An American Lion

Parenting,

People,

Scandal,

Transportation | in

Father,

Riot Control Vehicles,

Monday

01Mar2010

Will a Drone Start the Wars From Now On, or End Them?

Monday, March 1, 2010

Heron TP “Eitan”

How wise is it to use drones instead of manned aircraft?

If you’re a military that places the elimination of risk to human beings at the highest level and doesn’t care what things cost, it means you’re going to have a lot of drones. If you’re the United States, you establish the practice of killing by remote control, and celebrate body counts while losing a handful of drones here and there. If you’re Israel, you eliminate a significant problem—the propaganda victory of an opponent that can parade one of your downed pilots before the news cameras of the world.

In case you didn’t know, of course the Israelis have a drone that can reach Iran:

This week (February 23) the Israeli Air Force (IAF) held a ceremony spotlighting the “operational acceptance” of its biggest unmanned aerial vehicle, the 4.5-ton Heron TP, or “Eitan.” The far-flying UAV, with a wingspan almost as long as a 737 airliner, appeared on the runway with a comparatively diminutive F-15 alongside it. The IAF already rushed this UAV into action during the 2008–‘09 war in Gaza, so the ceremony really served as a reminder to Iran that its drone fleets can reach the nation. But how will Israel use them?

The Eitan can carry a ton of payload and can reach Iran’s nuclear facilities, which the United Nations last week determined is hiding an active weapons program. But that does not mean these will be used as bombers. The IAF has been buying and upgrading airplanes specifically for long-distance strikes such as a potential attack against Iran. At least 50 F-15 Raam and F-16 Soufa aircraft have been converted by installing extra fuel tanks for greater range and countermeasures to defeat radar and missiles. So maybe the warplane/UAV tag team presented at the “operational acceptance ceremony” speaks to how manned and unmanned aircraft will work together on missions: The drone provides information while the manned airplanes drop the guided munitions.

Working from high altitudes, the Eitan will likely be used to provide prestrike information on targets, to eavesdrop on electronic communications and to send battle damage assessments back after an attack. It will also undoubtably be used to monitor any retaliation for the airstrike—seeking rocket launches and eavesdropping on Iran. The onboard power required to electronically jam radar and communications equipment is not in the Eitan, Israeli defense industry officials told the trade journal Defense News. But the ability to carry so much weight opens up questions about the drones’ ability to conduct long-range, high-risk bombing missions on their own.

This is yet another weapon that “changes the face of warfare” without really dealing with the fact that there are a number of ways to counter drones and take advantage of their weaknessess. They don’t solve anything permanently. They give one side a temporary advantage in projecting power. They do not make up for the absence of a strategic vision, or a diplomatic capability.

And, no. It’s not by chance that you don’t see a version of this aircraft that carries weapons. You’re not ready to see it if it did exist.

Israel has a right to defend itself; does any nation have the right to use a weapon like this? Should there be any difference between using a manned or unmanned plane to attack another country? Or should we simply look at the false promise of incredible new weapons that don’t solve anything through their use?

Norman Rogers | tagged

War | in

Complete Mastery of All Things,

Finding Brilliance on My Own,

Thursday

04Feb2010

You Don't Know the Value of Air Superiority Until You Lose It

Thursday, February 4, 2010

PAK FA T-50

We take it for granted that we will always control the skies over the battlespace. This is more than likely true, at least for the foreseeable future.

Our military has to continue to improve the aircraft we use against the enemy. To do otherwise—to become complacent or lazy—is unacceptable. I know Russia is a standing joke—I know they are in a steep decline. Things like this still worry an old Cold Warrior like your uncle Norman:

Sukhoi PAK FA T-50, Russia’s first 5^th generation stealth fighter jet has been in development since the 1990s. It was conceived as a counterpart to the American F-22 Raptor, the first 5^th generation fighter aircraft and F-35 Lightning II. 5th generation fighters carry internal weapons, boast ultrasonic cruise speed, are nearly invisible to radars, have the ability to use shortened take off strips and are equipped with AI (artificial intelligence). The jet’s computer should be able to analyze the environment and give the pilot the information as prompts.

The T-50’s maiden flight was planned in 2008, but was later postponed to 2009. In December 2009 Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that the maiden flight would take place in January 2010. The 5^th generation engine for the new jet was tested by the flying laboratory SU 27M on January 21^stin Zhukovsky near Moscow. The press release on NPO Saturn, the engine manufacturer’s, website says that the flight lasted for 45 minutes and was successful. There was no criticism of the engine’s operation.

Only three jets have currently been built. The tests will take approximately 5 years. Russian Defense Ministry plans to buy the new jets from 2015. They should replace 4^th generation fighter jets SU-27 and MiG-29 in the Air Forces.

T-50 is said to have bigger engine resources, more effective arms and equipment for goal detection, higher maneuverability, longer ultrasonic flight and it will be almost invisible to radio and infrared waves.

