tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141622532024-03-19T02:04:02.543-06:00Wash Park ProphetDefending Witches Since 2005.Andrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger9194125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-63053274118355392212024-03-18T12:05:00.012-06:002024-03-18T12:23:56.502-06:00Historical Causation And The Deep Future<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume that the chain of causation for historical events is:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Climate change and new technology ==> New economic realities ==> Changing cultural norms ==> Changing politics, changing religious views, new laws, and new wars.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">While individuals aren't irrelevant in history and drive the particulars of how it plays out, the Marxist concept of economic determinism is more right than it is wrong. If particular people at particular times in history had acted differently, an Arian Christianity or the cult of Mithras or Rabbinic Judaism or Zoroastrianism might have become dominant in Europe, instead of the version of Christian Orthodoxy orchestrated by Emperor Constantine, of the world we live in. If certain battles and events had come out differently, England might have been French speaking, and Ireland might predominantly speak a Celtic language. The United States might have been a constitutional monarchy under George Washington's dynasty, and the Confederate States of America might still exist today. But the technological, economic, and cultural character of those alternate histories would have been similar no matter how they got there.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Climate and technology drive change in everything else until they stop changing so much and the chain of causation plays out until it reaches a stable equilibrium, where it will then remain more or less indefinitely, until climate and technology chain gain.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Epochal periods in history, from the Out of Africa migration, to the migration of humans beyond India to Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Australia, to the human replacement of Neanderthals in Europe, to the migration of humans to the Americas, to the Neolithic Revolutions across the globe, to Indo-European expansion and the fall of the Harappans and the fall of the Minoans and the fall of an Egyptian dynasty, to the rise and fall of sedentary farming civilizations in the Amazon basin, to Bronze Age collapse and the fall of empires like the Hittite Empire, to the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, to the demise of the Anasazi, to the Black Plague in the Middle Ages, to the Dust Bowl of the Great Depression in the U.S., are all attributable to a great extent to climate events.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Technology fills in the gaps that climate doesn't explain. The domestication of a sufficient package of plants and animals in the Neolithic Revolutions. Stone working and astronomy and calendars for megalithic civilizations. Metallurgy and writing in the Copper and Bronze Ages. Domestication of the horse and the invention of a practical wheel in addition to metallurgy, for Indo-European expansion. Maritime navigation techniques and ship building for the Austronesian expansion, for Phoenician and Punic exploration and trade, for the Viking Expansion, and with European colonial expansion and the Columbian Exchange. Ironworking metallurgy and mathematics for the Iron Age. Road building, plumbing, and aqueduct building for the Roman Empire. Reinvention of art and science and mathematics in the Renaissance. The printing press and practical military use of gunpowder in the Reformation and early modern era. Then windmills and dikes in places like the Netherlands and England. Then coal driven steam engines in the Industrial Revolution. Then electricity, hydroelectric power, trains, steamships, and telecommunications. Then petroleum driven vehicles and antibiotics and vaccines. Then nuclear power and weapons and quantum physics and general relativity. Then computers and space travel and satellites and robots and automation and genetic engineering.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">We continue to produce new technologies and have much more to discovery. We've reached a point where our own technologies have brought about rapid climate change.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But our technological development has grown systematic and our scientific understanding grows ever more complete. The remaining frontiers of physics, astronomy, and cosmology probably have few technological applications. Deriving the principles of chemistry from fundamental physics is something that has already been outlined and is close to being possible to do rigorously. We understand chemistry well enough that increasingly it is becoming a matter of artistry and craftsmanship rather than a question of the limits of our scientific understanding of it. Biochemistry is the hardest part of that and we are seeing a torrent of progress there. From biochemistry and parallel study of ecology and meteorology we are coming to master biology and the medical biotechnology that flows from that knowledge.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe we'll have another century or two of significant scientific advancement and technological breakthroughs. Maybe we'll proceed two steps forward and one step back with an apocalypse or two along the way and progress will be delayed for a century or two. But science and technology are ratchets. It doesn't take many seeds for it to revive itself after even a very severe setback.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Call me an optimist, but I see a future where humanity has come to a full scientific understanding of the physical world at all scales, and has developed technologies that more or less fully exploit this scientific understanding, as a more likely one than any other possible future for humanity. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">With the room for technological innovation muted and our home planet's climate susceptible to our precise and intentional manipulation, we will soon after, probably before the year 2500 CE, settle into a stable equilibrium that will last for thousands of years, not unlike our many tens of thousands of years as hunter-gatherers, the thousands of years of the early Neolithic era, or the millennium long periods of the Copper Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age-Classic era, and the Middle Ages, respectively.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The world of 4500 CE will look more like the world of 2500 CE than the world of 2024 looks like the world of 1824.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-14752422529207086572024-03-18T09:49:00.003-06:002024-03-18T09:50:07.246-06:00That Time When Golf Was A Crime<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">James IV King of Scotland Born March 17, 1473 banned what sport activity in Scotland?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In 1491, James IV reaffirmed a ban on golf that had started in 1457 when James II banned golf and football to preserve the skills of archery. The ban was lifted in 1502 with the signing of the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between England and Scotland. James soon became a golfer himself and made the first recorded purchase of golf equipment, a set of golf clubs from a bow-maker in Perth [not the one in Australia which didn't exist yet].</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">From <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mpgcoyote/posts/pfbid0W56HmiKpxSwWroxnUAyrDFEqcDz4jzoM5KKPBtWyQWR6UdNnLnho3gNEmmCzifhQl">Mike Gardinier on Facebook</a>.</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-50900484101579485412024-03-15T12:53:00.001-06:002024-03-15T15:09:06.553-06:00Some 21st Century Infrastructure Concepts<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">If you are building a new town from the ground up, not burdened by sunk costs, a variety of infrastructure choices come into focus:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* In places that get cold in the winter, geothermal heat pumps and good insulation make the most sense relative to the alternatives. Conditioned on that choice, requiring electric stoves and ovens, and electric water heaters make sense, so that no natural gas infrastructure needs to be put in place. In places that don't get that cold and are arid, evaporative coolers and a different heating solution (such as a non-geothermal heat pump or electric heater) may make sense. Wood and natural gas stoves and fire places would probably be absent, or a rare and expensive luxury by permit.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The town doesn't need landline telephone, cable, or Internet service. Provide free town-wide wireless high speed Internet access and a 5G cell phone network with good service everywhere instead.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Power lines should be buried, so that they don't go down during storms. To make the electrical power system even more robust, houses and businesses should have standard battery backups.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Roundabouts should be preferred to four way stops and traffic lights in the vast majority of case. They reduce accidents, reduce accident severity, and don't require power to function.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* In arid areas, water hungry grass should be disfavored or banned in favor of Xeriscaping. And, golf courses should be omitted, or at least rationed and designed to be radically water thrifty. In addition to greatly reducing the dominant source of demand for municipal water, it would also greatly reduce the need for potentially health harming fertilizers and herbicides.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* All vehicles and landscaping equipment should be electric. Houses and businesses should have car chargers as standard equipment. This way the town doesn't need a gas station for cars and trucks, although it might need one or two specialty gas stations for boats, aircraft, and equipment not available in electrical versions. This also means that the town doesn't need businesses that repair and maintain internal combustion engines. And, it dramatically reduces the number of hazard prone fossil fuel carrying trucks and trains and ships in the vicinity of the town.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Electricity would be generated with solar power, wind, hydroelectric, tidal, geothermal, and/or nuclear power, but would be fossil fuel and combustion fuel (e.g. wood, incinerated trash, biodiesel, corn ethanol) free. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Homes and businesses would routinely have solar panels on them with net metering. Parking lots would routinely have car port style covers with solar panels on them with net metering, which would also greatly reduce the need to clear snow in parking lots.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Street lights would be LED and have light pollution reducing designs.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Appliances and light fixtures would be energy efficient.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Land use would be reasonable dense and mixed use to facilitate shorter travel distances, with transportation routes sensitive to walkability and bicycle friendliness.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Very cost housing, like dorms and single occupancy hotels without baths in individual units, accessory dwelling units, very small apartments, multi-family shared uses of single family homes, boarding houses, and tiny house/RV/van/tent camps with bath houses would be legal to minimize the income needed to avoid homelessness.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* There would an electric powered high speed rail connection to the nearest major city and major airport.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* All rail lines would be designed to eliminate all rail crossings from roads, reducing accidents and allowing for higher speed rail traffic. They would also be fenced to keep out people and animals, with animal and/or pedestrian bridges/tunnels installed at regular intervals.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-54763133834550418072024-03-13T01:11:00.036-06:002024-03-13T03:17:05.049-06:00The State Of The Union Is Strong<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>By a variety of measures, the U.S. is in a time of record or near record peace, prosperity, and well-being, although blue states (i.e. those that lean towards the Democratic party) are generally better off than red states (i.e. those that lean towards the Republican party). </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>This should provide a political boost to President Biden in his rematch seeking re-election against former President Donald Trump. Biden should also be helped relative to the 2020 Presidential election by his incumbency, by the fact that the electorate is less white and less Christian, by the fact that many of the oldest voters in 2020 have been replaced by younger voters, and by the fact that younger voters and Democrats have been turning out more reliably in 2020 and 2022 than in prior elections with overall voter turnout reaching record highs, and with a rolling back of felon disenfranchisement laws in many states. And, of course, Donald Trump is facing four sets of felony criminal prosecutions on more than 90 charges, and has had other legal problems such as two civil judgments against him for a combined amount of more than half a billion dollars for fraud, rape, and defamation. Fox News is wounded, after paying an immense defamation settlement to a voting machine company and facing other similar massive pending lawsuits, and almost all non-Fox News outlets have made Trump's short fallings clear. Trump's three U.S. Supreme Court appointments as part of a six to three conservative majority overruled <i>Roe v. Wade</i> in a highly unpopular decision and has been plagued by evidence of corruption leading to recover lows in its credibility, which has mobilized pro-choice voters and removed the urgency on the part of conservatives to vote for Trump to secure a conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority. </span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span>But </span></span>the polls, nationally and in swing states, show that the Biden-Trump Presidential race in 2024 (there is essentially no possibility that either major political party will pick a different nominee) is a toss up, and the polls understated Trump support in both the 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Violent crime rates in the U.S. are at their lowest level since 1970, down about 51% since 1991. </span><span style="text-align: left;">The murder rate in big cities that bounced up in the pandemic (2020-2021) has fallen again (down 5% in 2022 and down another 12% so far this year compared to the same time period in 2022) to return to almost pre-pandemic levels which are comparable to murder rates in the early 1960s and are down about 50% from the peak levels in the early 1980s. </span>Property crime rates are down 62% since 1991 and declined steadily until a slight bump upwards in 2022. Crime rates are generally higher in red states and lower in blue states.