As if titanium tubing and exotic-alloy farings weren't enough, now the Air Force is getting all Gucci on us and fashioning airplane parts out of jewelry...sort of.
From Aviation Week:
Researchers at the University of Dayton in Ohio are preparing an Air Force report showing the corrosion-protection potential that results from prodding oysters to produce pearl-like coatings on metals. Senior research scientist Doug Hansen says his team has manipulated oyster blood cells, prompting them to deposit nacre, a natural calcium carbonate ceramic, onto aluminum, titanium and stainless-steel alloys. The deposits are “fracture resistant” and, as coatings, “they can last a lifetime,” he says. The work is funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
I guess if this happens, Air Force maintenance managers are going to have to regularly case the local pawn shops for the flashy pearl-coated parts.
Well, in the interest of giving each side their due, I’m going post some comments sent to me this weekend from another MGS platoon sergeant who was quoted in the Bloomberg story I cited in my story.
At this time in my opinion am one of the most combat experienced MGS vehicle commanders in the army today. I have fired 58 rounds in a combat situation...none of them were just for fun rounds. I have used the MGS in every manner possible and used it for things it was not tatically supposed to be used for. It pisses me of that only 1 or 2 guys were asked about this vehicle in 4-9 INF, 4/2bde.
And later he wrote me...
I just want the vehicle to get a fair chance and for people who think it a waste of tax dollars to realize that we now control the battlefield both cross country and urban.
The MGS platoon sergeant also pointed me in the direction of some YouTube videos featuring the MSG. Here’s one, and a link to the others.
So, take a look for yourself. All I can say is the crew with whom I talked in Baqubah hated the vehicle and argued it was rushed too soon to combat. Our new source says something completely different, and it’s totally fair to argue that my story was based on the opinions of just a handful of people.
We’ll follow up with any further disclosures on the MGS from all sides.
And, PS: I’m back from the Sandbox. A hearty thanks to my dear leader, Ward Carroll, for hosting the blog in my absence. He did a first rate job and I can see you all enjoyed his aimless blathering...
-- Christian
What is a Combat Handgun?
Read this article the other day about the Air Force’s $90 million request for new pistols getting nixed and instead they were granted $5 million to “study” joint combat pistol needs with the Army. This, in turn, reminded me of a piece I’d written several years ago on the H&K; Mk. 23 Mod 0 SOCOM.
A lot of money was invested in building that state of the art pistol, and there’s no arguing that it is in fact, one hell of a handgun; but you don’t see too many of them around. Of all the SOF personnel I saw in Iraq, none had anything other than the M9 Beretta, and of the several I spoke to about the .45 SOF pistol, none had ever seen one.
To be sure, I’m sure there are more SOF folk than there are SOCOM pistols, and there might be some sort of SOP regarding the use of the SOCOM, but if that were the case, why go through all that trouble to make such a superlative firearm and either not issue it in greater numbers, or restrict the use of the ones you do have?
Now, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I am not a “gun” guy. As a soldier, I use firearms as the tools of my trade. I can take them apart and put them back together, and I know how to troubleshoot them when something does not work right.
What I can’t do is quote chapter and verse on muzzle energy, knockdown power, stopping power, fit, feel, or functionality of any particular firearm or bullet. This having been said, however, I think, even given my own limited “gun” knowledge, I could come up with a replacement for the M9 for less than $5 million dollars.
Take my experience with the M1911A1 .45 pistol and the M9 Beretta. The thing I liked best about the M1911A1 was the fact that it was made out of forged steel; You could drop it, kick it, crawl on it, you could do anything to it short of melt it, and you wouldn’t affect it’s reliability. Moreover, properly blued or parkerized, the M1911A1 was very forgiving of the elements.
I started covering the US Navy's off-again/on-again Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program about five years ago. It's been back on for two years and -- last I checked -- poised for a contract selection decision in five days.
This makes me sad because I just thought of an obvious angle for a BAMS story that I've missed somehow for the last five years.
If I had the chance to re-interview all of the competitors and USN program officials, here's the first question I would ask: Why is this a winner take-all award instead of a split-buy?
The competitors for BAMs are the Northrop Grumman RQ-4N Global Hawk (high-altitude, turbofan, active electronically scanned arrays), Lockheed Martin/General Atomics Mariner (medium-altitude, turboprop, mechanically scanned arrays) and Boeing/Gulfstream G-550 (high-altitude, turbofan, optionally manned, multiple active arrays).
Each product is basically an off-the-shelf platform modified to meet the USN's requirement. The USN is not paying to design a new aircraft. It's essentially buying a la cart. That's probably why each platform offers vastly different operational strengths and weaknesses.
This competition isn't a choice between two discreetly differerent rivals, like the YF-22 versus the YF-23. This is more like the YF-22 versus the B-1. Each platform is a completely different capability, but both are useful for their intended purpose.
I agree there are downsides to a split buy award: the upfront costs are higher than a winner-takes-all award, you lose some of the marginal benefits of commonality and training gets more complicated.