Experts say that T-50 can compete with the F-22 and F-35 jets on the international market. Konstantin Makienko from Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) said in an interview with the Russian newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets that some countries, particularly those in South-East Asia, will prefer them to the F-22 for military-political reasons, i.e. because they are not produced by the USA. Mr Makienko said that the only countries that are currently capable of developing 5^th generation fighter jets are USA, Russia and China.

I stole the blueprints:

Screw you, Ivan - these blueprints are now my personal blog property

Here’s how you know these are real—they’re in Russian AND they use the metric system. Now we can exploit the weaknesses of their weapon and turn the Russian air force into shredded tin.

Don’t say I haven’t done all I can to defend America, sir.

Norman Rogers | tagged

Design,

War | in

My Brilliant Observation,

Gadgets and Doodads,

It's a Calamity,

Norman Rogers,

That's a Kick in the Nuts

Email Article

Permalink

Post a Comment

Monday

01Feb2010

That's Just Great

Monday, February 1, 2010

Here I am, about to get on a plane or two this month, and now this:

The Federal Air Marshal Service is considered the last line of defense in our nation’s aviation security. Its mission: to deploy armed, undercover agents on selected domestic and international flights to protect against a terrorist threat.

But a CBS News investigation has found the agency is fighting a battle not just up in the air but in its own backyard as well.

“How would you describe the management in the air marshal service?” CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian asked a current air marshal.

“Sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-disabled vet group, grossly incompetent,” said the marshal, whose identity was concealed. “That’s the general consensus among air marshals.”

Nearly two dozen current or former marshals have told CBS News the agency is dominated by an “old boys club” of white, male supervisors — mainly ex-secret service agents who, they allege, routinely discriminate, intimidate and retaliate against employees who question their actions or authority.

“This behavior has just spread like a cancer and it’s out of control,” the marshal said.

Thank you for keeping things classy, fellows. I’m sure that, if these allegations are true, it’s all because of Bush or Obama, and not really the fault of immature men and women who want to have cushy government jobs and do nothing except boast about their excellent abilities and lord their power over underlings.

No, that wouldn’t happen, now would it?

I’ll take the slow boat, if that’s okay with you.

Norman Rogers | tagged

Fraud,

Security | in

Drop to One Knee and Weep,

American Society,

Sunday

24Jan2010

We Should Probably Put an End to Drinking on Planes

Sunday, January 24, 2010

I’m all for getting a buzz on. Don’t get me wrong. But, in this day and age of strip searches, security line bummers, and people freaking out about flying, why do we still allow drinking on planes?

A jetliner flying from Washington D.C.to Las Vegas was diverted to Denver International Airport on Saturday after a passenger tried to open a door on the plane while it was in flight.

Federal sources told NBC News that the man allegedly was intoxicated and was subdued by other passengers.

DIA spokesman Jeff Green said that United Flight 223 was diverted to Denver at 4:45 p.m. Saturday, and police who met the plane at the gate took the passenger into custody.

Green said the police were interviewing the passenger Saturday night but did not know if the man would be charged.

Yeah, they’ll probably just give him a Mulligan and the whole thing will be forgotten.

Meanwhile, the idea that drinking on a plane is still accepted practice—is that even viable anymore? Has anyone else posited that there are just some old traditions and practices that have to fall by the wayside if we’re to be a safer, more alert, and more security conscious people?

I have long adopted the belief that, if a terrorist wants to kill you, they’re going to kill you. But you have it as your responsibility to try and stop him if possible. You are the best guarantee of survival you have. You are obligated to help stop these insane people. That goes for everyone else who screws up on a plane, and writes things to the pilot or defecates on the service cart or goes after some poor Jewish kid with prayer boxes hanging on him. You have to help straighten them out.

The government has a responsibility to serve as a common sense gatekeeper. Don’t let the dude with Semtex and a Glock on the plane, please. Don’t let the nervous man with the boombox that no longer works with the red and blue wires hanging out of it and running to the seat of his pants get on the plane. Don’t let gramma and her special pair of stainless steel knitting needles on the plane.

Are we now at a point where we have to end drinking on planes because we have too many stressed and freaked out people who can’t conform to basic travel responsibilities? It is NOT like the old days. This is a new time and era. This is a time when, and I’m surprised it didn’t happen, an air marshal probably could have or should have outright killed the man in question.

Norman Rogers | tagged

Beer,

Transportation | in

Pathetic Jackasses and Losers,

American Society,

Here's My Take,

I Do Love Beer,

Personal Problems,

Sell Crazy Somewhere Else,

It can work if you’re talking about a very limited operation:

Tuesday

19Jan2010

Fighting an Insurgency Without Drones in the Philippines?

