and missile ships, that may pose a serious danger to a lumbering carrier.

Another problem is that more effective counter-measures are being developed for the express purpose of limiting the effectiveness of carriers. The most notable counter-measure being China’s DF-21 missiles that can travel at low altitudes at supersonic speeds and can strike targets up to 900 miles away. This weapon was designed specifically for the purpose of checkmating American carrier groups in and around the East and South China Seas. As of now, there has yet be an effective way of combating the DF-21 and the US is check-mated for the time being. A $15 billion ship can be crippled or possibly even sunk by a missile that costs maybe $10 million at most.

What alternatives are there to hulking carriers? Simple. Less expensive helicopter carriers if you expect  a need for amphibious operations. A small carrier loaded up with cheaper helicopter gunships could prove devastating in engagements that allow short range aircraft. Combat drones have also proven their effectiveness on the battlefield. Mid-sized mother ships that dispense endless waves of attack drones seem much more frightening and practical than a carrier loaded with  a few dozen $120 million fighters. Sometimes sea-based aircraft aren’t even necessary. Look at Libya. Much of the naval force deployed was in the form of cruise missiles fired by submarines while sorties were flown from regional airbases with no real need for a carrier to be involved.

One could argue that the time of the carrier is not yet passed and that the numerous threats arising are just little bumps in the road. I agree that there will always be a need for a mobile platform that is able to provide an effective moving base of operations for aircraft but the risks of deploying these huge ships to unfriendly waters may soon outweigh the benefits. Unless counter-measures are found and implemented quickly and reliably as the new threats emerge then the fate of these titans of the sea remains murky.