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The teen pregnancy rate is lower than it has been at any time in all of history and prehistory in North America. The teen pregnancy rate is down 75% since 1991. It is down 79% in that time period for black teens, 77% for Hispanic teens, and 76% for white teens. Teen pregnancy rates are lower in blue states and higher in red states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>After reaching a 50-year record low for two consecutive years (2020 and 2021 at 14.0 divorces per 1,000 married women), the divorce rate rose slightly in 2022 to 14.56 divorces per 1,000 married women. But, divorce rates are still lower now than at any time from 1970 to 2019. There is a class divide in marriage, however. For Americans in the top third income bracket (mostly college educated), 64% are in an intact marriage, meaning they have only married once and are still in their first marriage, comparable to 1960s and earlier levels. In contrast, only 24% of Americans in the lower-third income bracket (mostly people with no college) are in an intact marriage. </span><span>Divorce rates are lower in blue states than in red states.</span><span> </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">U.S. unemployment is at its lowest level in 54 years. The economy added 2.7 million jobs in 2023. The U.S. has had positive job growth for 38 consecutive months, putting the current streak in 5th place of the longest job streaks in US history (since 1939). Inflation-adjusted disposable personal income rose 4.2 percent in 2023.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The U.S. poverty rate in 2023 was 11.5%. It has been lower than that in only three of the last 60+ years: 2019 (10.5%), 2000 (11.3%), and 1974 (11.1%), and in none of those years was it dramatically lower. By comparison, the U.S. poverty rate was 15.1% in 1993 and 2010, was 15.2% in 1983, and was 19.0% in 1964 (and was 15.1% or more in 1965 and 1966). Poverty rates are higher in red states and lower in blue states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The percentage of Americans who don't have health insurance is at record lows (mostly due to Obamacare). A greater percentage of people don't have health insurance in red states than in blue states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">GDP growth in the U.S. has been solid during Biden's administration after experiencing an unprecedented plunge four years ago in the final year of Trump's Presidency due to the COVID pandemic. The stock market (which is a leading economic indicator of the economy's future direction) is at an all time high, despite upward trends in interest rates. The dollar is at 20 years plus highs in strength relative to other major world currencies. Per capita GPD and household net worth is much higher in blue states and blue regions of states than in red states and red regions of states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Most economic activity has returned to pre-COVID levels. Inflation has come back to normal after a COVID/Ukraine War driven spike. Gasoline prices are close to their long term average in inflation adjusted dollars.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The percentage of Americans age 25 or older who have have high school diplomas (91.1%) was an all time high in 2022, and the percentage who had college degrees (37.7%) in 2022 was just slightly below the all time high of 37.9% in 2021. In 1960, only 41.1% of Americans age 25 or more had high school diplomas and only 7.7% of Americans age 25 or more had college degrees. Educational attainment is higher in blue states and lower in red states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The number of Americans in active duty military service relative to the population is as low as it has been at any time in the last 83 years. The draft ended in the U.S. 51 years ago. U.S. military spending as a percentage of GDP is 3.48%, slightly above its post-1960 lows from 1997 to 2002 when it reached its modern low of 3.09% in 1999. In 1967 it was 9.42% of GDP. People in red states are more likely to serve in the military than people in blue states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>COVID deaths and hospitalizations are way, way down. COVID death rates were generally higher in red states (mostly due to lower vaccination rates) and lower in blue states.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>U.S. deaths from AIDS are at a record or near record low, down more than 90% from the peak number of deaths per 100,000 people in 1995. </span><span>One of the four major strains of influenza has gone extinct sometime in the last four years.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped from 52.8% in 1997 to 19.7% in 2022 and is still falling. The United States got nearly 17% of its electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power in 2022 and is still rising. That's up from just over 5% in 2013. Fourteen states produced the equivalent of more than 30% of the electricity they used from solar, wind and geothermal in 2022. That is up from just two states in 2013.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The U.S. produced 2.5% more energy in 2022 than it consumed. 2022 marked the highest level of US energy independence since before 1950. By comparison, in 2005 the U.S. consumed 44% more energy than it produced.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The percentage of Americans who identify as non-religious, 30%, is at an all time high and the percentage of Americans who identify as Christian is lower than it has been at any time since European colonization of North America. Among Americans aged 18-29 who are indicative of the future trend, 43% are not religious, 52% are Christian, and 4% adhere to some other religion. Red states are more Christian and less secular, while blue states are less Christian and more secular.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In 2022, immigrants made up 13.9% of the U.S. population, the highest percentage in more than a century. It was last this high sometime between 1910 (when it was 14.7%) and 1920 (when it was 13.2%). This is higher than in the 1900 census (13.6%), the 1880 census (13.3%), the 1860 census (13.2%), and the 1850 census (9.7%), but lower than in the 1890 census (14.8%) and the 1870 census (14.4%). The year 1970 census had the smallest foreign born population in the period from 1850 to the present at 4.7%, about a third of the current foreign born population percentage. Blue states have higher percentages of immigrants than red states.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The percentage of people living in urban areas (80.0%) v. rural areas (20.0%) in the 2020 census was essentially the same as in the 2010 census which set an all time high of 80.7% urban, with most or all of the difference from 2010 to 2020 being due to a stricter definition of what counted as urban in 2020. The percentage of the population that is urban is projected to grow steadily over the next thirty years as it has for almost all of U.S. history, and over the last 20 years, there has been much more population growth in urban areas than in rural areas. </span>Blue states are generally more urban than red states. </span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-42971575565767909532024-03-12T21:08:00.002-06:002024-03-12T21:09:02.870-06:00The Six Worst ABA Accredited Law Schools <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The American Bar Association accredits law schools in basically every state but California, and requires a 75% two year bar exam passage rate to remain accredited. Six currently ABA accredited law schools didn't meet this standard in <a href="https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/03/aba-2-year-ultimate-bar-pass-data-6-law-schools-fell-short-of-75-percent-accreditation-standard.html#more">the latest round of data</a>:</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Open Sans", proxima-nova, "Helvetica Neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a id="more" style="color: #0078b0; transition: color 0.3s ease-out 0s;"></a></span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Open Sans", proxima-nova, "Helvetica Neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"></p><table border="1" style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: "Open Sans", proxima-nova, "Helvetica Neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; height: 127px; max-width: 100%; width: 391px;"><tbody><tr style="height: 18px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><b>School Name</b></span></td><td style="height: 18px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><b>Pass %</b></span></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Cooley Law School</span></td><td style="height: 18px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">55.87%</span></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">District of Columbia</span></td><td style="height: 18px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">57.14%</span></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Pontifical Catholic University of P.R.</span></td><td style="height: 18px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">63.33%</span></td></tr><tr style="height: 19px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Inter American University of Puerto Rico</span></td><td style="height: 19px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">65.84%</span></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Western State College of Law</span></td><td style="height: 18px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">68.42%</span></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;"><td style="height: 18px; width: 290.931px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Southern University</span></td><td style="height: 18px; text-align: center; width: 85.4028px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">72.15%</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-16582848561622215752024-03-12T12:58:00.007-06:002024-03-12T13:55:39.310-06:00The FY 2025 Defense Budget Request<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The draft Fiscal Year 2025 Defense Budget Request has been released. It indicates the current U.S. military priorities. This post analyzes these requests. <span style="text-align: justify;">The Navy and Marine Corps requests are summarized </span><a href="https://news.usni.org/2024/03/11/new-navy-budget-seeks-6-battle-force-ships-10-decommissions-in-fy-2025" style="text-align: justify;">here</a> (which is the source for block quote material in this post unless otherwise indicated).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><b>Ships</b></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Navy wants to buy six battle force ships and decommission 19 ships in the next fiscal year . . . one Virginia-class attack submarine, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one Constellation-class frigate, one San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock and one Medium Landing Ship. . . . The previous plan forecast the Navy buying two Virginia-class attack submarines, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one Constellation-class frigate, one Medium Landing Ship, and a T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship instead of the LPD. . . . This year’s request continues the Navy’s plans to divest of older platforms, asking to decommission 10 hulls before the end of their service lives and nine additional ships. For the early retirements, the service wants to decommission two cruisers, the first four Expeditionary Fast Transports, one Whidbey Island-class docking landing ship, one Expeditionary Transfer Dock and two Littoral Combat Ships. Those ships are USS Shiloh (CG-67), USS Lake Erie (CG-70), USNS Spearhead (EPF-1), USNS Choctaw County (EPF-2), USNS Millinocket (EPF-3), USNS Fall River (EPF-4), USS Germantown (LSD-42), USNS John Glenn (ESD-2), USS Jackson (LCS-6) and USS Montgomery (LCS-8). . . . </span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>The Decommissioning Proposals</i> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large; text-align: start;">The Decommissioning proposals in the Navy budget are appropriate.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large; text-align: start;">Three of the ships to be decommissioned are just old and past their service life. CG-67 is 31 years old, CG-70 is 30 years old, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Germantown_(LSD-42)">LSD-42</a> (which carried 402-504 Marines and their kit, to be deployed by hovercraft) is 37 years old. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: start;">The two, to be decommissioned Littoral Combat Ships have simply been a failed experiment even though LCS-6 is just 8 years old and LCS-8 is just 7 years old.