Well, surprise, surprise: yesterday’s VBIED attack in the city of Kandahar killed at least 41, and wounded over 80 more people. All of them were civilians. Every single one.
And yet still, in the AP piece above, you read the phrase “Taliban spokesmen were not immediately available for comment…” What if these lying sacks of shit had been available for comment, folks? Would we have been reading their misinformation in black and white, juxtaposed credibly against BGen Tremblay’s words in a pathetic bow to “balanced reporting” — like somehow both should be weighed equally? You bet we would.
I’m tired of it. I’m sick and tired of our media giving them a soapbox from which to proclaim what is clearly, plainly, and obviously pure propaganda designed to attack our will as part of a well planned and executed information operations campaign. I’m tired of our journalists willfully ignoring the fact that they’re not just observing the war, they’re affecting it with their reporting. I’m bone-tired of them refusing to take steps to ensure their powerful voice isn’t used against the very system of government that allows them such unfettered speech in the first place.
Damian “Babbling” Brooks, “Real propaganda”, The Torch, 2009-08-26
August 27, 2009
QotD: Taliban propaganda, as abetted by the mainstream media
The only Canadian conspiracy theory
American conspiracy enthusiasts have plenty to choose from, but their Canadian confreres don’t have much . . . but they do have the Avro Arrow controversy:
InnovationCanada.ca spoke with Campagna 50 years after the only examples of Canada’s premier jet fighter were cut into pieces.
InnovationCanada.ca (IC): What would most Canadians be shocked to find out about the Arrow, 50 years after its demise?
Palmiro Campagna (PC): Most people don’t know that the order to destroy the Arrow did not come from Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. One theory was that Diefenbaker decided to cancel as this was a Liberal project and he had problems with A.V. Roe president Crawford Gordon. But the reports I had declassified showed that was clearly not the case.
The decision to cut the Arrows into scrap was blamed on Diefenbaker as an act of vengeance, but it was actually an act of national security. The Arrow was an advanced piece of military technology, and the Canadian government didn’t want the test planes to go to a Crown disposal group that would be allowed to auction them off to anyone in the world.
I’ve written a little bit about the Arrow controversy back in 2004:
I hate to sound like a killjoy, but everything I’ve read about the AVRO Arrow says that, while Dief was widely viewed as an idiot for destroying the . . . finished planes, it would never have been a viable military export for Canada. The plane was great, there seems to be no question about that, but it was too expensive for the RCAF to be the only purchaser, and neither the United States nor the United Kingdom was willing (at that time) to buy from “foreign” suppliers. With no market for the jet, regardless of its superior flying and combat qualities, there was little point in embarking on full production.
Also, given the degree of penetration by Soviet spies, the Canadian government took the easiest option in destroying the prototypes. That doesn’t make it any less tragic if you’re a fan, but it does put it into some kind of perspective, I hope.
August 19, 2009
24th Air Force now activated
The US Air Force has officially activated the 24th Air Force, consisting of the 688th Information Operations Wing and the 67th Network Warfare Wing:
According to Air Force Space Command, under which the new cyber force comes, the 688th will be “exploring, developing, applying and transitioning counter information technology, strategy, tactics and data to control the information battle space”. The unit was formerly known as the Air Force Information Operations Center, and will continue to function as an “information operations centre of excellence”.
The 67th, by contrast, seems to be a more offensive unit. It will “execute computer network exploitation and attack” as required, and when not doing that will conduct “electronic systems security assessments” for US military units and facilities.
August 7, 2009
No more manned fighters? This is not a repost from 1957
Back in the depths of the cold war, the British Minister of Defence proclaimed that the end was in sight for manned fighter aircraft, and that automation was rapidly making humans obsolete in the cockpit. A few generations on, another British minister is saying the same thing, with a bit more chance of being proven correct:
In a bizarre repeat of history, a British defence minister has given it as his opinion that we are currently witnessing development of the final generation of manned combat aircraft. The comments made last week by Quentin Davies MP echo those made in a 1957 government white paper by the then Defence minister, Duncan Sandys.
