Hey All.
I got informed by a reader that he was still having problems with the comments section. The move to Disqus has been a good one but not entirely trouble free.
My solution?
I've limited Google comments to only "members" of the blog and since that is a legion of one (me), commenting via Google comments is effectively over.
Now you must use Disqus (of course they allow you to use Google, Google Plus, and other common platforms to still get on) since it is now "native" but I don't see that as a problem.
This is just a heads up on what's going on in the house of SNAFU!
The fake landing tactic by itself is like 70 years old and has been used several factions. Like any diversion its obiviously only going to work if the enemy buys it.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree that no "enemy" improvisation is bad though.
8x8s don't use normal tyres, they use a variant of "run flat" tyres that have an internal steel ring. The rubber and air is just there for a smoother ride. Perforated tyres will just make the ride bumpier because you are now riding on the steel ring.
ReplyDeleteDid you see that Israel has made a further commitment to the F-35? I'd sure like to know who and how they were convinced to do that.
ReplyDeleteCould it be a hardball political move just prior to Netanyahu's controversial speech to (part of) the US Congress?
ReplyDeleteWhy couldn't Israel do it on its own, to score points?
ReplyDeleteWhy would a US threat or promise be necessary?
Anyhow it doesn't matter, they did it.
But I must reveal my ignorance by asking what that contraption is up top. It looks like a cumbersome way to deliver groceries.
ReplyDelete@Nursemedic.
ReplyDeletepersonally i believe that the Israeli's are triangulating the US govt and attempting to influence the remaining 2 of the 3 important bodies here. in this case the US Congress and the Pentagon. it already has a friend in the Congress and its seeking to get on the good side of the Pentagon. what better way to do that then to put the prestige of the Israeli Air Force behind the biggest flying piece of shit known to modern man?
@Don Bacon
ReplyDeleteif you're talking about the banner pic (the one at the very top of the page) its a bastardized, inadequate combat engineering vehicle. the took the gun off an M1 Abrams, added ERA (i believe) and a big ass plow. in place of 120mm shells they replaced them with mine clearance line charges and call it an assault breacher vehicle.
the problem? its good on the offensive but is woefully inadequate to deal with the type of tasks when you're in the defense. we need to do better.
I was afraid somebody was going to bring that up. I thought about it and its not very comforting. And malignant narcissists do not have limits when it comes to saving their own ass form what they perceive as things that taint their outward image.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of course with "just letting them do what they want", especially when pertaining to them fighting each other, is that its like an airplane with a fuselage full of passengers, and the the pilots are engaged in a fistfight over the controls.
CEV. Combat Engineering Vehicle. Might have to look up the specific type for the US, but basically, it's used to create obstacles and to breech minefields. From the looks of it, it seems more specialized, less engineering, more breeching. So my call will be a "Breacher CEV"
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, one can listen to this intercepted infamous (horribly profane and anti-diplomatic) conversation with Nuland 5x over, but unless one also puts the conversation into context one will miss what is actually being discussed.
ReplyDeleteThat is, the context (late January, 2014) in which then Yanukovych had just made an offer to the 'top 3' opposition leaders to join the government (via power-sharing). Both the USG and EU were also planning to enter into negotiations with Yanukovych govt with respect to conditions being made for a plan to accept a $2B emergency funding package to shore up Ukraine's fiscal crisis.
Note: there was still hope (by both USG and EU) at the time of this phone call that Yanukovych would come back around, and accept a compromise solution - i.e., back away from Kremlin's absolutist proposal, which called on rejecting any sort of independent trade deal and/or preferred Visa regime between EU and Ukraine. The EU and US's plan was to help defuse the escalating protests via injecting said vital financial support and further gaining political compromises from Yanukovych. (e.g., power sharing with opposition parties).
