K2.

This is coolbert:

"If you are caught using it, even once,
you will be processed for separation from
the Navy. There is no second chance."

For those stodgy old persons such as myself and those of you devoted readers to the blog that are perhaps of near retirement age as I am, more on the subject of Spice.

A hot button topic within the military right now? Seems so.

From the Chicago Tribune only yesterday:

"'Spice' use concerns Navy: 16 sailors discharged"

"Marijuanalike drug rises in popularity"

And Spice is:

"also known as K2, is a mixture of herbs and spices that typically is sprayed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana"

[K2 of course is the mountain that used to be known as Godwin-Austen, the second tallest mountain in the world, second only to Mt. Everest. Get high as K2 dude! Get it?]

More from the Tribune article:

"WASHINGTON - - The Navy has discharged 16 sailors assigned to the USS Bataan for using or dealing the synthetic marijuana-mimicking drug 'spice.'"

Spice in most locales is totally legal, can be purchased over-the-counter, bought at what are called "head shops".

Legal to civilians - - NOT LEGAL WITHIN THE MILITARY!

And even beyond being warned not to use Spice, according to the Tribune article:

"In April [of 2010] the commander of the USS Bataan went a step further, requiring the crew to sign a letter advising them that designer and herbal products as spice were prohibited."

A LEGAL DOCUMENT - - violation of the provisions of which can be used to process for immediate discharge any malefactors!

Persons enlisting in the military must understand from the get-go that they are expected to comport themselves to a regimen of discipline and behave according to a uniform set of standards that is much more rigorous that would they would encounter in the civilian sector. With commensurate harsh punishments warranted as well. Just a fact!!

coolbert.

Kinetic.

This is coolbert:

"Rods of God"

"Crowbars"

Yet further on the warheads and payload of the Prompt Global Strike system. Improved conventional weaponry, having the same destructivness as a tactical nuclear bomb. Tungsten rods, descending in an almost vertical path from outer space at high velocity, what is called a kinetic energy weapon, the bombardment of which is referred to as kinetic bombardment.

A hyper-velocity re-entry vehicle carrying a warhead consisting of such tungsten rods, launched from a high-flying B-52 bomber, allowing the U.S. to have a non-nuclear but very potent capability agaainst any point on the planet within thirty minutes, BUT minus all the drawbacks to the atomic detonation! Tungsten rods having twelve times the energy level of a fifty caliber [.50] round upon impact!

And even beyond the hyper-velocity vehicles, constantly orbiting satellites also having a payload of "flying telephone pole" sized tungsten rods, also with extreme lethality, AND TOTALLY LEGAL UNDER THE CURRENT CONVENTIONS REGARDING SPACE WEAPONRY!

"the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons"

[weapons of mass destruction defined as nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological, NOT "crowbars"!]

From Popular Science:

"Space-launched darts that strike like meteors"

"This technology is very far out—in miles and years. A pair of satellites orbiting several hundred miles above the Earth would serve as a weapons system. One functions as the targeting and communications platform while the other carries numerous tungsten rods—up to 20 feet in length and a foot in diameter—that it can drop on targets with less than 15 minutes’ notice"

"The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting 'crowbar' rather than a pole . . . [a] 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods . . . with impact speeds of Mach 10, and strike 25-foot accuracy."

It would seem that such a system is comparable to the Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System [FOBS] from the 1960's, but WITHOUT THE NUCLEAR OPTION!

Kinetic bombardment, what it is called, NOT a brand new concept. Actually having been described as a "possible" by science-fiction writers from the 1930's and 1940's!

"A kinetic bombardment is the act of attacking a planetary surface with an inert projectile, where the destructive force comes from the kinetic energy of the projectile impacting at very high velocities."

The idea of kinetic bombardment is encountered in science fiction quite often, a popular "item" found within the genre'? The origins of the however, again, are disputed:

"from E. E. "Doc" Smith's 1930s and 1940s Lensman series"

"Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer"

The general notion of "kinetic bombardment" incorportated by a variety of sci-fi authors of some repute:

* "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" - - Robert A. Heinlein.
* "Footfall" - - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
* "Shadowrun" - - roleplaying game.
* "Traveller RPG" - - roleplaying game.
* "Babylon 5".
* "Starship Troopers" - - Robert Heinlein.
* "Mass Effect 2".
* "Endwar" - - Tom Clancy.