Mr Davies, minister for Defence Equipment and Support, made his new “last of the manned fighters” comments at an Unmanned Air Systems exhibition held on Friday at the London headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
“My own working assumption is that although we certainly need the manned combat aircraft, and are investing in some very good ones at the moment… that will take us through to the 2030s, but beyond that I think the name of the game will be UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles],” he said.
To be fair, the view from 1957 was not as dazed and confused as it might appear to be in hindsight. It was only 13 years after the start of the first widespread and successful cruise missile attacks (Nazi Germany’s V-1 “buzz bombs”), and in the middle of the nuclear arms race. Strategic bombing was still the way wars were expected to be won . . . and with thermonuclear warheads, it was likely to be a final war for all concerned. Flying fighter aircraft was seen to be a relic of the second world war, and an expensive relic at that.
August 6, 2009
More threats to Royal Navy’s carrier plans
An interesting report in The Register discussing the possibility of abandoning the planned STOVL variant of the F-35 and switching to the more traditional catapult-launch and tailhook-landing variant being developed for the US Navy:
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is set to make a major change to the design of the new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, according to a newspaper report. It’s suggested that the ships will now be equipped with catapults and arrester wires, allowing them to operate normal carrier aircraft rather than the complex, expensive jump-jets which had been planned.
According to the Daily Telegraph today “the MoD has indicated that it will drop the jump-jet… The Daily Telegraph has learnt from senior defence officials that an announcement is due this autumn.”
There would definitely be advantages to going with a more traditional aircraft: less mechanical complexity, greater weapons-carrying capability, and (probably most important in the MoD) lower per-aircraft costs. It’s not a slam-dunk decision, however:
Catapults and arrester gear aren’t a significant expense in themselves, but current catapults are powered by steam from the ship’s engines. The planned new Royal Navy ships will be propelled by gas turbines, however, and so have no steam (US and French carriers use nuclear propulsion, which can easily furnish steam from their associated turbines).
Adding powerful auxiliary steam boilers for catapults or upgrading the ships to nuclear propulsion would significantly increase their cost. There is an alternative option, the use of electrically-powered catapults, but these don’t yet exist. They are being developed in the States for the next US carrier, but as a new technology there is naturally some risk that they won’t pan out, or may be subject to delays and cost increases.
Of course, there’s always the risk that the MoD, under pressure from the government of the day would cancel the ships altogether, as a cost-saving measure (see this post from last year for further grim speculation on that topic).
China soon to be capable of settling the “Taiwan question”?
According to a recent report from RAND Corporation, unlike the last time they ran the simulation (in 2000), their current projections have the Chinese able to win an air battle over Taiwan:
In 2000, the influential think thank RAND Corporation crunched some numbers regarding a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and concluded that “any near-term Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would likely be a very bloody affair with a significant probability of failure” — especially if the U.S. raced to the island nation’s defense. But nine years later, a new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China’s improved air and missile forces “represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,” whether or not the U.S. is involved.
“A credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue [American and allied] air force has even fired a shot,” the monograph notes.
I’m not sure if this comment was intended to forestall the cancellation of the last part of the F-22 order, or if it’s a marker for a future “We told you so” debate:
It’s a potentially controversial assertion — and one that might have fueled the (now-resolved) debate over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy more F-22s. RAND found that F-22s flying from the relative safety of Guam could be surprisingly effective in blunting a Chinese air assault.
Remember that the air battle would only be part of the military equation . . . fighters and bombers still can’t overcome ground forces by themselves. A seaborne invasion would still be necessary, and the PLAN does not (yet) have sufficient lift tonnage to ensure a chance of success. Amphibious attacks are the hardest to accomplish (despite the Allied string of successes from 1942 to 1951), and always depend on both command of the air and command of the sea. China could, according to RAND’s latest study, win the air battle but still does not have the necessary preponderance of force to win control of the sea.
But the century is yet young . . .
H/T to Jon for the link.
July 29, 2009
Another lost WW2 combat aircraft discovered
This time it’s a US Navy carrier plane:
On May 28, 1945, the SB2C-4 Helldiver was on a practice bombing run from a nearby aircraft carrier. The crew members survived the emergency landing.
At the time, the Navy opted not to recover the plane.
Yesterday, Raia said she couldn’t comment on how long it will take Navy officials to decide whether to salvage the plane. Typically, the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Fla., plays a major role in the evaluation process.