Yet, with specific reference to the 'intercepted', or 'leaked' recorded phone call in question; Nuland was showing her personal (very ugly) frustration over EU's slow-motion approach as she perceived it, in coordinating with USG on the fast moving situation in Kiev. Hence the 'F-EU' comment. Nuland was implying that USG should take a more unilateral role in pushing ahead with trying to influence the negotiations and conditions on Yanukovych, etc, in order to push through a crisis-ending resolution and deal.
For whatever reason too, Nuland's assessment of Klitschko was one that he wasn't up for genuine leadership-sharing position, or at least not yet (regardless of his broad popularity). Again, the context of the phone call was in that Nuland didn't think the power-sharing deal being integral to the crisis-resolution and compromise (to be made with Yanukovych) should include Klitschko at such a high level, while she did favor one of the other 'top-3' opposition leaders whom was offered a political role by Yanukovych. And btw, it was the further issue of Yanukovych apparently not yet ready to accept the condition for an early election, by September 2014, which was holding up the compromise deal.
Of course, all of this above situation (around January 28) was prior to the seriously escalated violent attempts (and deaths) to crush the protests and clear the square, and calls by more hardline Ukrainian security officials and even hardline Ru Fed officials to crush the protests, or risk losing power, etc.
At that point in the crisis, the 'February 21' compromise deal was ironically and more properly brokered by the EU (and Not USG), being a EU-related issue to begin with and between Yanukovych and Opposition leaders. Under the 'Compromise', the Opposition interpreted it as a de facto capitulation and expected Yanukovych to resign with an interim provisional govt to take over, until said early elections where held. Also part of the compromise saw the protesters leaving the administrative buildings they had occupied (being perceived as unacceptable, especially if armed), as well as Police and Internal ministry troops returning to their barracks.
A day later, with Yanukovych refusing to resign - even while various security apparatus officials were stepping down and resigning and a growing shift among the armed forces in standing down their support - Ukrainian parliament voted decisively right or wrong, to impeach/expel Yanukovych from power in quick response to the state of crisis. A few days later saw the provisional government being approved.
There are many obstacles with lasers, despite what many optimists think. We probably wont see the first DEW-type for C-RAM or any other duties until the 2030s.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, there is no replacement for displacement. There are many arguments within the naval armaments world saying the same thing (and not being Navy, many of those arguments are beyond my understanding).
I think we will see more "larger caliber" C-RAM like MANTIS with smart airburst munitions and more sophisticated tracking means. Still, though, about that "displacement saying" the counter is quite simply to overwhelm those systems like our adversaries (Russia & China) plan on doing with our Naval CIWS.
What the minister was referring to was that in his opinion, the Opposition's image could be tarnished by not apparently supporting an official Govt investigation into the sniper deaths (which of course there were multiple, over period of a week, at different locations). But in the conversation, one can infer from the other side of the call, that both were agreeing that an independent investigation - including European investigators - needed to be conducted. So once again, context is key when deciphering these sorts of clearly lopsided, biased propaganda attempts.
ReplyDeleteAs to who was shooting? There's plenty of speculation and analysis that likely a variety of sides and groups, some indeed even radical splinter protest members were guilty of the sniping. Other groups? Plain-clothed Titushky agents/mercs blended in with protesters, rogue SBU and/or even FSB (?) rumored to be stationed in Kiev and coordinating with Ukraine intel, and likely some rogue or special Berkut sniper forces too.
What was the motive?
Clearly, after the sniping, top security officials were justifying the need to arm with AK as last ditch effort and clear the camps at any cost. Airborne troops were simultaneously reported to be called in to assist, but reportedly there was some deaths and injuries along the way due to a road accident and said force was redirected away from Kiev.
Regardless, a day later the escalation had peaked with various ministers and security officials stepping down, pro-Yanukovych apparatus capitulating and the Feb 21 political Compromise was agreed to. Within a couple of days time, the Yanukovych camp went from giving up on opposition and vowing to crush the movement decisively...to implosion and faced with impeachment and expulsion from power.