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

U.S. Troops in the Philippines

If you look at what the U.S. military is doing in the Philippines, you get the sense that someone has been able to figure out that you can apply successful Counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics to certain types of operations. It doesn’t work if you need large numbers, I would say. It doesn’t work if you have the Indiana National Guard kicking down huts and shooting dogs for sport. It doesn’t work if you’re firebombing suburban shanty towns. And, perhaps, it doesn’t work if you’re killing by remote control from the air.

It began not long after 9/11, another front in an unfolding global war on terror. A deployment of US Special Forces arrived here to train, equip, and share intelligence with Philippines troops battling Islamic militants in a lawless crossroads of Southeast Asia.

Eight years on, US and Philippine commanders can point to successes: 15 of 24 high-value targets have been captured or killed. Militants are holed up in shrinking enclaves on a chain of far-flung islands. Terror attacks on major cities, once prevalent, have fallen off dramatically.

But the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P), as the US mission of about 560 troops is called, also offers a lesson in how long it takes to uproot militant groups and the fragility of any gains in Mindanao, a violence-torn region that has seen many false dawns.

This fragility may keep US forces here for longer, trying to shepherd aid projects, plug holes in the underfunded Philippine military, and close down sanctuaries for terrorist groups with global aspirations, however atrophied by recent setbacks.

“Even though they’ve been reduced, until you can neutralize them and prevent these safe havens, the concern is that they will regenerate later on,” says Col. William Coultrup, the JSOTF-P commander, and a veteran of Special Forces operations in global hotspots.

The United States could keep 500 or 600 men deployed to the Philippines on a regular basis indefinitely. That’s a small footprint, and, according to this article from 2007, that’s by design:

When US troops arrived in the southern islands in December 2001, a decade after closing its bases in the Philippines, critics assailed the move. They predicted a return of permanent US camps in its former colony, and a repeat of the sleazy bars and clubs still surrounding its former bases near Manila.

More alarming to US ears were dire warnings of resistance from Muslims whose island communities were to be rid of militants by US-assisted Philippine troops. Observers warned that the foreign presence could inflame the situation, as well as revive memories of a bloody US military campaign in the early 1900s to subdue Muslim-inhabited Mindanao.

Today [March, 2007], these warnings mostly ring false. About 450 US soldiers are still here, based inside Philippine military command centers in Zamboanga and the nearby island of Jolo. But the expected nightlife boom hasn’t happened. Nor have militants taken the fight to the foreigners deployed here, though a US serviceman died in a bomb attack on a restaurant in 2002.

US officers say their small footprint in Mindanao, as well as a focus on joint development projects and counterinsurgency training of the Philippine Army, have smoothed their path. But further challenges lie ahead as US troop, and their Philippine counterparts who are notorious for human rights abuses, continue pursuing Muslim insurgent cells on the islands.

How did this come about?

One measure of the US approach can be found on Basilan, where US troops first deployed in 2002. At the time, the extremist group Abu Sayyaf had turned the island, a 30-minute ferry ride from Zamboanga, into a no-go zone with a string of abductions, bombings, and beheadings.

Commander Steve Kelley, a naval engineering reservist, says it was a tough mission. “It wasn’t a warm welcome,” he recalls. But humanitarian projects, including the construction of an 80- kilometer (50-mile) coastal road and a series of mobile clinics, won residents over. “It was a huge turnaround,” he says. Local officials say the improved security has restored normalcy.

Normalcy—and a small footprint. Those are important aspects of any attempt to engage in COIN and to provide relief for a people under siege.

Let me add one thing that I know will meet with criticism. In my opinion, success in the Philippines also comes with an operational decision to forgo the use of armed drones. I have found this:

Two civil-registered unarmed MQ-1s are operated by the Office of the National Security Advisor in the Philippines since 2006.

I realize that there could very well be armed Predator drones in use in the Philippines, and that I could be wrong on this. You certainly don’t hear about them, to the extent you do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan. There’s a definite effort out there to brag about the kills these aircraft make. If we were actively making kills in the Philippines, why wouldn’t we have heard about it? I think there is a definite connection between the lack of drone kills and the improved relations between the people and the United States military.

It doesn’t take much for people to become enraged at us—and one or two errant Hellfire missiles could make a huge difference for a local population. Might we have a case here where using drones would work against us, rather than for us, in terms of containing and rolling back an Islamic Fundamentalist insurgency? Are the insurgents there different from those in Afghanistan? Of course. No one would confuse an insurgent from the Philippines with a pushover, however. They have their own history, and it isn’t half bad. I am not entirely anti-drone. I’m saying that, with their heavy-handed use comes pushback. Pushback will always be there. What kind of pushback do you want?

We are having some success with a better strategic view in the Philippines; we’re not hung up on fly-by kills, body counts and strongarm tactics, apparently. Even the cows seem to like us over there.

Norman Rogers | tagged