</span> </span></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USNSJohnGlennMLP2ChristeningFeb2014.JPG"><span style="font-size: large;"><img height="448" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/USNSJohnGlennMLP2ChristeningFeb2014.JPG/220px-USNSJohnGlennMLP2ChristeningFeb2014.JPG" width="640" /></span></a></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2) naming, Feb 2014</span></i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Transfer_Dock">ESD-2</a> is a modified <i>Alaska</i>-class oil tanker built at a bargain $500 million per ship that has no armaments. The concept is that: "Troops, equipment, and cargo would be transferred to the ESD by large-draft ships, from where they can be moved ashore by shallower-draft vessels, landing craft like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion">Landing Craft Air Cushion</a> (LCAC), or helicopters. of both vessels while underway. . . . [transferring troops in via] skin-to-skin mooring of a host ship alongside the ESD, and the LCAC complement . . . [of] three. The new design is 785 feet (239 m) long, with a beam of 164 feet (50 m), a top speed of over 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph), and a maximum range of 9,500 nautical miles (17,600 km; 10,900 mi)." It was initially designed for a brigade sized force (about 5000 troops) but its capacity was downsized from that, with the idea of a barge barracks supplementing its capabilities.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Decommissioning the 9 year old ESD-2, a class of ship entering service in 2015, which is already on inactive, reduced operating status also makes sense, as Wikipedia explains at the link above:</span></p><p style="text-align: start;"></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">In mid-2022, the Marine Corps announced its intention to retire the two ESD ships. Although they were cheap to buy compared to amphibious assault ships and demonstrated seabasing concepts, they were limited to connecting with sealift vessels at wave heights below three feet, and payload, fuel capacity and accommodation space were reduced to cut costs. This led to the decision to retire the ships to prioritize other vessels, such as the more successful ESBs. The proposed retirement of the two ships was rejected by Congress in December 2022.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Navy also wants to divest itsself of the 1515 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_expeditionary_fast_transport">EPF-1 to EPF-4</a> which are 9-11 years old which costs $180 million, but three of which were reduced to "Inactive, Reduced Operating Status" in 2020. These are the fastest transport ships that the Navy has ever had carrying 312 troops/600 cargo tons at 49 mph (cruising at 40 mph) with a crew of 22 with a shallow 13 foot draft with a range of 1400 miles. It appears that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Spearhead">the problem may be that</a>:</span></p><div><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">During operations in 2015, Spearhead experienced bow damage from rough seas requiring more than $500,000 (USD) in repairs. It was determined that a design change that Austal recommended to the Navy late in the design phase to save weight has resulted in a weakened bow structure. The first five ships in the class will need to be returned to Austal to have upgrades done to improve the superstructure, at a cost of $1.2M each.</span></blockquote></div><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are 11 in service with two more under construction, in addition to three that are in active. The Navy has also announced plans to buy three more "Expeditionary Medical Ship" variants of it. So, this appears to be an effort to decommission some early ships with a design flaw corrected in later ships, rather than to remove this class of ship from service generally, which seems to be sensible decision. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>New Ships</i> </span></p></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">We have too many <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer"><i>Arleigh Burke</i>-class destroyers</a> already. 73 are in currently service. They have their place, but we don't need two more at a cost of $2.2 billion each. These are an old design and vulnerable to a host of threats including submarines, sea mines, hypersonic and conventional anti-ship missiles launched from land, sea, and air, and guided bombs dropped from aircraft. They lack the automation possible in a more modern design putting more sailors (it has a crew of 323) in harm's way. They are slow (peak speed 35 mph and cruising speed of 20 mph), large (9,900 ton and 510 feet long, 66 feet wide and 31 feet of draft) targets. While they have active defenses are still highly vulnerable in peer to peer combat. Their primary offensive capability - about 96 vertically launched missiles (which can't be reloaded at sea) - can be met be fighter and bomber aircraft and submarines instead. It also has a variety of armaments for close range defense against a variety of threats: two torpedo tubes, a 5" naval gun, SeaRAM missiles for anti-aircraft/cruise missile defense, a 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, two <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster">25 mm (0.98 in)</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_38_25_mm_Machine_Gun_System">Mk 38 machine gun systems</a>, an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_weapon#Dazzler">Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy</a>, and one on the DDG-88 one <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_weapon#Examples" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-indent: -0.4em;" title="Laser weapon">High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance</a>. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The 25,300 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio-class_amphibious_transport_dock"><i>San Antonio</i>-class amphibious transport dock</a>, that the Navy wants to buy another one of, is designed for conventional amphibious assault carrying to LCAC (hovercraft landing craft) or one LCU (conventional landing craft), can carry up to 5 MV-22 Osprey VTOL transport aircraft, 14 amphibious assault vehicles (armored personnel carriers) and a 699 Marine landing force in addition to a crew of 361 sailors for a total of 1,060 military personnel on board. It has a light, but adequate defense oriented set of armaments: 2 × <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_II">Bushmaster II</a> close-in-guns, 2 × <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile">RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile</a> launchers, 2 × 8 cell <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System">Mark 41 Vertical Launching System</a> for quad-packed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESSM">ESSMs</a> (not fitted), and several twin <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun">M2 Browning machine gun</a> turrets.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The <i>San Antonio</i>-class ship it proposes is a good ship for what it does. But, its purpose isn't obvious a high priority at this moment that justifies the $2 billion sticker price. The D-Day style amphibious forced entry assault it is designed to support hasn't had a militarily important use since the Korean War in the 1950s. The Navy has twelve already and four more being fitted, under construction, or ordered. The marginal benefit of one more ship of this class, designed for a mission that is very low demand and will continue to be for the foreseeable future doesn't make that much sense.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Seen as an island hopping asset rather than as a forced entry asset, buying a 4000 ton Medium Landing Ship for about $188 million (very cheap for a ship) as a proof of concept makes some sense. It could provide flexibility and new capabilities not found in the Navy's existing LHA/LHD-type ships (basically helicopter carrier ships) that are 844 to 855 feet long and have a full load displacements between 40,000 and 45,000 tons, or its <i>San Antonio-</i>class ships. According to <a href="https://news.usni.org/2023/10/16/draft-proposal-for-affordable-medium-landing-ship-out-to-shipbuilders">this October 16, 2023 source</a> (see also <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R46374.pdf">here</a>):</span></p><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Landing Ship Medium (LSM) is billed as the “affordable shore-to-shore USMC maneuver capability,” . . . The class of 18 to 35 LSMs – formerly known as the light amphibious warship – will ferry elements of the three Marine Littoral Regiments between isolated islands, reefs and atolls as part service’s shift to its modern campaign of island hopping. . . . Requirements for the ship call for an LSM capable of carrying at least 75 Marines, hauling 600 tons of equipment, and having an 8,000 square foot cargo area. . . . “Specific configuration details will be determined during the detailed design phase, but generally the ship will be less than 400 feet long, have a draft of less than 12 feet, an endurance speed of 14 knots, and roll on/roll off beaching capability,” . . . the ship will have a light defense capability, – two 30mm guns and positions for six .50-caliber guns around the ship – a helicopter pad and a crew of about 70 sailors.</span></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The <a href="https://www.csp.navy.mil/SUBPAC-Commands/Submarines/Attack-Submarines">U.S. attack submarine capability</a> is also probably overkill, but less glaringly so, because its current buy is mostly designed to replace an older class of subs that will have to be retired before too long.</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Navy has three classes of SSNs in service. Los Angeles (SSN 688)-class submarines are the backbone of the submarine force with 40 now in commission. Thirty Los Angeles-class SSNs are equipped with 12 Vertical Launch System tubes for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Navy also has three Seawolf-class submarines. Commissioned on July 19, 1997, USS Seawolf (SSN 21) is exceptionally quiet, fast, well-armed, and equipped with advanced sensors. Though lacking Vertical Launch Systems, the Seawolf class has eight torpedo tubes and can hold up to 50 weapons in its torpedo room. The third ship of the class, USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23), has a 100-foot hull extension called the multi-mission platform. This hull section provides for additional payloads to accommodate advanced technology used to carry out classified research and development and for enhanced warfighting capabilities.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Navy continues to build the next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia (SSN 774) class. Twelve VIRGINIA's have been commissioned to date and they will replace Los Angeles Class submarines as they retire.</span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The 7,291 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate"><i>Constellation</i>-class frigate</a>, which is really almost a destroyer anyway, has the virtue of being a fully modernized design, a $1.05 billion price tag that is about half the price of a new <i>Arleigh Burke</i>-class destroyer, and having had very low development costs or risk since it is a modified French warship model already in service with minor modifications. Its crew of 200 is significantly less than that of a destroyer. It has 32 VLS missiles, 16 Naval Strike Missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, a 2" naval gun, some machines guns, a helicopter, and a helicopter drone, in addition to advanced sensors, so significantly fewer missiles than a destroyer. One is under construction and three more have been ordered so far. It lacks the largely obsolete large naval guns of other U.S. surface combatants and has no torpedoes. It has the ability to detect submarines but not dedicated anti-submarine weapons. Its active defenses are less vigorous than a destroyer. The first twelve will be based in Washington State, presumably to support Pacific and Arctic Ocean operations primarily concerned with Russian, North Korean and Chinese naval forces and more heavily armed pirates and smugglers. This said, it is vulnerable to all of the threats that a destroyer would be, particularly coastal and blue water attack submarines, which all three of its likely opponents have in meaningful numbers.</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In sum, if I could propose a Navy ship budget, I would limit the new buys to one Virginia-class attack submarine, one Constellation-class frigate, and one Medium Landing Ship, saving $6.4 billion.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Missiles</span></b></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Navy’s weapons procurement request seeks to build upon the multi-year procurement strategies for several munitions programs – the Standard Missile 6, the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, the Naval Strike Missile, and the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. . . . The Navy wants to buy 125 SM-6s . . . . This year’s request also asks for 22 Tactical Tomahawks for the Navy and Marine Corps, 102 Naval Strike Missiles for both services, 30 LRASMs, 261 AMRAMs, and 60 LRASMs Extended Range. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The request does not ask to buy any Conventional Prompt Strike weapons. CPS is a hypersonic missile that the Navy planned to field on the Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer in FY 2025 and the Virginia-class attack submarine in FY 2028. But the plans to field the weapon on the Zumwalt-class destroyers are delayed until FY 2026 . . . .</span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It makes sense that the Navy needs more proven missiles, which it has been using in anger at a high rate to take on the Houthis in Yemen, and which would be front and center in any conflict with China. Delaying a naval hypersonic missile buy by a year isn't troubling either.