No it is not. Missiles are killed by lasers when there is a burn through in the fuel cell. In a 155mm round, there is absolutely nothing in there that can cause a catastrophic failure. Fuse, yes, damaging it will cause a dud. Now try to hit a 4cm fuse through a steel casing on an object traveling at Mach 0.9. You say "no problem" I say "big problem".
ReplyDeleteLogistics though, you are correct, 30 tons of shells per hour per gun IIRC.
BTW, 30 sec for gun to bring to bear, 1 min +/- for Time of Flight. Something people don't know about. The TOF is actually pretty high.
Er, when they say "displacement", I think they mean "haul ass" not weight.
ReplyDeleteWhy they say that is because with long range artillery, a target can move pretty far from the killbox by the time the round reaches the target. For example, a 227mm MLRS round will take 2 minutes to reach 80km. A target traveling at 60 km/h (1 km/min) will be 2 km from the point of impact if the round was to be fired at the exact location of the vehicle. So to get a hit, you have to lead the vehicle by a fair bit the further you are away from the target, which makes it rather challenging.
So these expensive ponderous monstrosities are useful against three dollar fertilizer mines triggered by garage-door openers. Yippee.
ReplyDeleteBergdahl should hang.
ReplyDeleteIt sure beats using your tracks to trigger IEDs. Yippee.
ReplyDeleteOr would you rather clear mines by stepping on them?
After all, if your soldiers get blown up, you don't have to pay them. How's that for cost savings?
Seriously. Think of the consequences of NOT having it before complaining.
first. if a soldier steps on a mine he gets paid, his family gets paid and if he lives he gets treatment/pay for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeletesecond. no one is complaining. we're making observations. this vehicle is a bad idea and we should have gone on and developed a heavy combat engineer vehicle. OBSERVING that it is next to useless in the defense, that it is basically a 70 ton two trick pony (mine clearance and obstacle defeat) when a dedicated real deal CEV could perform an array of tasks is NOT COMPLAINING.
you're an interesting dude Owl. i don't quite get you but you are interesting....
Youre right. Looking back on it my comment is a bit convoluted. ;)
ReplyDeleteOh I definitely agree it's really turned into something that has real potential to end in something that will make people WISH it was only a return of the SS and unit 731....
ReplyDeleteWhat's even worse is that until the general population grows up and realizes that centralization and anyone who tells you that they can GUARANTEE you stability and security if only you relinquish your right to refuse to comply with any plan they come up with and any meaningful oversight is not just lying to you but has Ill intent.
News flash... There is not a single other person on earth who is more motivated to work for your safety prosperity and happiness than YOU!
And not to drag in the whole bigfoot anally probed me and took me to space on his nazi flying saucer angle... But if you look at everything from technology to poverty levels to the world of specialized knowledge and the institutions that are supposed to be bastions of free thinking show the signs of deliberate tampering.
And for those of you writing me and my comment here off, consider this. According to the VERY contested and pretty much universally rejected DSM 5 believing in conspiracies is now a mental illness...
Now consider this!!
At the same time the charge most prosecuted in federal court is CONSPIRACY!
Even more interesting is that the most frequent charge seen in federal courts also has the highest successful conviction rate by a landslide at 97%...
So if you or I believe in conspiracy you can lose your rights including control of your finances.... BUT if you are CHARGED with conspiracy there's a 97% chance you'll be convicted!!
This pretty much says it all..
Thanks I think. The line of advance Don seemed to be advocating was because the weapon it is supposed to be countering is cheap, the solution must not exceed that amount as well. If it does, then we are better off with no solution, which is a fallacy because while the weapon may be cheap, the consequences of not having a counter will be extremely expensive. He was looking at the purchase cost, I was looking at the consequential cost.
ReplyDeleteAs for soldiers being paid, it was a rather sarcastic dig at Don's cost cutting mindset, which unfortunately has a bit of historical truth to it. Usually with mercenaries. Kill off your mercs as cannon flodder and you don't have to pay them. Economical but hardly ethical, but hey, if you were a money grubbing accountant...