Science-fiction is NOW? Or will be shortly? ONLY for those nations that have the technological wherewithal and the gumption to use such a weapon will these "crowbars" be a deployable and use-able option. And NO radioactive fallout either!

coolbert.

George Cross.

This is coolbert:

Here with a young English bloke that has done himself proud. I guess it is safe to say that as long as there are Englishmen such as this, there will always be an England!

Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher. Royal Marine Commando serving with 40 Commando in Afghan, behaving in a most courageous manner, saving the lives of his compatriots, awarded the George Cross. The second highest award possible for a Brit who has comported himself with great valor!

"The 26-year-old was awarded the George Cross after he flung himself onto a Taliban hand grenade to save his comrades during an ambush in Helmand Province in 2008."

"He was serving with 40 Commando when his patrol came under fire but he miraculously survived because his backpack took the force of the blast."

"L/Cpl Croucher became the most highly-decorated serving Marine when he received the George Cross for 'outstanding bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy'."

"Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher GC . . . is a member of the Royal Marines Reserve and recipient of the George Cross, the highest British (and Commonwealth) medal for gallantry not in the face of the enemy, for his extreme valour in risking his life to safeguard the lives of his comrades."

"The George Cross is awarded for the same level of bravery expected of a VC but is awarded when no enemy is present"

NO enemy was present, Croucher setting off a booby trap, himself taking in a deliberate manner the force of the blast, saving his comrades in the process! BUT NOT IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY! The Taliban were not in the vicinity - - not nearby.

Otherwise, under normal circumstances the Victoria Cross [VC] would have been awarded, the highest British military decoration that can be given for heroism in combat!

The awarding of the George Cross disputed! It is suggested that the Victoria Cross is more appropriate! According to the English Telegraph:

"Why Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher deserves a Victoria Cross"

"An expert on the Victoria Cross, Michael Ashcroft believes we should show our gratitude to Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher for his actions in Afghanistan."

[Michael Ashcroft is more appropriately Lord Ashcroft - - and acknowledged expert on the VC - - and is "a deputy chairman of the Conservative party."]

Read further of the George Cross and in particular the exploits of two recipients from the era of World War Two [WW2], the Australian troopers Hardy and Jones.

"The George Cross (GC) is the highest civil decoration of the United Kingdom . . . the highest gallantry award for civilians as well as for military personnel in actions which are not in the face of the enemy"

Heroics NOT in the face of the enemy - - or in the case of the Cowra Prison Breakout, NOT an armed enemy.

coolbert.

Ratings.

This is coolbert:

"War, oil shortages, global warming, nuclear bombs,

and economic collapse... All of it seems unlikely,

but don't you want to be prepared?"

Perhaps NOT SO UNLIKELY!

Recall the admonitions made not so long ago now of the British Admiral Parry. The world order will begin to break down around the 2012. NOT a total collapse necessarily world-wide, but upheaval on a gigantic scale, occurring in many locales, far-flung. The reasons for such a collapse many, each and every particular break-down going to be unique.

A break down of the world order being precipitated by a natural calamity for instance, such as Cyclone Nargis, for instance.

That exact confluence of factors creating an unmanageable crisis that will spiral out of control and SPREAD! In the case of Nargis, Burma did not collapse, although I had thought there was a strong possibility of this happening.

And now with the business outlook on the total collapse scenario. A series of articles from the BusinessInsider web site, very prescient in a way we do not like to admit some times! The upheaval, the turmoil in first Tunisia and now Egypt being the catalyst for these news items.

Dissension, turmoil, upheaval! The organization of which is aided and abetted to a large degree by Internet connections, pervasive and put to good use by those involved:

"the social media factor, which has allowed protesters to circumvent traditional state run media sources and organize more efficiently"

1. "The 11 Countries At Risk of Becoming The Next Egypt"

"Egypt has been embroiled in political turmoil since protests, inspired by those that overthrew the regime in Tunisia, started last week."

