An A-10 Thunderbolt II makes its way to the runway during Red Flag-Alaska, Oct. 9, 2009, at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Red Flag-Alaska provides participants 67,000 square miles of airspace, more than 30 threat simulators, one conventional bombing range and two tactical bombing ranges. The A-10 is assigned to Osan Air Base, South Korea. STAFF SGT. CHRISTOPHER BOITZ/U.S. AIR FORCE
THE AIR FORCE wants to kill off the A-10 Thunderbolt II. You can see why: The plane was designed to fight Russians in the Cold War. It’s old. It’s slow. It’s expensive to maintain. It’s about as sophisticated as a hammer, and it’s the weapon we’ve sent to battle ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Pentagon top brass think it’s time for younger, swankier aircraft to take its place providing close air support (attacking enemy ground forces who are close to and engaged with friendly ground forces). Sexier swept-wing fighters like the F-35 and the F-16 and F15-E.
Airman Jill Hallandsworth performs a preflight engine check on an A-10 Thunderbolt II during an overall aircraft inspection Sept. 25, 2009, at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. Airman Hallandsworth is a 442nd Fighter Wing Crew Chief. (Click Image To Enlarge)
Not everyone’s onboard, however. See, the A-10, aka the Warthog (so called because it’s really ugly), is heavily armored and the plane is literally built around a gigantic 30mm cannon. It can fly low and slow, making it perfect for picking apart ground infantry and armor. It’s incredibly accurate, so it can engage hostile targets even when they’re in very close proximity to friendly soldiers.
It is ruthlessly effective, and the grunts on the ground absolutely love it because it keeps them safe. If you need to hit a nail, a hammer is exactly what you want.
That’s why a bunch of senators, including former Navy pilot John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire (whose husband flew the A-10 in Iraq), both powerful members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are determined to keep the A-10 flying. And now they’ve got extra ammo.
An A-10 Thunderbolt II receives fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker July 10, 2014, over Eastern Afghanistan. The A-10 is assigned to the 303rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan and the KC-135 is assigned to the 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. Its manuverability at slow speeds and low altitude has made the Thunderbolt II one of the most utilized aircraft for close air support throughout Operation Enduring Freedom. (Click Image To Enlarge)
More worrying (and unsurprising, to anyone who’s been paying attention), the GAO report says dropping the A-10 would “create potential gaps” in close air support. Even though every A-10 flying is more than thirty years old, it remains “the only or the best Air Force platform to conduct certain missions” like escorting helicopters (the Warthog can fly really slowly, making it effective at protecting the pokey choppers) or engaging small boats that could threaten US ships (See: USS Cole).
Close air support is a vital job that, when properly executed, can mean the difference between life and death for soldiers. It’s highly dangerous, because it requires flying at altitudes low enough to discern friend from foe, leaving the plane particularly vulnerable to ground-based anti-aircraft fire.
But the Warthog was specifically designed for close air support: the cockpit sits in a 1,200 pound titanium tub, specifically designed to withstand fire from anti-aircraft shells at close range. Every system is double or triple redundant, and it can take a ridiculous amount of abuse. It can continue flying if it’s lost an entire engine, part of its tail, or even half a wing.
Two A-10C Thunderbolt IIs, flown by Lt. Col. Michael Millen, 354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron commander, and Col. John Cherrey, 451st Expeditionary Operations Group commander, taxi down the runway after completing 10,000 hours of flying at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, Jan. 1, 2010. The flying was accomplished during a six-month deployment. (Click Image To Enlarge)
And, because the A-10’s role is so important, it’s designed for easy repairs to keep it in the air. Entire engines can be quickly and easily replaced. Most repairs can even be made in the field. Many parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides of the plane, and the A-10 can take off from rough and unpaved runways. Because it has huge wings, a high wing aspect ratio and huge ailerons (almost 50 percent of its wingspan), it’s incredibly maneuverable.
The Warthog is basically a flying gatling gun, and it’s terrifying if you’re on the angry end.
Simply put, the A-10 is a SkyTank, beloved by pilots and troops alike. We wrote about the A-10 last year and the article attracted more than 1,700 comments, many from service members sharing stories about the A-10 and more than a few claiming they would have been killed if not for the aircraft and its pilots.
Ayotte says.
“The GAO findings reinforce what soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers have said from the beginning: the premature divestment of the A-10 will create a close air support capability gap, increase the risk to our ground troops, and result in unnecessary American casualties. If the Air Force decides to ignore the clear and consistent will of the overwhelming majority of soldiers, special operators, and JTACs, I will continue to stand with them in opposition to the Air Force’s plans to prematurely divest the A-10.”
An A-10 Thunderbolt II deploys flairs over Afghanistan Nov. 12, 2008. A-10s provide close-air support to ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The A-10's excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude and its highly accurate weapons delivery make it an ideal aircraft for supporting coalition operations. (Click Image To Enlarge)
Senator McCain concurs:
“This report underscores the concerns I have been raising for years about the Air Force’s misguided attempts to prematurely retire this vital aircraft … As the GAO confirms, any premature divestment of the A-10 would not only fail to achieve the Air Force’s purported cost savings, but also leave us with a serious capability gap that could put the lives of American soldiers in danger.”
What makes the plane’s continued relevance so impressive is the fact it was designed more than 40 years ago, and a new one hasn’t been built since 1984.
That durability and effectiveness is especially striking given the rolling debacle that is the F-35 program. The development project has stumbled time and again, and according to one report this week, the trillion dollar superplane gets its ass kicked in dogfights with much older aircraft. Is it any surprise the Senators want to keep the A-10 around at least a while longer?
An A-10C Thunderbolt II from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., flies along the coast of Florida March 25, 2010, during the first flight of an aircraft powered solely by a biomass-derived jet fuel blend. The A-10 was fueled with a 50/50 blend of Hydrotreated Renewable Jet and JP8. (Click Image To Enlarge)
COMMENTARY: A-10 in action using it's cannon (30mm GAU-8 Avenger), missile ( AGM-65 Maverick) and GBU bomb during CSAR Training.
I am in total agreement that the A-10 should not be retired. It fills a huge gap, the support of ground troops, a tank-killer, support of search and rescue teams. It can exact pure fear on the enmy and deliver a broad range of ordnance on enemy tanks, artillery and buildings. It is a workhorse pure and simple, and has lots of service left in its lifespan.
Courtesy of an article dated July 2, 2015 appearing in WIRED
In the early 1960s, faced with the imagined scenario of total nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a dozen intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos were constructed in the Adirondacks in upstate New York near the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base. The crisis lasted less than two weeks, and because the silos didn’t work very well anyway and had a lifespan of around three years, most were decommissioned by 1964.
The military didn’t know what to do with the silos, which were vast, cavernous underground structures that went 185 feet down and housed Air Force squadrons. They donated the silos to different counties, who didn’t know what to do with them either. So they remained abandoned for more than 50 years.
Eventually, people like Australian architect Alexander Michael came along. He snatched one up near the Plattsburgh base in 1996 for $160,000 and has spent the years ever since plunking down more than $300,000 and restoring his silo to its original glory, while making it a part-time home along the way. He’s got a full kitchen, sleeping quarters and even the original launch control console to tinker with.
Michael says he’s not a Cold War enthusiast or military fanatic. Rather, as a designer, he’s interested in such a utilitarian structure designed specifically for function. He says.
“I find things like these silos and military bunkers extraordinary in their focus on purpose. They’re designed with nothing but functionality in mind, and that creates the most interesting architecture. Aside from the cool factor, of course. How many people do you know that can say they own a nuclear missile silo?”
He’s spent more than 15 years restoring the silo, financed by his work as an architect and the sale of a one-bedroom apartment in Sydney. “I didn’t like that apartment, so I thought I’d buy a nuclear missile silo instead,” he says. “I can’t tell you how much joy it’s given me.”
The front door, seen here, is known as the entrance portal. It leads to a stairway that immediately descends underground about 30 feet to the control center. The entrance portal was built with reinforced concrete designed to be expendable, Michael says.
If the silo were ever destroyed in a nuke blast, the entrance would deliberately collapse, and the only exit would be through an emergency escape hatch, a concrete tube filled with sand that leads from the control center to the surface. You’d open the hatch, release all the sand, put a big ladder up there and hightail it out. Michael says.
“Though I’m not sure why anyone would want to get out if there’s been a nuke blast.”
Michael splits his time between Australia and the silo, where he spends most of spring and fall. Two ventilation pipes — one for intake and one for exhaust — connect to the surface. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, these vents were shut down. An enormous exchange system original to the silo is still used to circulate air.