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The hypersonic missile is pretty much exclusively directed at the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, because no other country has a large navy that is a serious potential threat for which the conventional anti-ship missile v. hypersonic missile distinction matters. This would be a nice capability to have, but making sure that Taiwan itself has the military resources it needs to defend itself as much as possible is more important. Also, China, unlike Iran, North Korea, or Russia, has a huge vested interest in keeping robust and varied international trade with the West going, which undermines its bluster on Taiwan, so the threat of an imminent invasion of Taiwan needs to taken with a grain of salt.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Hypersonic missiles can also be deployed by air or from land based launchers, which probably makes more sense in most cases and is being developed parallel to this effort.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Naval Aviation</i> </span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Fiscal Year 2025 procurement profile includes nine F-35C Joint Strike Fighters for the Navy, four F-35Cs for the Marine Corps, 13 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, 15 Multi-Engine Training Systems for the Navy, 12 Multi Engine Training Systems for the Marine Corps, 19 CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters for the Marine Corps, and three MQ-25A Stingrays for the Navy’s carrier air wing, according to a service summary. . . .</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">the service is continuing its development of the F/A-XX next-generation fighter program, the FY 2025 request is seeking significantly fewer research and development dollars for the effort. While last year’s request sought $1.5 billion for F/A-XX, this year’s submission is asking for $454 million. . . . The F/A-XX funding is specifically for research and development of the fighter and does not include funding spent on the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, some of which are classified. . . .</span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">A modest number of new jet fighters and helicopters for the Navy and Marines and more training aircraft are par for the course. The foray into buying three unmanned carrier based refueling planes is very encouraging, even though they have failed to make a bolder purchase of unmanned carrier based fighter sized reconnaissance aircraft and armed drones. The F/A-XX program, building an F/A-18 Superhornet replacement, when the Navy is already buying F-35Cs, seems not very urgent or necessary, so cutting R&D funding for this program makes sense. This program can afford to be on the back burner.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">Drones</span></i></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The service is asking for $54 million in research and development funding for the Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle and $21 million in R&D funding for the Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle. It’s a substantial decrease compared to the FY 2024 request, which asked for $117 million for LUSV and $104 million for XLUUV. . . .</span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Developing naval drone capabilities, in contrast, is a quite urgent need that has a long lead time, and significant funding cuts here don't necessarily make sense. </span></p><p><i><span style="font-size: large;">Marine Corp Equipment</span></i></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The service is asking for 80 Amphibious Combat Vehicles, the same number it sought in FY 2024. The Marine Corps wants to buy 674 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, 123 Anti-Armor Missile Javelins, eight Long Range Fires, and 12 Medium Range Interceptor Capability launchers and missiles.</span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">These purchases seem very appropriate. </span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Marine Corps is not asking to buy any of its Navy/Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction Systems, also known as NMESIS, nor is it asking to buy any Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR).<span face="Montserrat, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;"> </span><span face="Montserrat, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bolder;"> </span></span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It isn't clear why it won't buy systems to deploy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile">Naval Strike Missiles</a> from land bases, and a capability which Ukraine's attacks on Russia's Black Sea Fleet have proved the usefulness of, and its missile purchases seem to indicate that overall the Marines are moving in that direction. Likewise, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TPS-80_Ground/Air_Task_Oriented_Radar">advanced ground based, mobile air defense radar</a> would seem to be very desirable for the Marine Corps and it isn't clear why it doesn't want those right now.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Army</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">According to <a href="https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/03/army-continues-focus-munitions-amid-ukraine-war-china-tensions/394849/">this source</a>:</span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Army requested $185.9 billion for fiscal 2025, according to budget documents released Monday. That’s an increase of 0.2 percent over the 2024 <a href="https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2024/pbr/Army%20FY%202024%20Budget%20Overview%20Briefing.pdf">budget</a> request, though it works out to a cut when adjusted for inflation. The funding is meant to support an active force of 442,300 active duty soldiers, 325,000 Army National Guard members and 175,800 reservists—a decrease in force structure that reflects <a href="https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/02/army-aims-cut-32000-billets-over-five-years-including-3000-special-operations/394517/">Army plans</a> to cut billets amid recruiting difficulties.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The service will continue buying large amounts of munitions that have been used heavily in Ukraine, such as missiles and multiple launch rocket systems. It is asking $5.7 billion for missiles, up from $4.4 billion last year.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Increases in the missiles category were included a $744 million request for the Army’s Long Range Hypersonic Weapon system, $517 million in lower air and missile defense, $493 million for Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), and $326 million for Javelin anti-tank missiles. The PrSM buy will get the Army 230 missiles, according to budget documents.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Army also wants $1.2 billion for guided multiple launch rocket systems (GMLRS), an increase over last year’s $943 million. “I believe that’s the highest budget number for GMLRS probably ever,” said Army acquisition chief Doug Bush at a media briefing Friday.</span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Army's focus on restocking and building up its advanced guided missile capabilities including hypersonic missiles is appropriate. Reducing the number of active duty Army soldiers is probably unwise, because experience is increasingly showing that relying on mobilizing reserves or conscripts is difficult and ineffective, and that the experiences of seasoned veterans is very valuable. It isn't clear why air and missile defense budgets are down given their increased salience.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This particular budget story doesn't highlight key issues: the ill-advised purchase of the M10 Booker "light" tank, the purchase of too many modified Bradley vehicles for dubious purposes (like mortar carriers and command stations), and insufficient efforts to equip National Guard guard forces in a manner specialized for their primary homeland defense function as opposed to just treating them as a second Army Reserve.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Air Force</b></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">According to <a href="https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-divest-fleet-2025/">this source</a>:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The 2025 budget predicts a total aircraft inventory of 4,903 aircraft, according to a service accounting of total aircraft inventory.</span></blockquote></div><div><h4 class="wp-block-heading" style="background-color: white; color: #283942; font-family: Lora, serif; line-height: 40px; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Fiscal Year 2025 Divestments</span></h4><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto;"><table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 852.938px;"><thead style="border-bottom: 3px solid;"><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><th style="background: rgb(0, 72, 137); border: 1px solid; color: white; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">Aircraft</span></th><th style="background: rgb(0, 72, 137); border: 1px solid; color: white; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">Number of Airframes</span></th></tr></thead><tbody style="border: 1px solid rgb(244, 245, 246);"><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">F-22</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">32</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">HH-60G</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">12</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">F-15C/D</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">65</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">A-10</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">56</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">F-15E</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">26</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">F-16C/D</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">11</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">C-130H</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">6</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">EC-130H</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">1</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">CV-22</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">2</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">E-11</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">1</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">KC-135</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">16</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">T-1</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">22</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">TOTAL</span></strong></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">250</span></strong></td></tr></tbody></table></figure><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Air Force is heavily focused on modernization, so protecting research and development comes at the cost of new aircraft purchases in the latest budget, according to top service officials. The aircraft divestment plan is worth over $2 billion in savings, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for budget Maj. Gen. Mike A. Greiner said.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“For the most part, our divestments were planned because we need to start moving the funding into the modernization programs,” Kristyn E. Jones, the acting undersecretary of the Air Force told reporters March 11.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Air Force wants to purchase 42 F-35As and 18 F-15EXs—a total of 60 new fighters. That will not meet the service’s stated long-term goal of at least 72 new fighters annually. The Air Force is moving towards awarding the first contracts for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs), semi-autonomous aircraft that will accompany the manned fighter fleet. CCAs will “rethink our definition” of the USAF fighter fleet, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin <a href="https://www.airandspaceforces.com/allvin-cca-air-force-fighter-force-structure/">said</a> on March 7.</span></div></blockquote><h4 class="wp-block-heading" style="background-color: white; color: #283942; font-family: Lora, serif; line-height: 40px; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Fiscal Year 2025 Procurements</span></h4><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto;"><table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 852.938px;"><thead style="border-bottom: 3px solid;"><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><th style="background: rgb(0, 72, 137); border: 1px solid; color: white; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">Aircraft</span></th><th style="background: rgb(0, 72, 137); border: 1px solid; color: white; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">Number of Airframes</span></th></tr></thead><tbody style="border: 1px solid rgb(244, 245, 246);"><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">F-35A</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">42</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">F-15EX</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">18</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">KC-46</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">15</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW139"><span style="font-size: large;">MH-139</span></a></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">8</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">T-7A</span></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">7</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(211, 222, 244);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-40_Clipper"><span style="font-size: large;">C-40 (a modified Boeing 737)</span></a></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><span style="font-size: large;">1</span></td></tr><tr style="background: rgb(244, 245, 246);"><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">TOTAL</span></strong></td><td style="border: 1px solid; color: #283942; padding: 0.5em;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">91<br /><br /></span></strong></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Air Force proposal is a mixed bag. </span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Decommissioning the older generation A-10 (56), older versions of the F-15 (91), and F-16 (11) in lieu of the new F-35A (42) has long been part of the Air Force's procurement plan. The biggest problem with it is that the F-35A is a poor substitute for the capabilities of the A-10 in providing close air support to ground troops. The A-10s are old planes past their due date so the problem is not really discarding them. The real problem is that the Air Force's attempt to treat the F-35A as a replacement for the A-10 isn't adequate.