And the volunteer mine-clearing tactic is historically an Iranian move. So you don't have to pay them. It's the US which pays disability. Iran just went "tough luck, step to the right next time."
This would fall under opinions. I can see why they would want 2 vehicles for the jobs, but that is an option for those with $$. Countries which are skint combine both together.
ReplyDeleteWhy they would want to split the jobs is because breecher vehicles are literally "at high risk" vehicles, they are the first onto the objective as they need to clear the path for the rest to follow, which means they are also the most likely to die. If you combined your engineering vehicle and breecher into one, you lose both capabilities if your breecher gets targeted by...oh.. everyone on the objective. With 2 vehicles, you can send your breecher off into harm's way while still not putting your defensive engineering capabilities at risk.
Another reason is also possibly the lack of overlap of the equipment involved. A breecher as you mentioned before, uses a mine plow and a line charge projector, while a defensive CEV would come with a backhoe, winch, possibly a 165mm demolition gun. None of these overlap too well, so putting them all on one chasis means that half the time, the equipment is being put at risk for absolutely no reason.
Have to admit though, AT engineering is very, very fun. 10 coil concertina wire. Makes tankers cry. Especially wound around their drive wheel. You'll need a f-cking blowtorch to cut out that mess.
dude really? seriously? name one modern day combat engineering vehicle that has a freaking demolition gun on it! the assault breacher vehicle has a mine plow and and MCLIC charges. thats it. take a look at the proposed Grizzly CEV! much better option. 2 vehicles? bullshit. thats why mine clearing is a complex operation. its much more than 2 vehicles and probably a battalion sized operation at its smallest.
ReplyDeleteDUDE!!!!! SERIOUSLY?????? who are you trying to feed this shit to?
You. :P
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, the 165mm's old. Literally my time, so sue me. 20 years army, 10 years private sector. You do the maths to see when I was last in service :)
And one thing I really do know. Until it's in service, it's all Powerpoint. I won't hold my breath waiting for the Grizzly, most of these proposals end up as vapourware.
I have now. Didn't mean to be so negative just that this issue is no way new and I didn't see why the US military couldn't use already proven counter methods.
ReplyDeleteLike the Ospreys can act as bait by making fake landings not staying close to the decoy LZ longer than what it takes for the ordnance to travel the distance.
Drones might be even easier to kill for you guys with your air power than old fashioned spotters hiding close to the LZ.
the problem is that everyone in the Pentagon is coming up with these whizbang ideas and then doing half assed tests to certify them as being effective.
ReplyDeleteits bullshit. we haven't had a real deal wargame that allowed for enemy improvisation with even primitive tech since an old Marine General kicked everyone's ass in Millienial Challenge...i believe thats what it was called...way back when.
his flock of goats sure are going to miss him.
ReplyDeleteHey, it is SNAFU! so...
ReplyDeleteIt works fine for me. I like it. I do notice that when I post, for a split second I see all the comments with a Solomon red square beside them, which is an amusing twist I don't see on other disqus sites, but it's brief and non-consequential.
Plus here -- an attaboy for a great site featuring a variety of opinions, which is what America is all about. Let's go to it, and at it, and may the truth be revealed thereby.
It does get amusing.
ReplyDeletecurrent news report:
Washington (AFP) - US Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accused Russian leaders of lying "to my face" about Moscow's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine and denounced what he called Russia's "propaganda."
This is payback for: Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria - USA Today
Speaking of childish..."to my face"
Sure it could. But I'd like to know what was threatened or promised to make Israel do that. Hard for me to believe they really want to commit to someone else's problem. And so far it looks like the vast majority of both Houses will be there to hear Mr. Netanyahu.
ReplyDeleteI like the new change to Disqus, works a lot better! I like the edit button. :)
ReplyDelete