“As soon as I arrive after being away for a while, I turn on the vent system. Because everything is underground and tightly sealed, you don’t get dust or anything. Everything looks like the day you walked out, completely and utterly exactly the same. The air will be a bit musty, but after an hour and a half of running the system, it’s clean and sweet.”
He says the space is so vast, 52 feet in diameter in some parts, people rarely feel claustrophobic. He says.
“I’m not permanently there anyway, so it’s not an issue. I live in Sydney with one of the greatest views in the world of the opera house and harbor, so I get my fill of views."
Plus, he’s got a bank of monitors on the wall that show what’s happening on the surface. He says.
“This is quite important, especially when you lose sense of time quite easily because you don’t have the usual markers like natural light, the sun or moon. I’ve got 20 clocks down there, too.”
At the bottom of the stairs, you must walk through a “convoluted passage.” Michael says.
“This was to stop unlawful entrances but also to stop pressure from a nuke blast by bouncing the waves off concrete walls and through a series of blast doors.”
As for the appearance, you won’t see any bright colors or graphic wallpaper. He says.
“I wanted to keep it like a nuclear bunker. I wanted it to look exactly like it did when airmen entered it.”
The damage in the silo was extensive when Michael bought it. Water and humidity had caused rust and deterioration, making the restoration painstaking and slow. Michael had to sandblast the blast doors, like the one shown here, take them apart and reassemble them, then repaint and add a rustproof sealant. He says.
“There were four of them, and it was a big exercise.”
Since most of the original military designers, builders and contractors have died, Michael relied on his own expertise and that of friends to help him figure out how things worked and fit back together, making the process arduous.
One thing Michael didn’t keep was the paint color. He says.
"The original color was really, really awful, a very pale yellow-green, pretty much the standard color that the Air Force used in these military installations. It wasn’t a color I could live with. So what else could it be but battleship gray?”
AFTER: The middle of the control center was originally designed as a sphere, because that was the most structurally efficient shape. But it was too difficult, expensive and time consuming to build, so the designers changed it to a cylinder with a flat roof. Because it’s not as structurally viable, a massive central support column (seen here) ensures that the structure and earth above don’t collapse.
The handrail around the cylinder shows how the control center isn’t actually attached to the walls or column, but rather suspended from four hydraulic arms to cushion the entire living level from shockwaves.
Years ago Michael got to test the system during an earthquake. A friend called him up to ask if he’d felt the strong earthquake the night before. Michael says.
“Not a thing. I was disappointed, because I’d never experienced one.”
The open door leads to the bathroom. You can see how the roof of the bathroom sits considerably below the actual concrete ceiling. This shows, again, how the living quarters are suspended, and how things like water pipes and electrical lines are loose fitting to be flexible if the living levels were to shift during a blast.
The bathroom is the only space in the complex that is 100 percent original — the sink basins, toilet pans, shower closet, lighting … everything. He says.
“Mind you, it was disgustingly vile and took a lot of back work and disinfectant to make it come back really fabulous. Of course, not that many people are impressed with it, though.”
Even the plumbing system, being underground, was virtually intact. Everything, including the 90,000-gallon water reservoir that feeds into the silo, is original. Michael flushed the line,
“A lot of nasty s**t came out and got it operational. I didn’t have to pay for new plumbing, though, and all the faucets are original. It just amazes me.”
A large septic tank is housed in the silo. All sewage gets pumped up to a commercial-scale leaching field. He says.
“I just changed the pumps, and the whole system worked and came alive.”
As for power, the silo was originally on the town’s grid, because the military didn’t want to continuously run operations from its two huge generators when not on full alert. This made getting the electricity back on fairly simple.
Here you can see one of the monitors showing closed-circuit video of the world aboveground.
While Michael strived to keep the space as original as possible, he did have to add some conveniences to make it more comfortable and good-looking. In the living room, for example, the original curved concrete walls of the control center created resonant sound and radiated cold air. To fix this he draped the walls completely in quilted gray fabric. He says.
“It stops the convection of air hitting the walls and cooling down. It helps kill the sound as well.”
The floor is still original “olive and drab” vinyl tile, Michael says, but the tiles were so damaged that he covered them with commercial charcoal-gray sisal carpet.
Not much furniture was left behind. Michael says.
“I did find a desk that had been thrown down the silo, but it wasn’t good enough to restore.”
Michael says. So he designed and built pieces himself, like this computer desk constructed from pieces of industrial equipment.
The convex mirror on the tripod is one of several in the silo. Though Michael has backup power now, several times he had to position the mirrors during power outages to reflect sunlight from the surface, through the hallways and into the control room.
This is where the airmen originally ate. Michael chose all period furniture for the space. The chairs are circa 1960 and fiberglass. Multiple clocks help him stay in sync with reality above.
Michael turned the lower level of the control room into sleeping quarters. He designed the big platform beds with industrial wheels and grab rails. He says.
There’s also a small sitting area for reading or watching TV. Again, Michael selected furniture that was designed during the 1960s. He found this Eames chair in a junk shop for $150.
About seven years ago, Michael heard a rumor that the original silo door actuators — big hydraulic cylinders that opened the 90-ton doors — were in a junkyard not far away. He and a friend spent two days digging through the yard and finally found them. He traded in an old six-wheel-drive military vehicle and some cash for them.
He installed one of the cylinders and got it functional, allowing him to open one of the silo doors, seen here. Once both are operational, he’ll be able to create a 40-foot by 20-foot opening in the ground to flood the silo with light.
Even though Michael recently finished the control-center living space, the restoration is an ongoing process. He’s now working on the actual missile silo itself, which is a 185-foot deep space that’s 52 feet in diameter, seen here during an indie film shoot (the missile is a prop). You can see
He wants to turn the missile silo itself into a performance space. He recently let the indie film director’s girlfriend, a concert violinist, play there, and he became hooked on the idea. He says.
“It was the most exquisite thing you’ve ever heard.”
This is a rendering of Michael’s vision for the missile silo doors. The idea would be to let the silo doors open to allow natural light in but keep weather out.
Michael stands in the utility tunnel, which is the only pedestrian access into the silo where the original missile was kept. This is where all the cables and coolant lines run.
For now he hopes to get everything ready for June 2014, when the new Cold War Museum opens in Plattsburgh. Servicemen from the original silo squadron will return to tour the space for the first time since it was decommissioned. He says.
“I’m interested in sharing my home as a design exercise and not just a crazy Australian living in a hole.”
COMMENTARY: Now that's what I call a radical approach to housing. I have heard that many of these silos are being used by so-called "survivalists," who believe the end of the world is eminent or there will be a war between the rich and poor or that #POTUS @BarackObama will get us into a civil war between the Republicans vs the Democrats. I view these punks as crazed outcasts who are in fear of their own shadow. I have to admit that Michael has definitely taken an abandonded missile silo to a new level, but I don't think I living 152 feet below ground without any sunlight or signs of humanity would drive me crazy very fast. Another concern: There's a lot of lead in that military grade gray paint used in those silos (same shit used on U.S. Navy ships), so I hope Michael was able to get rid of all of it. What do you think of Michael's missile silo home?
Courtesy of an article dated April 28, 2014 appearing in Houzz
Constructed by General Dynamics with weapons systems and software from other companies, the Zumwalt "DDG-1000" Guided Missile Destroyer is like the iPhone 6 of naval ships.
Its "tumblehome" hull avoids enemy radar while composite armor absorbs it, advanced weaponry strikes from more than 100 miles offshore, Linux-based networking in the bridge allows for purchase and implementation of off-the-shelf software, and an all-electric drive system keeps her purring quietly like a well-fed tiger.
Lucky for America's rivals, at about 87 percent completion, the Zumwalt is not quite ready to start making the rest of the globe flinch yet.
The USS Zumwalt hit the water Oct. 29 and is due to start patrolling by 2014.
Click Image To Enlarge
The Zumwalt was originally estimated to cost about $3.8 billion, but so much technology was crammed onboard that its cost has nearly doubled, and after the first three are built, production will stop.
Click Image To Enlarge
With all the new weapons systems the Navy wants aboard the Zumwalt, planners installed a power plant that could provide power to 78,000 homes (around 78 megawatts).
Click Image To Enlarge
Such power could enable the first uses of the Navy's magnetic rail gun project, which combines magnetic currents and electric fields to fire projectiles at 7 times the speed of sound.
Click Image To Enlarge
Computers and automation have reduced the crew to a bare bones 158. (By comparison, the USS Barry Arleigh-Burke Class requires 210 sailors.)
Click Image To Enlarge
Sean Gallagher of Arstechnica referred to the Linux-powered bridge as a "floating data center" and wrote that it was akin to the bridge on Star Trek's Starship Enterprise.