</span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><br /></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The decision to drop six C-130H transports and two CV-22 Osprey tilt wing transports and buying only one new transport, a C-40 (i.e. modified Boeing 737) VIP transport, also comes across like the Air Force shirking its obligations to the Army.</span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Decommissioning 32 F-22 fighters is something of a surprise, because the Air Force F-35A is really not an air superiority fighter in the same sense. Are they so old that their continued service isn't possible? </span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The buy of 18 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15EX_Eagle_II">F-15EX fighters</a> (which lack stealth) at about $100 million each is intended to replace part of the capabilities lost with older F-15s that are being decommissioned and to support a shrinking F-22 fleet. According to the F-15EX link:</span></figure><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The aircraft resulted from the U.S. Department of Defense' Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) study in 2018 to recapitalize the aging <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle">F-15C/D</a> fleet due to inadequate numbers of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor">F-22s</a>, delays in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II">F-35</a> program, and maintaining diversity in the U.S. fighter industrial base through <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Security">Boeing's</a> St. Louis division (former <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas">McDonnell Douglas</a>). The F-15EX is expected to replace the F-15C/D in performing homeland and air defense missions and also serve as an affordable platform for employing large stand-off weapons to augment the frontline F-22 and F-35.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are much cheaper and better alternatives than the F-15EX for homeland defense short of an all out air invasion from Russia which seems exceedingly unlikely. </span></p></div><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Replacing the KC-135 (16) with the KC-46 (15), is an unsurprising upgrade of too old tanker aircraft. Replacing 22 T-1 training aircraft with 7 T-7A training aircraft seems to be in the same vein.</span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></figure><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Discarding HH-60G helicopters (12) and buying MH-139 helicopters (8) are mere coincidences in time and not direct replacements. The MH-139 is notionally replacing the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_UH-1N_Twin_Huey">UH-1N helicopters</a> from 1969 that provide security at ICBM bases, so the decommissioned helicopters and the new ones are not directly related. The decommissioned <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_HH-60_Pave_Hawk">HH-60G helicopters</a> are described as follows:</span></figure><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The . . . HH-60G Pave Hawk's core mission is <b>recovery of personnel under hostile conditions, including combat search and rescue</b>. Both versions conduct day or night operations into hostile environments. Because of its versatility, the HH-60G may also perform peacetime operations such as civil search and rescue, emergency aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC), disaster relief, international aid and counter-drug activities. The USAF HH/MH-60G are in the process of being replaced by the new <i>HH-60W Jolly Green II</i>.</span></div></blockquote><figure class="wp-block-table" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 950px; overflow-x: auto; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Air Force is ditching two old model electronic warfare aircraft presumably because they are now outdated or worn out.</span></figure></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-55373325909069727642024-03-10T13:01:00.002-06:002024-03-10T13:30:00.060-06:00U.S. Secretary of State Travel Advisories<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The maps below from the U.S. Secretary of State website show that agency's current travel advisories for Americans traveling abroad. Localized versions are provided where the advisories are hard or impossible to see on other maps.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Red zones are "do not travel" areas. These are places that it simply isn't safe for Americans to be.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Orange zones are "reconsider travel" areas with some having areas of heightened risk. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Yellow areas of "exercise increased caution" are no real worry (including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Nepal, and Chile) except in areas of heightened risk where they are effectively "orange zones."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Legend:</b></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0ubEUtd6f_epLV4zmDcqdBpdFVl-5bTEjrMGa5m0XstrCFaSiijHqq5sjL93fUUrzlsxDSFtrHwVdRb5ut22ghv-Xi0WNv65YXij1melCD8FL-2Im8BAiQVahK-PG6qptV3FQlXalBfPJtTJfCQ64Ndfp0xlBoKnXfS9ReNP1LTzh_sznZiZurg/s608/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.09.48%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="608" height="632" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0ubEUtd6f_epLV4zmDcqdBpdFVl-5bTEjrMGa5m0XstrCFaSiijHqq5sjL93fUUrzlsxDSFtrHwVdRb5ut22ghv-Xi0WNv65YXij1melCD8FL-2Im8BAiQVahK-PG6qptV3FQlXalBfPJtTJfCQ64Ndfp0xlBoKnXfS9ReNP1LTzh_sznZiZurg/w640-h632/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.09.48%20PM.png" width="640" /></span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Worldwide:</b></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghjIosDjoYXCxcqiOqT_iTPK49W69ugtc6TSgIwSb2MLXvyf3OrWZySN1GGbMYPKPr9IYgqQLcskU-4d2KVRACOsbX2mJDdhOzBQ6HH5EkVqlp6SCXYZFnvpZttkHMWJIfamWd14RwKvOR0eRRWiSDEPg2dsxiXZ3q31dhlxGpWC0JSG7uOf0kig/s2052/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.06.59%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1264" data-original-width="2052" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghjIosDjoYXCxcqiOqT_iTPK49W69ugtc6TSgIwSb2MLXvyf3OrWZySN1GGbMYPKPr9IYgqQLcskU-4d2KVRACOsbX2mJDdhOzBQ6HH5EkVqlp6SCXYZFnvpZttkHMWJIfamWd14RwKvOR0eRRWiSDEPg2dsxiXZ3q31dhlxGpWC0JSG7uOf0kig/w640-h394/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.06.59%20PM.png" width="640" /></span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>In Eurasia and Africa:</b></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidl3mBFOTAq63eHX5cl8XhwAoDMbY8xVDJo5QHIvLiPhmdV50owLnKGpOevA7pboH_bclwI1F3IxwR4snWZ90-N2Ukm89duiy5Ae-bNhbth4Qyw8nb6JmIbS5XoJc5fgjOnyqmn8F1J0Y4LdOHG1Y21U2i3US616huidFA7HrV6e8fBwGuh5-SDQ/s1794/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.15.59%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1250" data-original-width="1794" height="446" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidl3mBFOTAq63eHX5cl8XhwAoDMbY8xVDJo5QHIvLiPhmdV50owLnKGpOevA7pboH_bclwI1F3IxwR4snWZ90-N2Ukm89duiy5Ae-bNhbth4Qyw8nb6JmIbS5XoJc5fgjOnyqmn8F1J0Y4LdOHG1Y21U2i3US616huidFA7HrV6e8fBwGuh5-SDQ/w640-h446/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.15.59%20PM.png" width="640" /></span></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>In Eurasia,</b> the countries marked as red zones (i.e. "do not travel") are <b>Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma (a.k.a. Myanmar), Yemen, and North Korea</b>. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Lebanon, Moldova, and Israel are "orange zones" (i.e. "reconsider travel") with Papua New Guinea, Lebanon Moldova, and Israel having some areas that are "orange zones" with increased risk. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Parts of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Albania, Kosovo, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia are "yellow zones" with increased risk.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>In Africa,</b> the countries marked as red zones are <b>Libya, Mali, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia</b>.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Uganda, Egypt, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, are "orange zones." Parts of </span>Egypt, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of Congo are "orange zones" with increased risk.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Parts of Algeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Benin, Cameroon, Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique, are also "yellow zones" with increased risk.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>In the Caribbean and Mesoamerica:</b></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJE4WThTLz4a2HI7gJy0ryE8eJ1YV3PjxrLM35stH2RGqqnNeX7zqQW2XQmAOvbc7EFlqs2EeeodhZBprQHsWB0_DT6hX0GtEoritvanuoxtQJK7Yy8yKs0AkpUgq717947l-0tEYO1iG_JQRFaq7A4pFvDTmPm5YC98mkqV8bVPOLVf0yazBsWw/s2626/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.10.33%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1262" data-original-width="2626" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJE4WThTLz4a2HI7gJy0ryE8eJ1YV3PjxrLM35stH2RGqqnNeX7zqQW2XQmAOvbc7EFlqs2EeeodhZBprQHsWB0_DT6hX0GtEoritvanuoxtQJK7Yy8yKs0AkpUgq717947l-0tEYO1iG_JQRFaq7A4pFvDTmPm5YC98mkqV8bVPOLVf0yazBsWw/w640-h308/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.10.33%20PM.png" width="640" /></span></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglplNRP2_0Xn3h4annkCbl398-92oNnKeX9Su5AgAiSEti-XbsXmnSXQY0_m9VQK3S8yDKqOrxM83gyG2I6IetyqBX7c19VDbFP4ttdNuUnAyD9tIP-5dstf6wwRJr_tGfm25reuSKW1rAp_VRwqx0K1C9dVYio_u3MW1a_XwiBI4TwjsTJpAbSg/s2444/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.11.52%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1260" data-original-width="2444" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglplNRP2_0Xn3h4annkCbl398-92oNnKeX9Su5AgAiSEti-XbsXmnSXQY0_m9VQK3S8yDKqOrxM83gyG2I6IetyqBX7c19VDbFP4ttdNuUnAyD9tIP-5dstf6wwRJr_tGfm25reuSKW1rAp_VRwqx0K1C9dVYio_u3MW1a_XwiBI4TwjsTJpAbSg/w640-h330/Screenshot%202024-03-10%20at%2012.11.52%20PM.png" width="640" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In Latin America and the Caribbean, the countries marked as red zones are <b>Haiti, Venezuela, and parts of Mexico</b> (including the tourist destinations of Acapulco and<span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #4d5156; text-align: left;"> </span>Mazatlán). </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Columbia are "orange zones." Parts of Mexico (including Tijuana and all other cities near the U.S.-Mexico border), Panama, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Brazil are also "orange zones."</span></div><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-65976332329592027712024-03-09T14:48:00.002-07:002024-03-09T14:48:31.402-07:00Swords Into Ploughshares<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_-e3K1WZx4lz6-gfodz7D8HGsxE1yg7cnbWMRNzkoSTFnRE639aeEx1m5EmDzW7Om25oK2wXSbLUt3OoxclR4RxJWRSmj58-KBrW9nWeQR5HNG1ifLxdikdY2aoVApxPWpjupsmH_K0pCToiIPu4eogmx_NZY0bNy7v127C4sgZcteGhGdGgGA/s960/428210102_845528214282195_3912334873893331388_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_-e3K1WZx4lz6-gfodz7D8HGsxE1yg7cnbWMRNzkoSTFnRE639aeEx1m5EmDzW7Om25oK2wXSbLUt3OoxclR4RxJWRSmj58-KBrW9nWeQR5HNG1ifLxdikdY2aoVApxPWpjupsmH_K0pCToiIPu4eogmx_NZY0bNy7v127C4sgZcteGhGdGgGA/w640-h426/428210102_845528214282195_3912334873893331388_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">While most countries use Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRL) as weapons of war, China is using them as fire fighting equipment by launching fire retardant into burning high rise buildings.</span></blockquote></div><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-29235506270558576752024-03-05T20:09:00.002-07:002024-03-05T20:12:33.549-07:00The 2024 Presidential Election Update<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Today is Super Tuesday. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a poorly reasoned and results driven 9-0 decision that Trump can remain on the ballot.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Barring a candidate dropping out of the race due to disability, death, or in Trump's case, loss of support due to one or more felony convictions, the Presidential race in November will be a Biden v. Trump rematch.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The U.S. Supreme Court decision to take up an immunity question in the January 6 felony case Trump is facing, despite the likelihood that it will affirm that decision, takes one of the four criminal trials Trump may face before the election effectively off the calendar. But he still faces three felony cases that could go to trial before the election, a federal classified documents case in Miami, Florida, an election tampering case in Atlanta, Georgia, and a hush money related business fraud case in New York State, which will go to trial later this month.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The polling is still stunningly close, despite a strong economy that usually helps an incumbent, and myriad problems with Trump that would have destroyed any other candidate.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">On the other hand, about 30% of Republican primary and caucus voters are supporting Nikki Haley, suggesting that they might not be as reliable in the general election if Trump is at the top of the ticket.