But there are other advantages. The USN would not be beholden to one contractor for BAMS for the next two or three decades, but could keep playing the two teams off each other over the life of the program. Instead of a narrowly focused solution, the USN's operators could employ the platform that makes the most sense for each mission.
Not to mention the fact that Congress tends to like split buys, as it spreads the jobs more broadly and subjects the defense industry to greater competition.
I'm not saying a split-buy is the best answer for BAMS, but rather that it's an important and seemingly logical question that I should have asked long before now.
Today, America spends more on defense than at any time since the end of World War II, based on the Pentagon's own official budget data. The previous high point in post-World War II defense spending was 1952 - during the Korean War - at $589 billion in today's dollars. The Pentagon's budget request for the current fiscal year totals $670 billion, or a substantial 14 percent above the previous high water mark.
U.S. defense spending is now also larger than the rest of the world - combined. The CIA's 2007 Word Fact Book estimates all other nations to spend about $400 billion on defense. That amount is for not just our potential opponents, whoever they might be; that's the entire rest of the world.
We are told we must worry about China and Russia and prepare against them; something we should really lose sleep over is how they can be such a major concern - to those who point them out as looming threats - with defense budgets of just $81 billion and $21 billion, respectively, according to the CIA.
A similar basis for worrying is why the Pentagon's budget has trended up over the decades, while its forces have been shrinking. Today, we have the smallest defense inventory since 1946. For example, with a spending level considerably higher than in 1985 when the Cold War raged and after Ronald Reagan increased the Defense Department's budget, we have now 10 active Army divisions, not the 17 we had in 1985; less than 300 naval combatants - compared to 542 in 1985, and we have just over 12 active Air Force tactical air wings, not 25.
The British military said Feb. 6 it will no longer use goats in experiments to gauge the risks of evacuating a submerged submarine.
The tests, conducted for years by the Ministry of Defense, involved herding the animals into a special chamber and then drastically changing the air pressure.
Defense minister Derek Twigg said the tests, which were suspended in March 2007, had provided valuable safety information to submarine crews. But a review concluded that no more experiments were needed, though the military said in a statement it could revisit the issue.
The tests were meant to simulate what sailors would experience should they need to evacuate a submerged submarine. The difference in pressure between the deep sea and the surface can cause fatal decompression sickness, often referred to as the bends.
Goats were chosen because of their physiological similarities to human beings.
Six goats died in the experiments between 2000 and November 2006, and 122 others were slaughtered afterward.
Animal rights groups complained about the tests for years, saying they were cruel and unnecessary.
QinetiQ Group PLC, which ran the tests on the government's behalf, said the tests were conducted in a facility on Britain's south coast, but declined to elaborate.
No statement from the Naval Academy mascot, but we can assume that, in spite of his support of submarine safety, Bill is good with this decision.
-- Ward
Goodbye Good Deals: No More Gigs
Not exactly high tech news, but noteworthy nonetheless. In another move that signals how the machine is slowly sapping the elegance from the military experience, the Navy just released this message:
FM COMNAVAIRFOR SAN DIEGO CA//N43//
TO USS KITTY HAWK
USS ENTERPRISE
USS NIMITZ
USS DWIGHT D EISENHOWER
USS CARL VINSON
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT
USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN
USS GEORGE WASHINGTON
USS JOHN C STENNIS
USS HARRY S TRUMAN
USS RONALD REAGAN
SUBJ/REMOVAL OF CAPTAINS GIGS FROM ALL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. OPNAV N88 APPROVED THE NAVAL AVIATION ENTERPRISE (NAE) CARRIER READINESS TEAM (CRT) REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CAPTAIN'S GIG FROM ALL CV/CVNS. REMOVAL OF THE CAPTAIN'S GIG WILL REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS AND FREE UP VALUABLE HANGAR BAY SPACE.
2. PER REF A AND B, ALL CV/CVNS ARE REQUESTED TO PREPARE THEIR CAPTAIN'S GIG FOR DISPOSITION WITHOUT REPLACEMENT IAW REF C. SHIPS SHOULD COORDINATE THESE EFFORTS WITH THEIR TYCOM N43 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGER (MPM).
3. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE CAPTAIN'S GIGS ASSIGNED BY SHIP AND ACTION REQUIRED (READ IN THREE COLUMNS):
SHIP CAPTAIN'S GIG ACTION REQUIRED
CV 63 10MPE9319 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 65 12MPE9203 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
CVN 68 12MPE9201 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 69 40PE9004 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
CVN 70 40PE761 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
CVN 71 40PE8514 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 72 33PE8701 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 73 13MPE9902 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 74 33PE9006 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 75 33PE9007 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
CVN 76 10MPE9308 COMPLETE REF C REQUIREMENTS
4. REQUEST THAT CAPTAIN'S GIGS BE OFFLOADED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.
5. CAPTAIN'S GIGS MUST BE OFFLOADED BY 30 JUN 09.
6. UPON COMPLETION OF OFFLOAD, SHIPS SHALL NOTIFY THEIR TYCOM N43 MPM AND POC.//
Ah, memories . . . it seems like just yesterday we'd join the old man for the ride to shore, full of the kind of excitement that always preceded a great liberty call.