Click Image To Enlarge
On the outside, the USS Zumwalt not only looks cool (rule #1), but it's a full 100 feet longer than existing classes of destroyer.
Click Image To Enlarge
According to the Navy's press release, "The shape of the superstructure and the arrangement of its antennas significantly reduce the ship's radar cross section, making the ship less visible to enemy radar at sea."
Click Image To Enlarge
The hull of the ship is made of a composite material which effectively absorbs radar waves.
Click Image To Enlarge
Construction of the ship required General Dynamics to build a special $40 million "Ultra Hall" to hold the pieces.
Click Image To Enlarge
The Zumwalt's weaponry is tailored for land attack and close-to-coast dominance and will also have a sensor and weapons suite optimized for littoral warfare and for network-centric warfare.
Click Image To Enlarge
BAE Systems Land and Armaments developed the ship's advanced gun system (AGS), which will be able to fire advanced munitions and the Zumwalt Class vessels have two landing spots for helicopters.
Click Image To Enlarge
Zumwalt has a peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS), which consists of 20 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck.
Click Image To Enlarge
The ship also has space for two medium-lift helicopter systems.
Click Image To Enlarge
And finally, the new Long Range Attack Projectile (LRAP) — The DDG 1000 will be armed with tactical tomahawks, standard missile SM-3s, and the evolved SeaSparrow missile.
Click Image To Enlarge
With the "tumblehome" hull reducing drag and radar detection, along with such advanced weapons, it's like the Zumwalt is the Navy SEAL of ships — always operating under cover of night, a ninja of the sea.
Click Image To Enlarge
Courtesy of an article dated October 29, 2013 appearing in Business Insider
Sgt. 1st Class Matthew Oliver suits up in a futuristic combat uniform with a Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit-like look at the 2012 Chicago Auto Show. (Click Image To Enlarge)
The technology in Iron Man is getting a step closer to reality thanks to the United States military. The Army has commissioned a Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS), which would provide the wearer with superhuman abilities like night vision, enhanced strength, and protection from gunfire.
Each suit would have an on-board computer that would be able to instantly respond to certain situations and provide the user with enhanced situational awareness. According to the press release, the suit may use liquid armor, currently under development at MIT, which has the ability to transform from a "liquid to solid in milliseconds when a magnetic field or electrical current is applied." The goal is full-body ballistic protection, theoretically allowing the wearer to literally walk through a stream of bullets. A panel that rests against the skin would be able to detect and respond to the body's core temperature, skin temperature, heart rate, and hydration levels. The suit would also provide basic life support such as heat, air, and oxygen.
The Army isn't the first to be inspired by the technology in Iron Man. Elon Musk created a lab based on the movie using a Leap Motion controller, an Oculus Rift, and a projector. While he admits that the setup doesn't yet have much practical value, he believes that we're on the cusp on major design and manufacturing breakthroughs.
If the new Army commando suit comes to fruition, it could be a big step forward for defense technology.he first prototypes for the US Military's Iron Man armor will be ready for testing by this summer, said the head of US Special Operations Command today. At a special conference in Washington DC today, Defense Tech reports, Navy Adm. William McRaven stated that three unpowered prototypes of the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit, or TALOS, are currently being assembled, with an expected delivery by June. The suit will undergo an evaluation period and hopefully be field-ready by August 2018.
During the conference, McRaven emphasized the suit's potential to save lives. He said.
"That suit, if done correctly, will yield a revolutionary improvement in survivability and capability for special operators."
The TALOS was commissioned last October, and may one day be armed with its own on-board computer, health monitors, and MIT-developed liquid armor that can harden in a matter of milliseconds. The hope is to allow the wearer to walk through a stream of bullets — not unlike the Marvel superhero.
Presently, 56 corporations, 16 government agencies, 13 universities, and 10 national laboratories are working together to develop the armor.McRaven wants to up involvement to include mechanics and craftsmen on the project, and may seek the authority to approach the Pentagon to distribute prize money for interested experts.
COMMENTARY: If US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)is looking for inspiration for its Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS), it needs to stop talking Iron Man and start looking at this guy’s work.
Artist Alex Jessup has come up with some pretty interesting concepts.
Click Images To Enlarge
Courtesy of an article dated February 19, 2014 appearing in Alien UFO Sightings and an article dated November 1, 2013 appearing in Soldier Systems
The OFF Pocket claims to block all signals so that a cell phone can't be tracked. (Click Image To Enlarge)
ARTISTS BEHIND A LINE OF ANTI-DRONE STEALTH WEAR ARE OPENING FOR BUSINESS.
Artist Adam Harvey has been working with the idea of anti-surveillance for years, creating, for instance, a handbag that thwarts paparazzi with a flash of its own, a series of portraits that fool face-recognition technologies with blocks of makeup and obtrusive hairstyles, and a line of “stealth wear” designed to camouflage its wearers from drones.
A handbag that thwarts paparazzi with a flash of its own. When triggered by a flashing camera, the anti-paparazzi clutch sets off a photo-ruining flash of its own. (Click Image To Enlarge)
The anti-drone scarf will be sold with other projects in Harvey's online store. (Click Image To Enlarge)
In a project called 'CV Dazzle,' Harvey used makeup and hairstyles to confuse face-recognition technology. (Click Image To Enlarge)
But only recently did his projects begin to seem as marketable as they are provocative.
His latest invention, a collaboration with performance wear designer Johanna Bloomfield called “OFF pocket,” is an envelope for cell phones that supposedly blocks all cellular, Wi-Fi, and GPS signals. More than 650 Kickstarter backers have contributed $56,447 to see it be manufactured en mass.
The project may not have generated as much interest before the NSA’s mass electronic surveillance program was revealed to the public earlier this year. Harvey says.
“In the first few years after 9-11, talking about privacy was nearly taboo. Its relevancy was buried in jingoism. Now, privacy is the topic du jour at cafés. Having double identities brings you cache. And a modest amount of paranoia is considered healthy.”
In the wake of OFF Pocket’s success, Harvey is planning to launch an online store called PRCVM (short for “privacy mode”) on December 1. The store will sell the OFF Pocket and other items created for a collaboration with the New Museum store called “the Privacy gift shop.” Some other products from that collection include an “I Love New York” T-shirt that can’t be read by machines ($40), a copper wallet insert that blocks credit cards from RFID scanners ($25), and an anti-Drone scarf ($450).
Harvey says of the camouflage scarf, "I see it more as a tuxedo--which I don’t wear either, very often--but it’s a piece that could be worn if you ever needed to wear it. And it’s available." (Click Image To Enlarge)
The anti-drone scarf demonstrates its camouflaging properties that make the wearer virtually invisible to drones (Click Image To Enlarge)
Many of these projects started without commercial intentions. Before developing the OFF Pocket, for instance, Harvey modified a pair of his own pants with a signalproof pocket and wore them around. The interest those privacy pants generated led him to look at the idea from a product design perspective. Other products, like the anti-drone scarf, remain more art than product. That project's website explains.
"Conceptually, these garments align themselves with the rationale behind the traditional hijab and burqa: to act as 'the veil which separates man or the world from God,' replacing God with drone."
The point of selling the scarf, Harvey says, is partly to raise awareness about privacy issues so that other designers, artists and thinkers can approach them another way.
Harvey's line of anti-drone war masks the wearer's thermal imprint by reflecting heat. (Click Image To Enlarge)
"Conceptually, these garments align themselves with the rationale behind the traditional hijab and burqa: to act as the 'veil which separates man or the world from God,' replacing God with drone," that projects website says. (Click Image To Enlarge)
The anti-drone burqa demonstrates its camouflaging properties which make the wearer virtually invisible to drones. (Click Image To Enlarge)
One already has--but with a very different philosophy. Called HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp, the company makes a fabric it claims can make soldiers completely invisible. It is careful to not sell its full-fledged stealth wear to civilians. Its designer told The Guardian,
"The only people who really don't need to be seen are the ones who are doing something wrong out there."
Harvey, on the other hand, sees his product as a way to explore offsetting military technologies like drones as they inevitably enter everyday life. He says.
“I see it more as a tuxedo--which I don’t wear either, very often--but it’s a piece that could be worn if you ever needed to wear it. And it’s available.”
COMMENTARY: I totally agree with Adam Harvey that these camouflaging products must not be sold to criminals, jihadists and terrorists. If you ask me, this is a no-brainer. These stealth and camouflaging technologies definitely have uses within the U.S. military fighting forces, especially special forces like the U.S. Army Rangers and U.S. Navy Seals, and regular Americans concerned over secret surveillances by our government.