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-81330429108405038482024-03-03T23:20:00.011-07:002024-03-05T18:56:42.554-07:00A High Priority Delivery Idea<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Variant One</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">A concept for a two component high priority package delivery drone:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Package to deliver: 100 kg. For example, anti-venom doses, poison antidotes, organs to transplant, key medical equipment, vaccines, samples of highly aggressive infectious diseases for analysis at top labs, satellite phones, emergency kits. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* These would be for people isolated far at sea, on islands, or in a wilderness, roadless areas, or areas cut off by natural disaster from rapid overland access, or for access to one of a kind resources that aren't available locally in a much more developed area that must reach their destinations on the fastest possible schedule.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The package is carried by a quadcopter drone that can pickup and land vertically from a specified spot. For example, it might pick up a package from a hospital helipad and deliver the package at a different hospital or ship helipad. The quadcopter's range is not particularly great, maybe 15-50 km, and the maximum altitude isn't particularly exceptional. The quadcopter is ideally battery powered, rather than having its own engine to make it easier to maintain.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The quadcopter drone with its package is picked up and released in the air from a fixed wing supersonic aircraft drone, comparable in size or something than a small jet fighter, and as fast or faster at cruising speed than a small jet fighter.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The fixed wing supersonic aircraft drone is meant for civilian use. It has no armaments, no flare defenses, no stealth, no military grade avionics, no super maneuverability, and no ability to refuel in mid-air. It can handle autonomous, instrument only landings and can interact with ground control via a link with a base station operator. It can take off and land at any general aviation airport, but is not capable for "short" or "vertical" takeoff and landing by jet fighter standards itself, and uses some form of widely available jet fuel. The design seeks to minimize, but not to eliminate entirely, a sonic boom. The range is as long as technologically feasible perhaps 5000 km. The technical feasibility of this is demonstrated by <a href="https://www.twz.com/x-59-supersonic-test-jet-rolled-out-at-skunk-works">the prototype X-59</a>.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiYmFUSrKevPD8V09JPxWy-PFNxMk45EH6d4pN_FJn6PqHojYVrRdntlxBLzFvVEzJEUCDbIevnh7wFFaQLYMoGAh85hj10nR_4AXE31YEzz-qCK2QebuVVGmiW52cfhVm8XNIarOfea7fW_G7DlaIxI_GdMuitBKaK81yIytazUoNv7RDPnn8Ykw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1238" data-original-width="1884" height="420" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiYmFUSrKevPD8V09JPxWy-PFNxMk45EH6d4pN_FJn6PqHojYVrRdntlxBLzFvVEzJEUCDbIevnh7wFFaQLYMoGAh85hj10nR_4AXE31YEzz-qCK2QebuVVGmiW52cfhVm8XNIarOfea7fW_G7DlaIxI_GdMuitBKaK81yIytazUoNv7RDPnn8Ykw=w640-h420" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The virtue of the drone v. the manned option is that it allows for a smaller size (and scale matters a lot in the capabilities of things that fly, favoring smaller designs), and a lower cost.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Variant Two</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Skip the quadcopter, which would be dealt with by using a locally supplied helicopter or drone quadcopter between the closest general aviation airport and the actual delivery site. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This would result in only a modest delivery time hit, but would greatly reduce technological complexity, size, and cost.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Variant Three</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">A manned variant with similar capabilities to the primary fixed wing aircraft, might skip the carried drone with VTOL capabilities, instead have a crew of one pilot and would deliver: (1) a medic and a litter passenger, (2) one passenger and 500 kg of cargo, (3) two passengers (one in a jump seat) and 250 kg of cargo, or (4) three passengers (two in jump seats). This could be used to transport a patient or to deliver specialist doctors or other experts in a very time dependent manner. It might be larger than a jet fighter, and similar in size to a <a href="https://simpleflying.com/top-5-fastest-private-jets/#bombardier-global-8000---mach-0-94">small private jet</a> (some of which can reach 0.94 times the speed of sound already, and an 8000 km range, with more cargo and passenger space than complicated for this plane). </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">If the cost/need analysis determined it was a better idea, the cargo/passenger capacity might be doubled. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Configured for quick loading and unloading, this could be a higher cost, but more versatile, alternative to Variant Two. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">A sub-variant might allow for airdrops of cargo by parachute with GPS guidance, and for passengers to parachute out. Or, some of the cargo space might be used for a motorcycle (with or without a sidecar), or an ATV, or even a small jeep, or even an airdrop-ready high sea state worthy, deep ocean life raft. These might be useful in search and rescue operations.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-21729693463732731472024-03-03T22:21:00.003-07:002024-03-03T22:22:21.847-07:00NoVID No More<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">So, upon flying back to Denver from Las Vegas where a three family gathering related to their half-marathon had concluded (don't worry, I was in a sag wagon capacity and the two races I've run in recent history were a 0.5 km race with donuts halfway and a 1 mile race mostly against preschoolers and elementary school aged kids and their mom's carrying them), on a Monday night redeye (we got home to our house at 3 a.m. on Tuesday), I was seated next to an old lady who refused to mask despite the fact that she was at peak coughing from COVID and my efforts to mask didn't help.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Symptoms started to appear at 5 p.m. on Wednesday. I was feverish, shivered for three hours straight the first day, was mentally confused to the point of delirium, aching all over, persistently having wet deep chest coughs to distraction, weak, having intense headaches and sore throat, runny noise and congestion, etc. that left me awake and coherent for only about 2-3 hours from 8 p.m. that day until 11 a.m. on Thursday. It stayed bad. I spent Friday mistaking a lot of fever dreams for real and bumbling into things, and at noon on Friday, I tested positive for COVID.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">I'd held out for almost four years during which I'd gotten vaccine or booster shots six times, and was the last family member in my extended family to get it, but my time ran out.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Kaiser managed to get me hooked up with Paxlovid, the COVID anti-viral drug, in time to get my first dose less then seven hours after testing positive, and I'm half way though that five day course of drugs. This helps. Still, I only managed to stay awake and not delirious for about ten hours today and eight hours yesterday and six hours on Friday and maybe four hours on Thursday. And my attention span is totally shot. I'm having trouble staying focused on anything for even fifteen minutes. I'm still coughing, but not as bad. To spare the rest of the family, on the same flight but further away from Typhoid Mary, I've spent the whole time in isolation, either in my bedroom alone, or wearing a mask elsewhere in the house.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Lots of work has been pushed to the side which will have to be caught up. But you can't work when the highest level activity you can manage half the time is to stare at the ceiling. Today and yesterday, I've managed brief Facebook reel sessions, and listening to three or four songs at a time before not being able to follow it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Still between the vaxes and the promptly Pax, I'm pretty sure that I won't die, won't have to be hospitalized, and probably won't even get long COVID, despite having more than one pre-existing condition and being over age fifty, which might otherwise put me in a higher risk group. And, I've followed all doctors orders about hydration, OTC painkillers, etc. I'll probably even manage to do some work tomorrow, although very likely not a full day's work and not the most demanding tasks yet. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">By the time I get better, my blisters from my foolish choice to spend four days in Las Vegas wearing brand new shoes, might heal as well.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-79050718996636106822024-03-01T10:27:00.000-07:002024-03-01T10:27:05.531-07:00Gaza's Best Move<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The best move for the Palestinians in Gaza right now is complete and unconditional surrender.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Turn over all hostages.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Surrender all of their weapons.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Offer up all fighters, spies, and politicians involved in the October 7 attack, knowing that they will probably be executed.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Unconditionally recognize the legitimacy of Israel in the boundaries it claims.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Disavow any right of return, refugee status, or claims of occupation.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Ask for mercy.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Simply put, Gaza has absolutely no bargaining power of its own, and no internationally allies who have any influence or capacity to impact Israel's actions.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Mercy isn't granted to people who hold hostages, are prepared to make war against you, or deny your legitimacy and right to exist.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Surrender is really Gaza's best shot. I doubt that it will choose this path, but there are ample historical precedents for this strategy.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-7501540190367649302024-02-28T16:12:00.003-07:002024-02-28T16:12:50.761-07:00Optimal Taxation<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Economists are not building on a strong shared foundation of understanding.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Optimal tax theory—the branch of public economics that focuses on the design of welfare-maximizing tax systems—has produced two especially stark results regarding the ideal treatment of capital. First, Anthony Atkinson and Joseph Stiglitz concluded in a seminal 1976 article that the optimal capital tax is zero and that all revenue should be raised from taxes on labor income. Four years later, Stanley Fischer analyzed a model similar to Atkinson and Stiglitz’s and concluded that the welfare-maximizing system would tax only capital—not labor—and would potentially tax capital at a rate as high as 100 percent.</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">From the <a href="https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/02/capital-taxation-in-the-middle-of-history.html#more">Tax Profs Blog</a>.</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-21921478694639875982024-02-27T21:22:00.000-07:002024-02-27T21:22:10.434-07:00Reducing Opportunity Reduces Suicide Rates<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Gun control is the most effective means by which the U.S. could dramatically reduce its suicide rate.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The bridge is sealed up.” Last month, with those words, the general manager of the Golden Gate Bridge announced the completion of a suicide barrier — stainless steel netting that extends about 20 feet out from the walkway for the length of the bridge, making a jump into the water below extraordinarily difficult.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">For decades, friends and family members of people who had jumped pleaded for a barrier. And for decades, my colleague John Branch <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/us/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-nets.html?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">recently reported</a>, officials found reasons — the cost, the aesthetics — not to build one.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But something is changing <b>in the United States,</b> where<b> the suicide rate has risen by about 35 percent over two decades, with deaths approaching 50,000 annually. The U.S. is a glaring exception among wealthy countries; globally, the suicide rate has been dropping steeply and steadily.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Barriers are in the works on the William Howard Taft Bridge in Washington, D.C., the Penobscot Narrows Bridge in Maine and several Rhode Island bridges. Universities in Texas and Florida have budgeted millions of dollars for barriers on high structures. Scores of communities are debating similar steps.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Research has demonstrated that <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/duration/?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">suicide is most often an impulsive act</a>, with <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/217131/?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">a period of acute risk</a> that passes in hours, or even minutes. Contrary to what many assume, people who survive suicide attempts often go on to do well: Nine out of 10 of them <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">do not die by suicide</a>. . . .