One of the pilots is believed to be 90 years old and living in Michigan, but the Navy hasn’t provided his name.
“Wouldn’t that be something to fly him out here and have him standing on the shoreline when they lift the plane out?” Manville said.
That’d be cool . . . as long as they don’t make him pay for the recovery of the plane.
July 24, 2009
Photo tour of the USS Hornet
I’ve been onboard several retired battleships, but so far I’ve not managed to get onto an aircraft carrier. This will have to do for the time being:
The USS Hornet was on hand 40 years ago to pick up the Apollo 11 astronauts after their Columbia Command Module splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on July 24, 1969.
Today, the aircraft carrier is preserved as a museum in Alameda, California. Its main deck is littered with historic warplanes and space artifacts including an Apollo command module and Mobile Quarantine Facility from subsequent missions, pictured below. The first footsteps the Apollo 11 crew took on Earth after walking on the moon are traced on the deck.
USS Hornet CIC
Above: The USS Hornet’s Crisis Information Center is pictured. While engaged in active warfare, crewmembers would stand behind transparent, hanging boards and write information backwards to keep from getting in the way of the officers who needed to read it.
I think it was actually the “Combat” Information Center, but I could be mistaken. Lots of cool images, but I’d like to see more . . .
July 20, 2009
Oh, it’s okay . . . manufacturer claims the EATR is vegetarian
Take back all the panic-mongering in this post. Cyclone Power Technologies assures us that their battlefield robot (the disturbingly named EATR) is on a strictly no human corpses diet:
Many commentators, our own Lewis Page included, not unreasonably took this vague “biomass in the environment” concept to mean anything EATR could get its robotic claws on, including humans.
Some press reports went further, suggesting EATR would suck nourishment from corpses as it went about its unholy business.
Cue an entertaining press release (pdf) from Cyclone, which stresses that EATR is “strictly vegetarian”. The company explains: “Despite the far-reaching reports that this includes ‘human bodies,’ the public can be assured that the engine Cyclone has developed to power the EATR runs on fuel no scarier than twigs, grass clippings and wood chips.”
Cyclone marvellously adds: “Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI.”
July 15, 2009
Thoughtful gifts for your sniper
For the sniper who has everything, a rifle-mounted cupholder:
The spare-time chainsaw-style mount (last slide) looks very much like a weapon from Doom or Quake . . .
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005586.html.)
July 14, 2009
The next step towards a robot-centric army
Stepping out of the Matrix back-story and moving to replace the human soldier, the EATR:
A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find — grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.
Robotic Technology Inc.’s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that’s right, “EATR” — “can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable,” reads the company’s Web site.
That “biomass” and “other organically-based energy sources” wouldn’t necessarily be limited to plant material — animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they’d be plentiful in a war zone.
Just a tad creepy . . .
H/T to Alex Haropulos for the link.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005581.html).
Update, 20 July: Oh, it’s okay. They claim it’s a vegetarian. It’s not going to snack on the battlefield casualties after all.
July 10, 2009
The headline really does say it all
Hard to come up with a better title than this one:
Once an empire, Britain faces big military cuts:
Afghanistan operations in the future could be affected.[. . .] at a time of overwhelming public support for its service men and women, the global recession is causing Britain to face hard choices about its future military role in the world — putting at risk plans to build new aircraft carriers and heralding consequences for everything from operations alongside the US in Afghanistan to whether the UK remains nuclear-armed.
The start of the first full-scale official review of Britain’s defense forces in more than 10 years was announced on Tuesday. It came within days of three of Britain’s most influential independent research institutes forecasting that the £34 billion (about $54 billion) defense budget will be seriously cut.
The question of whether to support a £76 billion ($124 billion) program to replace Britain’s aging Trident nuclear weapons system also looms large.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), warned that the UK cannot afford much of the defense equipment it plans to buy, questioned the value of renewing the submarine-launched Trident nuclear deterrent, and said it was “delusional” to think the UK could act alone without closer European defense cooperation.
Actually, the “delusion” is that there is any will in Western Europe for any kind of military action, under any circumstances.
(Cross-posted to the old blog: http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005571.html.)