With celebrities and public figures seeking privacy from the paparazzi PCRVM camouflaging apparel and accessories are going to be very popular. And with more Americans concerned that the NSA is conducting secret surveillance of U.S. citizens by tracking their cell phones without regard to their civil rights, under the so-called "authority" of the Patriot Act, the OFF Pocket definitely could fill a real need in the marketplace.
It is absolutely incredible that private citizens now find it necessary to fight back against the unobstructed and illegal surveillance activities of their own government. What kind of country do we live in? Why is President Obama defending the activities of the NSA? We are most definitely not "the land of the free" and a country with "liberty and justice for all."
Courtesy of an article dated September 4, 2013 appearing in Fast Company
One of the two proposed replacements for the U.S. military’s iconic Bradley Fighting Vehicle is a gas-electric hybrid that can go into fully electric mode so it can surprise enemies silently at night.
The old M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle has served in the Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (Click Image To Enlarge)
In just a few years, the United States Army is expected to retire their iconic Bradley troop carrier. The Bradley’s replacement, the proposed GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle, is a massive, highly modifiable ground combat vehicle that grew out of years of military and defense contractor studies. There’s also a very good chance it could be a gas-electric hybrid.
The Pentagon has a keen interest in hybrid gas-electric vehicles, solar power, and other clean energy sources (Click Image To Enlarge)
Building the Army’s next-gen GVC Fighting Infantry Vehicle with a hybrid gas and electric system is a matter of saving valuable budget dollars during an era of fiscal belt-tightening (Click Image To Enlarge)
The Pentagon has a keen interest in hybrid gas-electric vehicles, solar power, and other clean energy sources. For the Defense Department, building the Army’s next-generation fighting vehicle with a hybrid gas and electric system isn’t a matter of saving the world; it’s a matter of saving valuable budget dollars during an era of fiscal belt-tightening.
The GVC Fighting Infantry Vehicle's electric motor will also provide faster acceleration than the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles (Click Image To Enlarge)
The GVC Fighting Infantry Vehicle can also switch to pure electric mode for short periods of time. This would eliminate significant heat traces from the battlefield and lets the tank operate much more quietly at night (Click Image To Enlarge)
When the next generation of GCVs begin construction--the exact date depends on an elaborate political horse-trading process between Congress, the Pentagon, and defense contractors--they will include parts from a variety of vendors. One of the proposals the Pentagon is considering uses a hybrid propulsion system. BAE Systems, which is partnering with several other firms to create the proposed hybrid system, is adapting civilian hybrid power systems from buses and automobiles to the tank. BAE has worked on various other hybrid systems in the past.
The GCV Fighting Infantry Vehicle will have a 40-year lifespan and can effectively transport troops to the battlefield while providing support fire (Click Image To Enlarge)
The GCV Fighting Infantry Vehicle's hybrid electric drive also means the tank burns half as much energy while idling (Click Image To Enlarge)
BAE Systems’ Mark Signorelli told Co.Exist.
“The change from switching over to hybrid GCVs is like when the Air Force purchased their first jet fighters.”
If BAE’s proposal is adopted by the military, the Defense Department will save approximately 20% in fuel costs compared to an alternate GCV vehicle with traditional propulsion. The electric motor will also provide faster acceleration than Bradleys, and the tanks can switch to pure electric mode for short periods of time. This would eliminate significant heat traces from the battlefield and lets the tank operate much more quietly at night.
The GVC Fighting Infantry Vehicle works as a tank once a few basic accessories are added (Click Image To Enlarge)
Because of the on-board electricity source, the GVC Fighting Infantry Vehicle can also be equipped with electric armor, jammers, or the experimental energy weapons that the Army is currently researching (Click Image To Enlarge)
Signorelli said.
“There are several advantages in using a hybrid propulsion system for a military vehicle over a conventional engine. A hybrid electric drive system would use up to 20% less fuel, significantly reducing fuel costs and the number of vulnerable convoys for resupply. […] There are also 40% fewer moving parts with higher reliability, requiring less maintenance and decreasing vehicle lifetime cost. Vehicle acceleration, handling and dash speed are improved even over fuel hungry turbine systems. Finally, the system’s ability to provide large amounts of electrical power accommodates the integration of future communications and weapons technology for the next 30 to 40 years.”
According to BAE, the team behind the vehicle will include several other defense contractors. Northrop Grumman, Qinetiq, MTU,Saft, L3, and Tognum are all contributing parts to the proposed project. If the military adopts the proposed hybrid vehicle--there is a competing proposal with non-hybrid propulsion, they could roll onto the battlefield in the next decade. BAE representatives claim that the first vehicle could be delivered in 2020 and fielded in 2022 if the Defense Department chooses their proposal.
GCV vs Bradley Fighting Vehicle Dimensions (Click Image To Enlarge)
BAE claims the GCVs will have a 40-year lifespan and can effectively transport troops to the battlefield while providing support fire. Once in action, the GCVs will be powered by a hybrid electric drive that generates almost 1,100 kilowatts of electricity. The hybrid electric drive also means the tank burns half as much energy while idling; this is a significant cost savings for the Pentagon, and can also let troops charge their electronics off the vehicle’s batteries.
Signorelli also stressed the GCV’s “growth and modularity”--the vehicle works as a tank once a few basic accessories are added; the vehicle can also be augmented with accessories including electric armor, jammers, and experimental energy weapons thanks to the in-vehicle electric power source. Some of these experimental energy weapons are being researched by the military for use in the medium future.
However, there has been criticism of BAE’s proposal for a hybrid fighting vehicle. All of BAE’s innovation comes at a price--the hybrid vehicle is significantly heavier than one with a conventional power system. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a critical report in March, which claims both BAE’s proposal and rival General Dynamics proposal would waste government funds. Instead, the CBO recommended purchasing a German troop carrier called the Puma (Developed for the German Army) or a similar Israeli product.
The CBO was especially worried about the size of BAE’s hybrid GCV. With armor, the finished vehicle will weigh 70 to 84 tons, AOL Defense’s Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. reports. There is speculation that the vehicle’s large size would put it at a disadvantage when used in dense urban environments abroad.
Signorelli says that there is a need for increased capacity in the next generation of military vehicles. In the meantime, despite the military’s ambivalence about moving on from the Bradley, they will face an unavoidable choice in the future. As it stands right now, there are good odds that choice might just be a hybrid--and Prius owners will get new bragging rights.
GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle conception through production timeline (Click Image To Enlarge)
COMMENTARY: I like the idea of a hybrid armored infantry vehicle like the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle, because of the 20% savings in fuel costs, armaments and 40-year life span, but the weight of a finished GCV, at 70 to 84 tons, is just too much when you need speed and manuverability in the battlefield.
I am a patriotic American, but the PUMA Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle is an excellent vehicle and it's in production now. What swooned me is what BreakingDefense.com reported in an article dated April 2, 2013 about what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had to say about the GCV and PUMA.
"The Army’s proposed Ground Combat Vehicle would offer less combat power, at a higher cost, than buying the German-made Puma already in production or even just upgrading the Army’s existing M2 Bradley, according to the Congressional Budget Office.CBO issued a report today assessing different alternatives to upgrade Army heavy brigades‘ infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tank-like war machines with tracks and turrets designed to carry troops into combat."
"The non-partisan CBO, Capitol Hill’s in-house thinktank, has slammed the Ground Combat Vehicle program before, but never this hard. The office’s analysts took the Army’s own criteria and created a grading system that scored different combat vehicles for effectiveness. Using a scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order, the CBO rated the Puma highest, followed by a notional upgrade to the Bradley, followed in distant third place by the GCV. (The Israeli-built Namer came in fourth). Even under an alternative grading scheme that weighted all four criteria equally — putting much more emphasis on the capacity to carry troops — the 6-passenger Puma still edged out the 9-passenger GCV, largely because of its superior firepower."
"Add in the cost and risk of developing a new vehicle, and the analysis swings even farther in favor of the Puma. Since the Germans already have the Puma in production — the vehicle entered Bundeswehr service in 2011 — there’s no untested technology to cause problems. And even after buying 25 percent more Pumas to make up for its smaller carrying capacity, the Army would spend half as much as to develop, test, and build the GCV, according to CBO’s estimate: $14.5 billion for 2,048 Pumas as opposed to $28.8 billion for 1,748 GCVs."
"[Updated: But, as one alert reader pointed out, CBO isn't counting the cost to add three more vehicle crewmen to every mechanized infantry platoon to drive the extra Pumas -- at least 900 personnel Army-wide -- nor the extra maintenance personnel to support five vehicles per platoon instead of four, nor the ripple effects of rejiggering facilities built to accommodate four vehicles to take five instead.]"