</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">For generations, psychiatrists believed that, in the words of the British researcher Norman Kreitman, “anyone bent on self-destruction must eventually succeed.”</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Then something strange and wonderful happened: <b>Midway through the 1960s, the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/pdf/brjprevsmed00022-0018.pdf?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">annual number of suicides in Britain</a> began dropping — by 35 percent in the following years — even as tolls crept up in other parts of Europe.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">No one could say why. Had medicine improved, so that more people survived poisoning? Were antidepressant medications bringing down levels of despair? Had life in Britain just gotten better?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The real explanation, Kreitman discovered, was none of these. <b>The drop in suicides had come about almost by accident: As the United Kingdom phased out coal gas from its supply to household stoves, levels of carbon monoxide decreased. Suicide by gas accounted for almost half of the suicides in 1960.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It turns out that <b>blocking access to a single lethal means — if it is the right one — can make a huge difference.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The strategy that arose from this realization is known as “means restriction” or “means safety,” and vast natural experiments have borne it out. <b>When Sri Lanka restricted the import of toxic pesticides, which people had ingested in moments of crisis, its <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154644/?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">suicide rate</a> dropped by half over the next decade.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">More than half of U.S. suicides are carried out with firearms. Guns are a reliably deadly means, resulting in death in about 90 percent of attempted suicides; intentional overdoses, by contrast, result in death about 3 percent of the time.</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>When an attempt fails, “these folks generally survive and go on to get past these thoughts, go on to live happy, full lives,”</b> said Dr. Paul Nestadt, a suicide researcher at Johns Hopkins. <b>“If you are a gun owner, that brief moment where the suicidal thoughts exceed the desire to be alive for tomorrow, that’s all it takes.”</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Other countries, <a href="https://www.gsoa.ch/wp-content/uploads/archive/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240224">like Israel</a>, have brought down suicide rates dramatically by restricting access to guns.</b> But in the U.S., about 400 million guns are circulating in private hands, said Michael Anestis, who leads the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center. “We don’t know where they are, and even if we did, we would have no way of getting them,” he said.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">From the <a href="https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/render?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20240221&instance_id=115684&nl=the-morning&paid_regi=1&productCode=NN&regi_id=1611075&segment_id=158733&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2Fd6d1b2f2-22eb-56ca-bcdb-da0db43b81e9&user_id=4577bbf2ed4399118f6038b0b76db34e">New York Times</a>.</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-54065699843061279232024-02-23T03:32:00.002-07:002024-02-23T03:41:17.699-07:00Upgun Everything<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In modern warfare, everyone in the theater of warfare is on the front lines. The way that we arm military vehicles in the air, at sea, and on land, should reflect that reality. No manned military vehicle or system or base outside the U.S. should be considered out of harms way of hostile enemy forces, and thus exempt from having basic minimums of weapons and force protection.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, everything military that isn't already optimized for primary combat roles should be up gunned, and should have some basic minimum levels of active and passive defenses. This echoes somewhat, the Marine Corps motto that every Marine is a rifleman, in addition to any other responsibilities that a Marine may have in a unit.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">As an aside to save for another future post, responsibility for military homeland defense against invasions, and responses to disasters and insurrections at home, should be the primary responsibility of the Army National Guard, the Air Force National Guard, and the Coast Guard, whose organization and gear should be specialized to meet these needs rather than simply serving as a second tier group of reserve soldiers as they do today. Equipment and capabilities not necessary for homeland defense and disaster response should be transferred from the National Guard and Coast Guard to the Army Reserves, Air Force Reserves, Navy Reserves, and Marine Corps Reserves.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Upgunning In The Air</span></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Warplanes without offensive weapons are an oxymoron that should not exist in the 21st century U.S. military.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Every non-combatant military aircraft including every transport helicopter, VIP transportation plane, manned reconnaissance aircraft, V-22, C-22 Greyhound, C-130, C-17, C-5, tanker aircraft, and light attack fixed wing aircraft in the U.S. military should have, at a minimum, <b>a couple of bottom of the line air to air missiles and a couple of guided air to ground missiles or bombs.</b> They should also have, at least, <b>basic anti-drone/anti-missile electronic jamming defenses</b>. Right now, many of these aircraft are completely unarmed or have only flare decoys, and don't even provide protection for personnel and vulnerable fuel and ammunition from small arms fire. They should also all have night vision and instrument landing capabilities.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The goal is not to make these aircraft part of the primary offensive air fleet. Instead, the goal is to provide some limited capability to engage low end interceptor aircraft or enemy civilian aircraft crudely repurposed for war, to provide some ability to engage small ground forces obstructing a landing area, and to provide an additional layer of defense against unsophisticated remote controlled or GPS guided drones and missiles, to the extent that this can be done with minimal additional weight. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, while all aircraft mostly rely on speed, altitude, and distance to protect themselves from enemy fire, rather than armor, manned military aircraft should <b>protect people inside them from small arms fire at least as well as an infantryman's flak jacket and helmet</b>, and should provide a similar level of protection to fuel tanks and carried ammunition. In aircraft with a simple aluminum hull, this could be a simple as retrofitting a kevlar lining in parts of the aircraft exterior that have vulnerable targets behind it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">These basically defensive weapons won't provide the benefit of the advanced avionics and radar, maneuverability, supersonic speeds, or stealth of fighter and bomber aircraft. But they would be better than the virtually nothing that some of these aircraft have now. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">None of this is intended to slight existing minimum standards like the availability of ejection seats, parachutes, rescue beacons, first aid kits, life rafts and personal floatation devices, first aid kits, back up oxygen sources, and small arms carried by flight crews, etc.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Upgunning At Sea</span></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the same vein, every ship that is in, or could be called into, U.S. Navy service (including merchant marine and Coast Guard vessels) should also meet some minimum standards, as should almost every boat (even deep sea/ocean class life rafts).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Every manned surface vessel and submarine (other than hospital ships), including amphibious force transport ships, aircraft carriers, fuel tankers, supply ships, littoral combat ships, expeditionary sea bases, command ships, rescue ships for sunken submarines, and Coast Guard cutters, should have, at a minimum:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* <b>Some sort of air defense suitable for use against a helicopter or large drone</b>, such as a couple of man portable anti-aircraft missiles, like the Stinger;</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* <b>Basic anti-drone/anti-missile electronic jamming defenses</b>; </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* <b>Some sort of additional anti-air drone/anti-missile weapons</b> (a variety of systems from lasers to microwave energy bursts to small missiles to the Phalanx Close In Weapons System to interceptor drones are being explored for that purpose);</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* <b>If it has no naval guns, at least a couple of surface to surface missiles, with at least the capabilities of an army anti-tank missile, like a TOW missile or a Javelin missile</b>, that could be used to take out a small boat or unmanned surface boat drone, carrying pirates, a small military boarding party, or the like;</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Each vessel should also have <b>some sort of machine gun, from an assault rifle in a life raft or very small craft, to a 0.50 caliber heavy machine gun or small 25-50mm canon</b> of the scale carried as a secondary weapon on a tank or infantry fighting vehicle, to provide a direct fire tool to respond to the same kind of threats, at the largest size that would not be a significant burden to the vessel;</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Any ship of about 500-1000 tons or more, regardless of its purpose should also have <b>at least one or two shipping container sized anti-ship missiles</b> that are either comparable to those found in existing vertical launch systems on frigates and destroyers, <b>or a smaller anti-ship missile system capable of at least disabling, if not sinking, most non-warships, missile boats, cutters, corvettes, frigates, and destroyers</b>; </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* all but the very smallest military vessels and vessels that could be called into military service should <b>protect people inside them from small arms fire at least as well as an infantryman's flak jacket and helmet,</b> and should provide a similar level of protection to fuel tanks and carried ammunition. In vessels whose hulls don't meet those standards, like deep sea/ocean grade life rafts and light aluminum vessels, this could be a simple as retrofitting a kevlar lining in parts of the hull, or select "safe rooms" walls that have vulnerable targets behind them; </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Every military vessel should have <b>at least one airborne drone</b>, with a size suitable for the vessel, that it can deploy to provide visual awareness of a larger area than can be seen from the highest vantage point on the vessel itself, and night vision capabilities; and</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Every military vessel, right down to life rafts and the smallest inflatable motorboats, should have <b>a secure satellite phone or a satisfactory alternative</b> (with the capacity to allow the user to call in air strikes or missile strikes as a forward observer).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">As in the case of aircraft, these enhancements aren't going to turn every cargo ship into a primary surface combatant. But, it would provide military vessels with more protection than the vast majority of civilian vessels against pirates, small boarding parties, swarms of armed small boats, attack helicopters, armed drones, an isolated warship on patrol (including one that might have been disguised as a fishing boat or yacht), and small arms fire while in port or near shore.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the status quo, some or all of these capabilities are absent from almost all non-combatant vessels and also from amphibious force transport ships, littoral combat ships, and aircraft carriers. But the cost and weight involved in upgrading the entire fleet to this military capability level would be modest, and it would greatly increase the resilience of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard as a whole, for example, allowing these ships to have some defenses if they are separated from their escort warships or if there is a need for them to deploy in small numbers without an escort. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">None of this is intended to slight existing minimum standards like the availability of life rafts, personal floatation devices, rescue beacons, medical resources, small arms carried by crews on ships, etc.