"While Egypt, and its Suez Canal, have been worry one for investors world wide since last week, the next big question is whether this dissent could spread to other countries around the region, and world."

2. "The 25 Countries Whose Governments Could Get Crushed By Food Price Inflation"

[the food "crisis" and rankings based upon what is called Normura Index. Nomura's index is calculated using these three variables. The higher per capita GDP, the better the number, as consumers have more to spend. The lower percentage of income spent on food, the better. And the more food exported, the better, as it means there is excess for domestic consumption.]

"Food inflation is now a reality for much of the world. It contributed to the overthrow of the Tunisian government, has led to riots across the Middle East and North Africa, driven up costs in China and India, and may only be getting started."

Nations with teeming populations, extensive poverty, not able to feed their people with locally grown crops, having to import grain and other food stuffs at high prices, the inflated price due to DEMAND world-wide. Let us be clear about this too. There is not a shortage of food, it is that the demand has caused a rise in prices some can ill afford.

I notice that Bangladesh is the worst nation on the planet with regard to the rising cost of food. Enormous population unable to expand, crop land from time to time inundated by sea water from cyclones, NOT able to feed the populace from locally grown crops! Admiral Parry rated Bangladesh as the one nation on the planet most susceptible to breakdown of a cataclysmic nature!

AND if you decide to hide from the breakdown of the global world order, BusinessInsider does recommend a dozen places to flee to. Several of those "safe havens" I am personally skeptical about, international upheaval will be present almost everywhere, being an "ostrich" is probably not going to help you!

3. "12 Places To Go If The World Goes To Hell"

"War, oil shortages, global warming, nuclear bombs, and economic collapse... All of it seems unlikely, but don't you want to be prepared?"

"If you have to jump on a plane (or a boat or a train or a hot air balloon) and head for safety, you want to know where in the world you should go."

"We've selected places that we expect will remain fortresses of stability, safety, and prosperity no matter what the world throws at it."

Upheaval that will often result in WAR - - locally, regionally, globally! Incessant warfare that has not been seen on such an enormous scale since the end of World War Two?

Perhaps.

coolbert.

UCAV II.

This is coolbert:

UCAV II.

Conclusion.

From an anonymous source a response to the original comment by Roger - - the UCAV. The Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle blog entry from way back when.

The gist of the response is that:

1. Combat aviators of MANNED aircraft are NO better at differentiating between a SAM site and a CNN crew on the ground. UCAV are not able to tell this difference with any precision, BUT then neither the pilot of a manned combat aircraft.

2. Costs of the UCAV as with other combat aircraft [manned or unmanned it does not matter] are not associated primarily with crew compartments and any and all systems associated with same. Rather the expensive costs of modern combat aircraft are a result of other factors.

From the anonymous source:

"Roger has one good point and one not-so-good one."

"tactical air pilots are no more likely to be able to distinguish between a SAM site and a CNN site for a variety of reasons. First, they have little time to observe, process and make decisions. Second, human processing abilities are not what they are cracked up to be . . . A psychological/physiological study . . . discovered that this premise was mostly based on anecdotes and hubris, and that humans were decidedly awful at making decisions based on partial information."

"The second point on which he is correct, is that uninhabited aircraft have the potential for greater range and payload once all the subsystems in them that provide a crew environment are eliminated. However, it is not all that stuff that drives the cost of aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. The principle cost drivers are the structure, materials, power and avionic requirements that enable those aircraft to be hyper-lethal and highly survivable."

Comment:

* The modern combat aviator, if flying at low altitude [Nape of the earth], is traveling so fast, inputs from a variety of sources cannot be processed quick enough to make sound decisions! ESPECIALLY in a situation where the enemy is in a deliberate manner trying to deceive you! Decoys in particular pose a real problem, the ability to make split-second decisions - - drop the bomb or not drop the bomb - - becoming very difficult. Reaction time under the tremendous pressure as faced by the combat pilot are beyond what is reasonable and then some!

UCAV as the are now "not good to go" for the ground support mission, the dropping of bombs or the firing of missiles at targets. BUT to a certain extent neither are combat aircraft piloted by HUMANS!

coolbert.