"There is room to argue with CBO’s scoring system. To start with, since the GCV does not yet exist, CBO grades the vehicle based on the Army’s 2010 “Design Concept After Trades”; the actual GCV might be better or worse. For example, CBO assumes the GCV will have only a 25 millimeter cannon, rather than the Puma’s 30 mm, but Army officials I spoke to were still hoping for the larger caliber."
"Indeed, in the CBO’s scoring overall, the Puma’s big advantage over the other candidates is its firepower. (CBO scored Puma as slightly better protected than GCV but slightly less mobile). In particular, Puma scored high for its ability to kill tanks and other armored vehicles."
"But the Army deliberately chose not to install an anti-tank missile launcher on the GCV: The US military already has far more ways to destroy enemy tanks — from the M1 Abrams’s 120 millimeter gun to the A-10′s 30 mm Gatling, from the shoulder-launched Javelin missile to the air-launched Hellfire — than there are enemy tanks left to destroy. In the post-Cold War world, the nightmare scenario isn’t a long-range battle with hordes of Soviet tanks on the plains of Germany, it’s a close-quarters slugfest with irregular fighters hiding in crowded cities, where anti-tank missiles are largely irrelevant. So the Army decided it could better spend its money on other things — although the GCV is being designed to be upgraded with a missile launcher if the Army changes its mind."
"The Puma also mounts its massive firepower in an unmanned turret, remotely controlled from inside the vehicle. The Army considered such a design for GCV but ultimately decided it needed the gunner and vehicle commander riding inside the turret, as they do in the current Bradley and M1, able to look through the gunsights directly and clear jammed weapons if the automatic systems break down. A manned turret weighs and costs more than an unmanned one."
"The Army has also insisted, over and over, that it needs the capability to carry nine foot soldiers in addition to the crew: Bradley can manage four to six — seven if they squeeze — and Puma can take six. But more passengers means a bigger vehicle, which means more cost, especially if you have to armor the whole thing to a high standard against everything from anti-tank rockets hitting the top to roadside bombs hitting from below. The Army still thinks it’s worth the price to deliver a full nine-man squad to the same place at the same time, instead of scattering teams over multiple vehicles; but at the prices CBO is quoting, just buying a larger number of Pumas to carry the same number of troops looks awfully attractive."
"One major omission: CBO did not assign a numerical score to one of the Army’s most important considerations, the alternative vehicles’ ability to power new digital radios, command-and-control computers, and other military network hardware. The report does say 'the Puma’s communications and networking capability would be less than that of the GCV or the upgraded Bradley IFV.'"
"On the other hand, there is at least one other factor CBO didn’t include in its scoring that actually would have hurt GCV more to include. The Ground Combat Vehicle, fully armored, would weigh 65 tons, says CBO. (CBO earlier estimated 64 to 70 tons). The Puma, with all its add-on armor, would weigh 47. Strategically, that lower weight, and the reduced gas consumption that comes with it, would make Puma much easier to deploy abroad and then keep supplied with fuel — crucial considerations as the Army pulls out of Afghanistan and tries to revive its capability to deploy rapidly to distant crises."
Clearly, the CBO did not think very kindly of the GCV, ranking it third behind the PUMA and upgraded version of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. For me the higher weight of the GCV, loss of battlefield speed and manuverability and higher costs are the real bugaboo.
The German-made Puma provides full protection against mines and anti-tank weapons, at a level previously unavailable to similar systems (such as the Marder it will replacing in service). To maintain high protection levels and air mobility with the future Airbus A-400M European transport, Puma will be produced in a basic "Level A" protection featuring a total gross weight of 31.45 tons. Additional armor protection called "Level C" could be applied after the vehicles are deployed at their destination area, providing increased protection against shaped charge threats, medium caliber guns and heavier mines. Further protection is applied to the vehicle's roof, protecting from top attacks by AP bomblets.
I like the German-made PUMA because of its lower cost, overall design, armor, horsepower, light-weight, manuverability and armaments. Here are some of the key Puma specifications:
New MTU 10V 892 HPD 800 kW high power density turbo diesel engine.
Renk HSWL 256 hydrostatic/hydrodynamic shifting, reversing and steering transmission.
A decoupled drive assembly comprising hydro-pneumatic suspension, improving the smooth cross country traveling.
Eliminating the need for torsion bars allows the space under the floor to be cleared for better countermine protection.
Lightweight tracks further reduces weight.
Unmanned fully stabilized turret, mounting an automatic 30mm Mk30-2 ABM Mauser gun firing standard AP or airburst munitions (ABM).
MG4 5.56mm machine gun.
The turret is also installed with a gunner's thermal sight, a commander's independent panoramic sight, 400 ready to fire rounds of ammunition and smoke dischargers.
The PUMA is clearly a nimble, fast, manuverable and well-armed armored fighting vehicle, and the GCV, when fully armored and armed will outweigh today's Abrams A-1 tank. Does this make any sense?
In several past blog posts, I warned readers about the U.S. Defense Department's history of budget cost overruns when it comes to military hardware. We are quickly approaching a Defense Department budget of $1 trillion dollars per year.
WITH ITS REVOLUTIONARY MANUFACTURING PROCESS, THE KIBBUTZ-OWNED COMPANY NOT ONLY SECURES VEHICLES FOR THE U.S. MILITARY AND NOW PRIVATE CLIENTS, IT PROTECTS ITS COLLECTIVIST WAY OF LIFE, TOO.
When Specialist Thomas Wilson confronted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the lack of armor to protect U.S. troops against roadside bombs in Iraq in 2004, neither man could have foreseen that the solution would come from Sasa, a kibbutz in Israel’s upper Galilee that remains loyal to its collectivist foundations.
For a brief period in the summer of 2000, Israel and the Palestinians appeared on the verge of peace. And although the Camp David talks ultimately failed, the prospect of a reduced Israel Defense Forces budget swayed Plasan Sasa, the IDF’s primary armor supplier, to become export-oriented.
Sasa, kibbutz, with Plasan in the foreground (Click Image To Enlarge)
Fast-forward to 2011 and Plasan sat atop Dun & Bradstreet’s annual list of largest kibbutz enterprises with around $850 million (3.173 billion ILS) in sales, thanks to its supply of vehicle protection kits to Navistar and Oshkosh, manufacturers of the U.S. military’s MRAP and M-ATV Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.
A vehicle outfitted with Plasan's armor (Click Image To Enlarge)
There is nothing inherently innovative about the manufacturing of armor, but what differentiated Plasan from its competitors was its ability to do so at a rate of about one thousand vehicles per month. It did this by providing the products as kits--what Plasan Chief Designer Nir Kahn calls “the Ikea wardrobe of flatpack vehicles”--and allowing its partners to assemble them on their own production lines.
Plasan Chief Designer Nir Kahn works on sketches (Click Image To Enlarge)
Israeli-born Kahn, whose accent still betrays his northern England upbringing despite his return as a fresh university graduate 15 years ago, explains that Plasan’s customers care about three things: cost, weight, and the threat the armor is supposed to stop. He says the company’s advantage lies in its “proactive approach” of designing both the vehicle for the armor and the armor for the vehicle, and in the close cooperation between the designers, engineers, and testers, who all sit “quite literally under one roof.”
Lockheed Martin AVA with Plasan-made armor (Click Image To Enlarge)
Kahn says.
“We do hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of projectile testing every single day. There’s the neighbor in Toy Story who’s always taking toys and blowing them up. So in our vehicle design engineering department we make the toys and pass them over to the guys who blow them up.”
The firm’s other advantage is the effort it puts into vehicle comfort and appearance, according to Kahn. He says.
“Plasan has led the industry in designing vehicles with a more progressive look. They are still military vehicles--they can’t be flower-power Volkswagens--but they project an image of humanity and progressiveness, which helps the soldier to be sure that when he rolls into that village he’s going to find friends rather than enemies.”
Future Future Tactical Truck System Utility vehicle Demonstrator from International, outfitted with Plasan armor (Click Image To Enlarge)
Plasan sold more than 20,000 vehicle kits in the decade following 9/11, primarily to the U.S., but also to a small number of other countries including the United Kingdom. Now, given the U.S. military’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and its imminent departure from Afghanistan, alongside the recent sequestration of the Pentagon budget, it makes sense that Plasan has shifted its focus to the civilian market.
Kahn says.
“Perhaps because we’re a kibbutz company, we wanted our business to be based on things other than war.”
Kahn clarifies that Plasan’s job has always been to protect people rather than to profit from conflict.