So it's goodbye, trusty friend. Regardless of sea state, you always got us there and back.
-- Ward
China's Subs Go to Sea . . . Sort of
While American press reports continually headline China's buildup of naval forces, in reality there is only one warship category in which the Chinese Navy is superior to the U.S. fleet -- diesel-electric submarines. In no other category is the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy even close to U.S. Navy force levels or capabilities.
The Chinese have an estimated 55 diesel-electric submarines in service, including several modern, Russian-built Kilo-class units. In addition, China is building advanced conventional as well as nuclear-propelled torpedo attack submarines. (The U.S. Navy now operates only nuclear-propelled attack submarines -- 55 SSNs are in commission.)
Non-nuclear submarines are difficult to locate -- if operated by competent crews -- especially in coastal or littoral waters. In those areas the advanced submarine detection systems developed by the U.S. and other NATO navies during the Cold War have limited effectiveness because of shallow depths and the massive noise put into the water by coastal shipping, fishing craft, offshore oil drilling rigs, and other sources.
However, China's conventional submarines, like their nuclear-propelled units, spend little time at sea. Researcher Hans M. Kristensen, writing for the Federation of American Scientists, reports that China's "55 general-purpose submarines conducted a total of six patrols during 2007, slightly better than the two patrols conducted in 2006 and zero in 2005."
The patrol information was obtained from the U.S. Navy. Kristensen continued, "Just what constitutes a Chinese 'patrol' is secret, according to the U.S. Navy…."
This writer has learned that such patrols have a maximum of about 30 days with the boats averaging a speed of four or five knots while on patrol. Still, these patrols have demonstrated that the submarines can locate U.S. ships, as evidenced by the surprise of U.S. officials when the carrier Kitty Hawk (CV 63) encountered a Song-class diesel submarine. Obviously, diesel boats cannot effectively track U.S. warships, but could probably be guided to such intercepts by reconnaissance aircraft or satellites.
Little is known about the operations of China's nuclear torpedo-attack submarines (SSN). However, according to reliable sources, neither the first Chinese ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) of the Xia design, launched 25 years ago, nor the new Jin-class SSBNs launched since 2004 have undertaken a patrol. Indeed, reportedly the Chinese still do not have an operational submarine-launched ballistic missile for those craft.
Rather, it is the non-nuclear submarines that should be of major concern to U.S. and allied naval planners who wish to operate in Far Eastern waters.
Cyber Sabotage is yet another new wrinkle in the emerging threats from cyber space. Whether delivered over the internet or purposefully installed during the manufacturing process, contaminated hardware or software is now a concern. Sabotage is defined as deliberate and malicious acts that result in the disruption of the normal processes and functions or the destruction or damage of equipment or information.
The Department of Defense operates and estimated 3.5 million PCs and 100,000 local-area networks at 1,500 sites in 65 countries. In one study a common piece of network equipment sold by a US company was found to have nearly 70 percent of the components produced by foreign suppliers. This equipment is critical to our security as well as our economy. If we cannot trust the computer equipment out of the box, then where are we? At this point it would be impractical to validate each and every computer before we place it into operations.
In the commercial sector cyber sabotage could be used to attack competition and steal market share. In 2007 there were an estimated 269 million PCs shipped worldwide. Just imagine the backlash if a saboteur was able to contaminate the master software file used to image all the computers produced by the huge computer manufacturer HP. The millions of computers they ship each month could pose a significant threat to the business customers, and consumers and could even pose a national security threat. If that is not bad enough, can you imagine the impact of HP’s stock if such an event were ever to happen. Now it should be noted that computer manufactures all have security controls in place to guard against such malicious acts. But then again, I am sure Seagate and Insignia would have said the same thing.
It's 2015. Both the long-lived Boeing C-17 and extremely long-lived Lockheed Martin C-130 production lines either have just shut down or are finally about to close.
Neither Boeing's engineers in Long Beach nor Lockheed's engineers in Marrietta have anything new in the pipeline. Sure, there's some paper drawings of stealthy tactical airlifters getting some buzz, but nothing within at least five to 10 years of coming to flying fruition.
So, both manufacturers decide to do what all US defense companies do in this situation: they go foreign!
Lockheed locks arms with the company they spurned more than 15 years before on a potential joint tanker bid. So the Lockheed/Airbus axis offers the USAF the in-production A400M, which of course will be assembled in Mobile or Marrietta (or both) and fitted with a new 10,000shp-class General Electric turboprop or the Pratt & Whitney PW800, which was actually the orignal A400M engine before "the Chirac affair".
Boeing, which will never partner with the likes of Airbus, has to be more clever. They decide to link up with the manufacturer they briefly considered for a Joint Cargo Aircraft bid: Ukraine's Antonov! The AN-70 is a rugged beast of an airframe, and Boeing's engineers believe they can smooth out its aerodynamic and mechanical quirks. Boeing parks the new AN-70 assembly line somewhere in the US southeast, with Charleston (South Carolina), Jacksonville or San Antonio on the shortlist.