UCAV I.

This is coolbert:

UCAV.

Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.

NOT merely a Unmanned Aerial Vehicle [UAV] designed strictly with surveillance in mind, and having weaponry such as the Hellfire missile added as an afterthought.

NO, that is not what we are speaking about. UCAV designed from the get-go, from the start as a COMBAT AIRCRAFT, UNMANNED, NO PILOT ABOARD!

UCAV performing the traditional role of air superiority and and ground support aerial warfare and combat.

As has been the subject of a blog entry from way back when, the Military Thoughts blog!

Please carefully read that entry and the pertinent comments by Roger. Roger seems to be a person in-the-know?

Comments most germane, the gist of which are:

* Autonomous operation during air superiority missions the UCAV is "good to go"!

* An autonomous UCAV in the ground attack mode the is "not good to go"!

* Various design advantages to having a "pilot less" UCAV.

* Still cheaper to build a brand-new UCAV than convert and F-16 or F-15 to a UCAV.

* Jamming and other aspects of electronic combat are worrisome if the enemy is sophisticated.

* Enemy capture and able to exploit UCAV avionics.

In a nutshell, the UCAV as it is NOW, is suitable for air-to-air combat, air superiority missions! Shoot the other guy down with missiles or guns, avoid being shot down at the same time. And do so autonomously, without human control! Perhaps YES, perhaps NO! I am just not sure.

UCAV, autonomous, as it is NOW, not suitable for ground support, bombing missions, close-air-support [CAS]! NOT having the "brains" to differentiate between friend and foe, target or non-target to the degree desired.

In an environment where there is a strong enemy electronic warfare [EW] presence, the possibility of jamming, spoofing, intrusion cannot be eliminated. A data link used to remotely control a UCAV is susceptible to EW, for all that will mean.

The worst case scenario the enemy might actually be able to take control of the UCAV and use it against you!

I would have to think too that captured avionics is not so much a threat as would be the embedded software? Software on board will have to be encrypted with some sort of one-time-pad? This can be done?

UCAV are not pie-in-the-sky? ARE NOW or shortly will be the future of aerial combat. Autonomous or remotely controlled seems to be the question of the day?

More than anything else, COST has to be a definite major factor with the UCAV! What is it, A F-22 Raptor is $100 million a copy, compared to less than $10 million or so for a high performance UCAV! Such figures catch the attention of the higher ups right away.

coolbert.

Venerable.

This is coolbert:

"we want to pause to share a fresh look at some of the Taliban’s weapons,

based on the battalion’s recent captures from slain Taliban fighters

or caches, as a means to understanding more fully how the Taliban fights."

Well, you can understand that this catches my attention right away. The Taliban, fighting against U.S./NATO forces in Afghan, using a melange of weaponry, to include the British SMLE rifle. Knock-off copies of the original - - but still very potent.

Captured weaponry, the assorted types as you would find among an insurgent force, on display for reporters, including those of the New York Times.

"Taliban Gun Lockers: The Rifles of Rural Ghazni Province"

"Within the assortment, two of these rifles were particularly eye-catching: a pair of apparent Short Magazine Lee Enfields, known among those who follow firearms evolution as S.M.L.E.’s, that were captured"

"We’ve seen aged Lee-Enfields in Afghan service in the past . . . and their use by a better breed of Taliban marksmen in Helmand Province . . . the officially obsolete arms of old empires still find their way to war, and can be put to effective local use by insurgent cells."

The bolt-action, ten-round rifle [SMLE] that served the British Empire so well for so long, a marked contrast to the modern assault rifle.

Almost exclusively, the Taliban and those Afghan guerrillas before them during the communist occupation, primarily used captured Soviet type weaponry, the AK, The PKM, the RPK and the RPD! Taliban under certain circumstances preferring the OLD BUT STILL VERY EFFECTIVE SMLE!

The SMLE first issued over one hundred years ago now but still going strong. As currently used by the Canadian Rangers of the far arctic north, the Maoist rebels in Nepal and perhaps at this very moment the forest guerrillas of India?

Some times the old ways are the best ways - - most assuredly so if the old weapons are used too!

coolbert.