Given that it had the necessary composite materials, manufacturing facilities, and the ability to conduct detailed finite element analysis, it wasn’t such a leap for Plasan to make regular vehicles lighter, too. Today, the company is among the leading tier-one suppliers of carbon fiber parts to the automotive industry, supplying parts for the hoods and roofs of the new Corvette Stingray, SRT Viper, and other vehicles through its Detroit subsidiary Plasan Carbon Composites. Using its proprietary technology, Plasan produces parts for each sports car in 17 minutes instead of the industry standard 90-120 minutes. Its next goal is to bring this technology into the mainstream.
A Plasan-armored, mine-resistant ambush protected all-terrain vehicle (Click Image To Enlarge)
Kahn says.
“Cars have been made out of pressed steel for the best part of 100 years, and up until now most efforts to change that have been about material substitution. We’re trying to change the conversation, to design the vehicle from composite materials for a high volume manufacturer. A high volume manufacturer in the military industry is one thousand a month, a high volume manufacturer in the motor industry is one thousand a day. But the principles are the same.A Plasan-armored, mine-resistant ambush protected all-terrain vehicle (Click Image To Enlarge)
Like most of his colleagues, Kahn does not live in Sasa. However, he acknowledges that the kibbutz’s ownership of Plasan helps instill a general feeling that the company belongs to its employees.
Dani Ziv, Plasan CEO and a Sasa resident since his days in the IDF’s Nahal Infantry brigade, says the company’s strength lies in its combining of commonplace industry values like competition with kibbutz values like democracy that don’t exist in the industry.
Ziv says.
“Democracy creates a more open dialogue within the organizational hierarchy. Every manger’s door is open, and there is no distance between the VP and the people on the bottom floor. What differentiates Plasan from other companies in our market is that our people receive more responsibility, and if someone wants to take initiative he has more freedom to do so.”
Plasan Sand Cat armored vehicle based on a shortened Ford F350 platform (Click Image To Enlarge)
The kibbutz ideology has made its mark on Plasan, but the company’s success has not altered Sasa’s commitment to the traditional collective model maintained by less than one-quarter of Israel’s 281 kibbutzim. If anything, says Sasa Treasurer and former Plasan employee Raul Cohen, the almost-overnight impact of the first MRAP contract in 2007 gave it the freedom to decide, rather than have the banks force it into privatization like other kibbutzim.
For a community with 220 members and a population of around 400 (residents are typically offered membership in their late 20s or early 30s) that previously subsisted off agricultural proceeds, it wasn’t easy dealing with sudden riches.It took 18 months for a formula to be devised, under which Plasan takes a certain percentage for investments, while the kibbutz spends its dividends on housing infrastructure, pensions, individual bonuses worth up to a few hundred thousand shekels (about $100,000) per member, and on the local elementary and high school.
As the primary purveyor of education to an area encompassing Druze, Circassian, and Arab villages and a number of other kibbutzim, Sasa takes its responsibilities seriously. Cohen, who arrived at the kibbutz from a poor city neighborhood as a 13-year-old in 1960, says that Sasa foots the multi-million-shekel education bill and sees the role of operating its schools as no less important than that of operating Plasan.
The Office of Naval Research Combat Tactical Vehicle (Technology Demonstrator) outfitted with armor designed and manufactured by Plasan (Click Image To Enlarge)
Cohen calls the decision to provide pensions--previously almost non-existent--a “personal and collective” promise. He says:
“Any member who grows up here today lives safe in the knowledge that there will be enough money to take care of them if we remain a collective kibbutz, and even if we don’t remain collective the pension is substantial enough to ensure the member ages respectably.”
COMMENTARY: I love the benefits that Plasan Sasa kibbutz provides its 200 members. Even if Plasan goes out of business, a guaranteed trust fund has been set aside that will be pay pension benefits to the members. GM, Chrysler, Boeing and the rest of the U.S. automotive and airline industries should learn from this.
I think that Plasan has definitely delivered on its corporate vision and mission:
Global leadership in armor, focused on the wheeled and tracked vehicles market
A growing and profitable international company
Excellence in concept, armor and survivability solutions based on cutting edge technologies
Plasan has also established the following core corporate values:
EXCELLENCE - we aim for excellence at all levels of management and performance
LEADERSHIP- we promote a “culture of leadership” at all managerial levels
INNOVATION- we encourage initiative, precedent setting and creativity to attain market dominance
TRANSPARENCY & TEAMWORK- we strive to create added value for the organization by adopting an advanced managerial culture.
Checkout Plasan Sasa's YouTube videos about its armor composite products.
Courtesy of an article dated March 26, 2013 appearing in Fast Company
Over the past few years there have been tantalizing reports that scientific progress was on the cusp of creating a real life invisibility cloak. But upon a closer reading, these experimental technologies didn’t amount to much beyond reminding us just how far off we are from the fictional universe of Harry Potter.
University of California researchers announced last year that they had developed a metamaterial fully capable of hiding objects from the naked eye. The breakthrough does, though, lose much of its luster considering that they’d still have to figure out a way to scale up the technology to mask objects beyond the size of a red blood cell.
Duke University just last month announced a diamond-shaped design that bent light around an object so perfectly, it even concealed shadows. Too bad the illusion only worked when looking straight and in one direction.
HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp. created the following mock-up photos to show the public what they claim their 'invisibility fabric' (Click Image To Enlarge)
Now, a little-known Canadian defense firm called HyperStealth Corp claims to be closing in on a breakthrough technology that should soon lead to a true, in every sense of the term, invisibility cloak. And to allay skeptics, company CEO Guy Cramer told CNN in an interview that they’ve even garnered strong interest from the U.S. military after demonstrating to officials how the fabric’s light-bending properties prevent the wearer from being detected entirely.
Development of the material codenamed “Quantum Stealth” has been kept shrouded in secrecy. The project’s web site reveals very few details about how the technology actually works, except that it’s lightweight, inexpensive and reduces 95 percent of an object’s shadow. The page also includes a few mock-up photos that illustrate what the material’s remarkable camouflaging effect would look like, along with an explanation from Cramer as to why they’ve decided to at least go public with their design.
Click Image To Enlarge
According to the site, Cramer started to receive a lot of attention from the media after giving a talk at a military trade show about the company’s development of an inexpensive and lightweight “light-bending material.” He said.
“After enough press had been written on the subject, the U.S. Military Command finally asked to see the real material to verify that it worked. Those meetings took place with very limited ‘Need to Know’ access and the technology is now moving forward.”
Click Image To Enlarge
If substantiated, the implications are tremendous. Snipers would be able to position themselves covertly with very little risk of being spotted, while troops could use the cloak to elude capture or to carry out surprise raids against enemies. On a more ambitious front, the invisibility-inducing material may even someday enable aircraft and ships to take the notion of “stealth” to a whole new level.
However, Cramer says that, once available, it’s likely that only the military will have access to the Quantum Stealth’s special effects, at which point, it’ll be hard to hide the collective excitement.
COMMENTARY: Guy Cramer, President and CEO of HyperStealth, said that there have been similar inventions over the years but his is the only one with a 360-degree view.
He said he isn’t able to discuss details or do demonstrations of Quantum Stealth for security reasons, but claims several military groups in Canada and the U.S. have expressed interest.
Cramer said.
“We’ve also got a countermeasure for the device to be able to detect it. It [costs] about $100 to $200 per soldier which is about what their uniforms are costing them right now.”
Only mockup photos are currently available to the general public.
Colin Worth, a recently retired RCMP officer, said he went to Ottawa with Cramer to demonstrate Quantum Stealth in front of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Worth said.
“I don’t have a vested interest in the company or the technology, but I’ve seen it work. The stumbling block last time I talked to Guy was how does he make it big enough and how does he make it portable enough to work in a real life situation?”
Worth said that he signed a secrecy and confidentiality agreement so he isn’t able to give any details, but said “stuff just seems to disappear. It’s weird the way it works but it does work.”
Bill Jarvis, a retired Navy Seal, also said he has seen the fabric work at U.S. Military Command meetings.
Cramer said that he would consider marketing Quantum Stealth to the general public only if the military allowed him to do so.
He hasn’t been approached by any Harry Potter fans yet.
On October 19, 2012, Guy Cramer, President/CEO of Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp. announced its new cloaking technology called "Quantum Stealth." Here's a copy of that press release.
A new Pentagon forecast showing the total cost of owning and operating a fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters topping $1 trillion over more than 50 years has caused a case of sticker shock in Washington.
And that price tag doesn't even include the $385 billion the Defense Department will spend to purchase 2,500 of the stealthy planes through 2035.
During a Senate hearing this month, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) called the $1 trillion figure "jaw-dropping," particularly when compared with the costs of operating other aircraft.
Said Senator Cain,
"I appreciate this estimate is still early and subject to change, but we need to know that the program is going to bring that number down".
Tom Burbage, who leads the program for manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp., acknowledged that the 'T' word
"causes a lot of the sensational reaction to it, because no one's ever dealt with 't's before in a program."
The long-range estimate is, by its nature, imprecise because it attempts to forecast factors including inflation and fuel costs decades into the future. And the Pentagon says it will be adjusted as the planes enter operation.
But the figure is bringing new scrutiny to what is already the Pentagon's largest-ever weapon-buying project as its budget comes under pressure. Already, Lockheed Martin has said it was looking for ways to bring down the long-term cost.
Christine Fox, head of the Pentagon's cost-assessment office, said in Senate testimony that the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18. But the new aircraft will be much more sophisticated, will be far less visible to enemy radar and will have sensors that allow a single jet to take on missions that now require several aircraft.
The Marine Corps version of the F-35 will be able to hover and land vertically. The Navy model will operate from aircraft carriers, while the Air Force version will be based on land. Developmental aircraft are flying, and the first F-35s—which cost about $113 million each—are slated to enter service later in the decade.
The Pentagon's forecast includes all the possible costs the military might incur over the lifetime of the program, including everything from housing the aircraft to installing replacement parts. Add all those together, and factor in inflation, Mr. Burbage said, and "you trip the trillion-dollar mark."
But, he said,
"The question to ask is, is that a relevant number?"
Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, who previously oversaw cost assessment at the Pentagon, said it wasn't "good analysis" to put that round dollar figure out without a point of comparison—for instance, the cost of sustaining the less-capable aircraft the new plane would replace.
Geneneeral Gardner said,
"You can scare the children with lots of things by projecting out to what it's going to cost in 2065. It's more useful to us if it's [forecast] five to 10 years."
A more near-term analysis, Gen. Gardner said, might add to a constructive debate about realistic costs and alternatives.
It is normal for sustainment costs to outstrip the basic drive-away cost of a piece of military hardware. But Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter said in a recent Senate hearing that the Joint Strike Fighter's projected sustainment bill was on top of an "unacceptably large" bill for procurement.
Still the Pentagon sees no "better alternative" to the F-35 says the general,
"Sustainment seems like years away, but now is the time to face that bill and begin to get that under control."
The Joint Strike Fighter has long been a troubled program, with cost overruns, military management shake-ups and heightened political scrutiny, but Lockheed says the aircraft is now ahead of schedule on its test flights.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Lockheed Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Stevens said the trillion-dollar figure was derived from a new Pentagon "selected acquisition report" that wasn't developed by the company, and said the company would work to find ways to bring down the aircraft's long-term production and sustainment costs.
Says the Lockheed CEO,
"As big as that number is, there are sufficiently large opportunities to reduce that number by making streamlining decisions along the way."
COMMENTARY: Just before leaving office, the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us all when he said, "Beware of the U.S. military industrial complex." I wonder what Ike would say about the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program.
I enjoy writing about and exposing U.S. military wasteful spending, and believe me, "The Greatest Miliary In The World," is the biggest spender of our tax dollars, which is contrary to what people say is being spent on entitlement programs like social security and medicare.
If you believe what the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says the Department of Defense spends each year, then you are very naive. Did you know that the Department of Homeland Security, CIA and NSA fall under the Department of Defense? All the U.S. contractors stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are also included in the Department of Defense budget.
THE FACT IS: Nobody really knows the actual amount being spent by our U.S. military because much of the spending is highly classified and the government simply doesn't want us to know. It's for reasons of national security, and we don't want the other side to know what we are up to.
THE F-22 RAPTOR PROGRAM COMES TO AN END
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth generation super-maneurable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. The Raptor, originally designated the Y-22, first entered service on December 15, 2005, and was designed for the U.S. Air Force primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.
The high cost of the Raptor, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, a US ban on Raptor exports, and the ongoing development of the supposedly cheaper and more versatile F-35 Lightning resulted in calls by the U.S. Defense Department to end F-22 production on April 2009. A total of 168 Raptors were built out of 187 budgeted with a total program cost of $65 billion. Total unit costs per plane was $150 million.
On 9 July 2009, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of the F-22 production line. He believed, most importantly, that Fifth-generation fighters need to be proliferated to all three services, a need that could only be met by shifting more resources to producing the 10-years more advanced, multi-service and multirole F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter jet.
THE F-35 LIGHTNING JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
The F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter jet. previously designated the X-35, will be produced by Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corp, U.S. Navy and our European military partners The U.K., Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada. The number of F-35's to be produced are as follows:
United States:
US Air Force: 1,763
US Navy/US Marine Corp: 680
Total: 2,443
European Military Partners:
United Kingdom - Royal Air Force and Royal Navy: 138
Italy: 131
Netherlands: 85
Turkey: 100
Australia: 100
Norway: 48
Denmark: 30
Canada: 65
U.S. also ordered 14 F-35's for flgiht tests.
The 2,443 F-35's for the U.S. military are scheduled for production between now and the year 2035 at a total cost of $385 billion. This averages $158 million per plane (includwa spare parts) before recurring costs like maintenance, housing and armaments. Individual unit costs are as follows:
F-35A: $122 million (average cost, 2011)
F-35B: $150 million (average cost, 2011)
F-35C: $139.5 millin (average cost, 2011)
The F-35 Lightning II comes in three variants designed to replace aircraft from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Navy:
U.S. Air Force (F-35A CTOL) - Replaces the General DynamicsF-16 Flying Falcon or Viper, a supersonic (1.2 to 2.0 Mach), long-range (2,200 nautical miles) multirole jet fighter designed for dog fighting and attacking ground targets. Original unit cost: $14.6 to $18.8 million (1998 dollars). Average flyaway cost: $3 million.
U.S. Marine Corp (F-35B STOVL) - Replaces the McDonnel Douglas (now Boeing/BAE Systems Hawker Siddeley Harrier or AV-8A Sea Harrier), a second-generation vertical/short takeoff and landing or V/STOL ground-attack subsonic (662 mph), mid-range (1,200 nautical miles) attack jet. Original unit cost: $30 to $35 million (1997 dollars). Average flyaway costs: NA
U.S. Navy (F-35C CV) - Replaces the McDonnel Douglas Navy F/A-18 Hornet, a supersonic (1.8 Mach), mid-range (1,089 nautical miles), all-weather carrier-capable multirole fighter jet, designed to dogfight and attack ground targets ((F/A for Fighter/Attack). Original unit cost: $29 to $57 million (2006 dollars). Average flyaway costs: NA
There are subtle specification differences between each variant as listed below:
Below is the U.S. Marine AV-8B Harrier jet landing on the deck of the U.S. Navy Amphibius Assault Ship USS Bataan (LHD-5).
The F-35B (STOVL) will replace all four previous versions of the V/STOL Harrier family.
According to the Pentagon, the estimated average recurring fly away costs per plane using the U.S. Air Force F-35A CTOL as the benchmark is $65 million per year per plane. NOTE: U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corp versions of the F-35 would have a different estimted average recurring fly away costs because of differences in design.
The Pentagon produced the following production schedule for the 2,443 F-35's being ordered based on Lockheed's annual production capacity. This includes 415 F-35's that will be produced between now and the end of FY 2016, and another 2,028 additional F-35's that will be produced between FY 2016 and FY 2035.
If you do the math, the estimated recurring fly away costs for the 415 F-35's that have already been produced and will be produced between FY 2011 and FY2016 are as follows:
Test Flight Craft - 14: $910 million
Produced FY Prior to 2011 - 58: $26.390 billion
Produced FY 2011 - 32: $12.480 billion
Produced FY 2012 - 32: $10.400 billion
Produced FY 2013 - 42: $10.920 billion
Produced FY 2014 - 62: $12.090 billion
Produced FY 2015 - 81: $10.530 billion
Produced FY 2016 - 108: $7.020 billion
The above totals for the above 415 F-35's totals approximately $84 billion between now and the end of 2016. Then you add this to the recurring costs for the other 2,028 F-35's that will be produced after FY 2016, and that's how the Pentagon derived its $1 trillion figure. In any event, $65 million for maintenance, housing and armaments for the F-35 is damn expensive to say the least.
COMPARISON F-22A VERSUS F-35A
Thanks to nice folks of the Air Force Association, I was able to obtain a comparison of the F-22A versus F-35A. Comparisons were based on different metrics:
What's not to like about the F-22A. The F-22A was superior over the F-35A in just about every metric except for Unrefuled Combat Radius. The cost comparisons are a bit tricky because they do not include maintenance, housing and armament costs. The F-22A unit cost was also based on a much smaller quantity--187 versus 1763.
The U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy have special needs and requirements because they require V/STOL and carrier-based landing capability respectively. Therefore, the costs for the F-35B and F-35C will probably be higher than the F-35A which is land-based.
The biggest criticism that I have with the F-35 Lightning II is the decision to go with a mulitrole underpowered aircraft that would be designed for three branches of the military. We seem to have put all our eggs in one basket. The F-22A has far better performance characteristics and would've given us greater ability to go up against both Russian and Chinese Fifth Generation Fighter jets.
If the price of the F-35 Lightning II was supposed to be chaper, it sure as hell has not turned out that way. I think we need to totally re-evaluate the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Attack jet. We have no choice. In an era of huge federal budget deficits, we must find ways of reducing costs in every department, and this includes the defense budget, a department with costs that will approach $1 trillion by 2016.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET
To make my case for reductions in the defense budget, let's look at the U.S. Department of Defense Budget for the Fiscal Year 2010, 2011 and 2012 shall we.
U.S. Department of Defense Budget for FY 2010
U.S. Department of Defense Budget for FY 2010 - By Branch and Department
U.S. Defense Department of Defense - Program Spending over $1.5 billion - FY 2011
U.S. Defense Department of Defense - FY 2012 (DOD and other departments)
U.S. Department of Defense Annual Budget for the FY1962 Through FY 2010 and Forecasted for 2014 - Adjusted For Inflation
U.S. Department of Defense Per Capital Spending 1962 Through 2010 and Forecasted for 2014 - Adjusted For Inflation
If you look at the U.S. Department of Defense for programs spending in excess of $1.5 billion, the F-35 is prominently at the top of the list. I think we can assume that the F-35 program will occupy the No 1 spot for a decade and beyond. In short, the F-35 program will be the single most expensive project U.S. Department of Defense Budget.
We have to seriously ask ourselves whether it's time for the U.S. government to seriously consider reducing our military budget. It has gotten completely out of control. Per capita spending on military spending has risen from $2,500 per person in 1962 to nearly $4,000 per person in FY 2010. By FY 2014 per capital spending will be $4,100 per person.
CONCLUSION
I believe we would be better served by replacing the U.S. Air Force F-35A with the F-22A because it is just plain and simple the superior plane in just about every performance metric. It can carry larger payloads, has greater thrust, speed and maneuverability, has a superior flight envelope, and can control twice the battle space of the F-35A. I don't know who made the decision to go with the F-35A, but in my opinion this was a huge mistake.
I like the F-35 Lightning II's multiservice role, and what it can do overall, but performance-wise the F-22 is far superior. Unfortunately, the F-22 is not designed for vertical takeoff and carrier operations. I am very reluctant to go with the F-35B STOLV and F-35C CV, because the F-35 Lightning II's performance puts our Marine and Navy pilots at a disadvantage in combat conditions. If we are going to go into battle, I want my Marines and Navy pilots behind the best plane--period. They should not be second best to anybody.
My other complaint is the F-35 Lightning II's total production costs per aircraft have skyrocketed to $158 million per plane, and are projected to rise even higher. Just what the hell is going on here?Lockheed Martin has a lot of explaining to do. The company needs to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs of production, parts, housing and armaments. We need to find a way to make the plane much more cost-effective, even if it means that Lockheed Martin has to eat some of those flyaway costs.
12/16/12 - UPDATE:
For three years (FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY2012), the Pentagon has been postponing orders for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Plans to produce 425 of the F-35's have been put on hold. But Lockheed, the builder of the F-35 has reasons to be optimistic. According to government officials, the Pentagon is close to approving a deal to produce 29 F-35's during fiscal year 2013. The F-35's history is full of research and development setbacks, rising costs and mounting criticism of the troubled F-35. It is now estimated that if the Pentagon builds 2400+ F-35's, the total cost will hit $395 billion. That's a 70% increase in costs since 2001. Flight tests have uncovered a number of flaws with the F-35. Lockheed has agreed to underwrite half the cost of fixing those flaws. And, the Air Force general who supervises the F-35 program calls the relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed,
"The worst I've ever seen."
Lockheed launched an online campaign on its website to urge F-35 supporters to sign a petition to prevent the F-35 program from being scrapped. The F-35 has undergone numerous test flights since 2006, but don't expect the F-35 to appear over the skys of Afghanistan anytime soon.
The U.S. may have had secret plans to detonate an atomic bomb on the moon at the height of the Cold War (Click Image To Enlarge)
A story that surfaced over a decade ago is making the rounds again this week, as some media outlets are reporting that the U.S. considered detonating an atomic bomb on the moon in an effort to intimidate the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.
On Sunday,the Daily Mail revived the story, citing a 12-year-old interview with physicist Leonard Reiffel, formerly of the U.S. military-backed Armour Research Foundation and later a deputy director of NASA. Celebrated astronomer Carl Sagan also was said to have been involved with the secret project, which reportedly was known as "A Study of Lunar Research Flights" or "Project A119." Sagan died in 1996.
In the interview, Reiffel reportedly said the plan had been to launch a rocket that would deliver a small nuclear device to the moon's surface, where it would detonate.
Reiffel, now 85, is believed to be the only official to have publicly confirmed his association with the project. However, a 190-page document called "A Study of Lunar Research Flights, Volume I" dated June 19, 1959 is available online through the Information for the Defense Community database. The document, available in PDF format, is credited to Reiffel and bears the heading of Air Force Special Weapons Center and the Air Research and Development Command based at Kirkland Air Force Base in New Mexico.
Click Image To Enlarge
The abstract reads:
Nuclear detonations in the vicinity of the moon are considered in this report along with scientific information which might be obtained from such explosions. The military aspect is aided by investigation of space environment, detection of nuclear device testing, and capability of weapons in space. A study was conducted of various theories of the moon's structure and origin, and a description of the probable nature of the lunar surface is given. The areas discussed in some detail are optical lunar studies, seismic observations, lunar surface and magnetic fields, plasma and magneti3 field effects, and organic matter on the moon.
Reiffel spoke to several publications about the project in 2000. His statements then coincided with a then-new Sagan biography, which suggested that the celebrity scientist might have breached security by revealing the classified project in an application for an academic fellowship, the Associated Press reported at the time.
Military officials abandoned the idea, Reiffel said, in part because of the danger it posed to people on Earth if the mission failed. Scientists also were concerned about contaminating the moon with radioactive material.
In a new interview with The Huffington Post, Richard Rhodes, a Pulitzer-prize-winning author and an affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, said he was unfamiliar with Project A119. If there had been a plan to send a nuclear missile to the moon in the 1950s, he said, it would have been hard-pressed to advance past the study stage. The first Soviet craft crash-landed on the moon in 1959, followed three years later by the American craft Ranger 4, reports National Geographic.
"I doubt we had any rockets that would have had the power to leave earth's orbit and hit the moon," Rhodes said. "It takes a lot of power to take things out of earth's gravitational pull, much more than to just put something in orbit."
If there had been a secret plan, the show of U.S. technological prowess would have been meant as a counter to Sputnik, Rhodes added.
Though nuking the moon sounds far-fetched, Rhodes said some of the projects that grew out of Cold War tensions were far from funny.
"One of the craziest things we ever did was develop and deploy nuclear tipped anti-aircraft missiles, plane to plane. That's always seemed like insanity," he said. Once miniaturized nuclear weapons were created, "as all the services wanted their share--so they had to think of some use for these things, and their uses were marginally insane," at least by today's risk-reward standards, he said.
When asked about the project, the U.S. Air Force declined to comment, the Associated Press reported in 2000.
COMMENTARY: What a crazy, idiotic idea to bomb the Moon, just to demonstrate our machismo and flex our nuclear muscles just to intimidate the U.S.S.R. Growing up during the height of the Cold War, I can clearly remember the air raid warning alarms and nuclear bomb safety tests that the schools used to conduct. The teachers would get the students in their classes to crawl under their desks and pretend there was a nuclear bomb attack. These tests would've done absolutely zero to protect us in the event of a real nuclear attac.
The whole idea of arming ourselves with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the World 100 times over on the theory that our enemies would never use their nukes is pure lunacy. If you ask me, all of this is done just to keep the Military Industrial Complex in business making weapons of mass destruction and the latest in tech weaponry.
Courtesy of an article dated November 28, 2012 appearing in The Huffington Post and an article dated November 28, 2012 appearing in CNN.com
Twitter: turk5555 
Facebook: 797743955 
LinkedIn: turk5555
Recent Comments