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Upgunning On Land</span></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>* </b>Every military ground vehicle that is manned or carries fuel or ammunition (bigger than a motorcycle, electric bicycle, or ATV), retrofitted if necessary, and every military base that is more than a tent to be used for one or two nights, should have <b>areas inside them that protect personnel from small arms fire at least as well as an infantryman's flak jacket and helmet</b> (perhaps in a safe room, fox hole, or trench in the case of a base), and should provide a similar level of protection to fuel tanks and carried ammunition. The U.S. military shouldn't have to repeat the lessons we learned from the losses to unarmored Humvees with completely unarmored logistics support vehicles;</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Every new military ground vehicle that is manned or carries fuel or ammunition deployed outside the U.S. should have <b>a "v-shaped hull" or other design features that mitigate the risk of harm to personnel, fuel, and ammunition from IEDs and land mines</b>;</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Every manned military ground vehicle deployed outside the U.S., other than medical vehicles, and every military base that is more than a tent to be used for one or two nights, should carry, either in easily accessible storage or an in integrated weapons system: (1) <b>at least one anti-armor weapon</b> such as a TOW missile, Javelin missile, recoilless rifle, or rocket propelled grenade, that can be used against unarmored or lightly armored enemy military vehicles or light fortifications (e.g. sand bags), (2) <b>at least one man portable anti-aircraft missile</b>, like the Stinger, for use against helicopters, large armed drones, and low flying fixed wing aircraft, and (3) <b>the largest feasible direct fire weapon for the vehicle in question</b> from an automatic weapon from a carbine for each soldier on the vehicle, to a remotely operated CROWS mount, to a 0.50 caliber heavy machine gun or small 25-50mm canon of the scale carried as a secondary weapon on a tank or infantry fighting vehicle; this minimum can be met, if necessary, with a modest sized additional storage bin in vehicles that lack these capabilities like supply trucks, and at forward operating bases;</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Every manned military ground vehicle deployed outside the U.S. and every military base that is more than a tent to be used for one or two nights, should have: (1) <b>basic anti-drone/anti-missile electronic jamming defenses</b>, (2) <b>some sort of additional point defense anti-air drone/anti-missile weapon or weapons</b> (as noted before, a variety of different concepts are being explored), (3) <b>a system to instantly identify the location of</b> (and where feasible, to immediately fire back at, if feasible to add this capability) <b>snipers</b> who fire on the vehicle or base, (4) <b>at least one airborne drone</b> with a size suitable to the vehicle or base that it can deploy to provide visual awareness of a larger area than can be seen at ground level, (5) <b>night vision equipment</b>, and (6) <b>a secure satellite phone or a satisfactory alternative</b> (with the capacity to allow the user to call in air strikes or missile strikes as a forward observer).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Again, these enhancements aren't going to turn every manned military ground vehicle into a primary combatant, and won't turn every forward operating base into a castle or ultra-secure bunker. But, it would provide all military vehicles and semi-permanent bases with more protection than the vast majority of civilian vehicles against small arms fire and shrapnel, and some way to fight back against unexpected threats more powerful than infantry with small arms. This is essential in the modern war zone where the entire theater of the conflict is effectively on the front lines.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the status quo, some or all of these capabilities are absent from almost all non-combatant vehicles such as logistics trucks, which have proven vulnerable in the Ukraine War on both sides. But the cost and weight involved in upgrading the entire U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps to this military capability level would be modest, and it would greatly increase the resilience of U.S. military ground forces.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">None of this is intended to slight existing minimum standards like flak jackets, helmets, first aid kits, a soldier's personal carbine, rifle or handgun, putting soldiers on patrol duty at forward operating bases, air bags and spare tires in vehicles, and ammunition carried by individual soldiers, etc.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-79151801277980033802024-02-21T14:05:00.003-07:002024-02-21T15:54:02.312-07:00Random Thoughts<p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">International Law</span></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* International law should recognize a duty to give up and acknowledge that you have been defeated in a claim to territory at some point.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The twelve mile exclusive zone in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea was probably based upon the range of naval guns on warships, allowing countries to exclude warships from the range at which they could strike their shores. But in an era where missiles have much longer ranges, no country can keep itself safe from missile attacks with distance alone. Does the existence of the ability to strike at long ranges call for reduced military sovereignty?</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* International law should recognize some basis making it easier for third-party nations to depose international bad actors like the current leaders of Russia and North Korea.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Iran</span></b></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Islam isn't doing so well in Iran at the grass roots. "Barely 1/3 identify as Shia Muslims. There are now more Zoroastrian and Atheists than Sunnis. Conversions to Christianity are skyrocketing. Mosque attendance is in the gutter. Muslim baby names have dropped massively. Of course the IRI is panicking." Only 40.4% of Iranians self-identify as Muslim and more than 20% of them identify as non-Shiite, which is pretty pathetic for a Shiite Islamic theocracy. About 46.6% are some manner of "none". Apparently, about 5.4% are adherents of non-Muslim religions.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhH-pwAbils4BPrt_Y-j2joEKU-4fQKNiTEjRaGJNda1Xhkj9Rh08ZiSpxFR0w1WGB3QU6qaz8L3uN1K01rYRA6OuIUah1FimIs92wMb3TjsGiVZxZwab6mgV1PTMrKaFoYIqp11JBCLTLQF4O7juRuEtehjtw6WHOm8MER8qvKHO6cappB-5-GRQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1220" data-original-width="1080" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhH-pwAbils4BPrt_Y-j2joEKU-4fQKNiTEjRaGJNda1Xhkj9Rh08ZiSpxFR0w1WGB3QU6qaz8L3uN1K01rYRA6OuIUah1FimIs92wMb3TjsGiVZxZwab6mgV1PTMrKaFoYIqp11JBCLTLQF4O7juRuEtehjtw6WHOm8MER8qvKHO6cappB-5-GRQ=w565-h640" width="565" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">Via <a href="http://twitter.com/NiohBerg/status/1752777776732537211">Twitter</a>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Politically, Iran has gone from being an absolute theocracy to a flawed democracy in which voters make genuine choices about the country's secular leaders, albeit subject to significant interference by theocratic institutions. It is not a one party state, or a dictatorship/quasi-monarchy on the secular side with no prospect of replacing political leaders who have real political power. Taken together with creeping, covert secularization, and significant religious diversity, and an economy which isn't dominated entirely by oil wealth, the prospects of flipping Iran into a more democratic, less theocratic, less internationally aggressive country are real.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* This said, Iran is responsible for a lot of global mischief. It is behind the military capabilities of the Houthis in Southern Yemen, Hamas in Israel, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is a leading military exporter to Russia. It has close military ties to North Korea. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Iran's homegrown defense industry capabilities are, like those of Israel and South Africa, and to a less extent, Turkey, a product of international sanctions that made buying arms from third-parties harder than making its own.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Rescuing People And Mobile EMS</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The Army plans buy of about a thousand Armored Multipurpose Vehicles for medical evacuation and field hospital use. Surface combatant warships are vulnerable multiple threats and have limited ability to protect themselves from them. War games show that in a Chinese attempted amphibious invasion of Taiwan that virtually every Chinese, American, Japanese, and South Korean ship involved in the fight would be sunk in fairly short order and that many warplanes involved in the fight would also go down. This would leave the Taiwan strait full of sailors and airmen, many of whom do not have fatal injuries but wouldn't have the ability to swim to shore before drowning and would be in an area of active or imminent armed conflict. The U.S. has few capabilities dedicated to this purpose (it has one or two submarine deep sea rescue units and puts life boats on ships) and does not even seem to have given much thought to it. Some ideas that come to mind are a quasi-artillery or quasi-missile that delivers to life boats/life vests to some point in the sea, a life boat that can be transmitted by drone to specific coordinates, a submersible or semi-submersible search and rescue (SAR) ship/boat, an unarmed SAR helicopter (possibly also able to drop life vests and/or life boats), or small manned rescue boats.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The U.S. Navy is overdue for new hospital ships. But, perhaps they should be assigned to the Coast Guard instead in peacetime.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Motorcycle based paramedics/car accident responders still make great sense. So does drone based emergency equipment delivery (e.g. jaws of life, medicines, medical equipment).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Politics</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Objectively, the Republican Party is the stupid party. People who are aware of basic indisputable facts, like knowing what legal issues Trump is facing, knowing some medical basic facts about pregnancy, knowing that the 2020 election was legitimate, knowing the state of the economy and crime rates, knowing that immigration doesn't increase crime, etc. almost invariably is associated with non-MAGA political views. Horrible MAGA political views are tied to a significant extent to a view of what the facts about society are that is at odds with reality.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The MAGA movement is the terrifying intersection of demagogues and natural stupidity, a problem that the Founders were well aware of and feared all of the way back to the Federalist papers, but didn't have a solution for other than virtuous voters. On one hand, this would offer hope that getting masses of people to know basic facts would save us. On the other hand, we know that lots of people and especially MAGA types with less education and high levels of distrust of reliable sources of information, are fact resistant and that just presenting information to people doesn't change their views on issues with partisan or ideological or theological relevance. People can change views to stay in line for their own leaders, at least temporarily (see, temporary GOP support for Russia and Putin), but the process is a social one not a logical-rational one.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Republicans are also much more open to political and private violence, outright defiance of the constitution and political structures, cheating in both political and private matters, crime, and corruption. They have a herder mentality in a post-herder society.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The U.S. is at a very vulnerable point and could get much worse. The abortion bans in half the states following the <i>Dobbs</i> decision is one example (although state initiatives and state courts applying state constitutions are rolling this back in some states) and efforts to punish people for crossing state lines to access abortion and gender care services is worse yet. Outright secessionism and nullification talk is another, exemplified by legislation in Utah to allow nullification and blatant disregard of the law in Texas with the border situation. Xenophobia and isolationism are back. We're seeing rolling back of child labor laws. Transgender people are actively being officially scapegoated and attacked in Red State America. The pro-racism movement is alive and well in the anti-woke, anti-diversity, equality, and inclusion movement, and more. Red state hostility to higher education generally is ramping up as illustrated by the hard right takeover of New College of Florida which is basically dead now. The red state opposition to zero state budget cost Medicaid assistance is a crazy, self-inflicted way to make people sicker with no legitimate policy justifications and is driven by nothing more than anti-Democrat spite. The stubborn refusal to regulate guns and to make gun violence worse with laws like Stand Your Ground laws is appalling. Yet, frighteningly, this extremism doesn't seem to be doing much to shift political polls. The intense hate of Biden and the support of absolutely repugnant Trump mystifies me, even though Biden was not anywhere near the top of my list for Presidential nominees and seems to be running a very weak Presidential campaign.</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-19671412032836486732024-02-16T01:49:00.013-07:002024-02-16T08:29:18.824-07:00Why Buy 3000 Armored Multipurpose Vehicles? (And Related Ideas)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAuHCdrR1KJIoeG_nEXFCgY6QCmSkzv4huhWkp_4jWwuPsXkMN-F07t4WfFk2VdX4DZm0S8A4fC30CZwTuNGp7dqPTmMe2V_N8AjNMXX38CKJtC-Z1KV_o9ZN1I06wBgWRPZqV0dGJdKQR6KOEO4aciyiuxSP7d1LF4aFCmLfMCtwzx4GVrWey5A/s640/size0-full.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAuHCdrR1KJIoeG_nEXFCgY6QCmSkzv4huhWkp_4jWwuPsXkMN-F07t4WfFk2VdX4DZm0S8A4fC30CZwTuNGp7dqPTmMe2V_N8AjNMXX38CKJtC-Z1KV_o9ZN1I06wBgWRPZqV0dGJdKQR6KOEO4aciyiuxSP7d1LF4aFCmLfMCtwzx4GVrWey5A/w640-h480/size0-full.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Army started taking deliveries of its new 27.6 ton Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) on <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/264804/army_delivers_newest_combat_vehicle">March 13, 2023</a>:</span></p><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">AMPV is the replacement for the M113 family of vehicles within the Armored Brigade Combat Team, comprising approximately 30 percent of its tracked vehicle fleet. The Army’s worldwide fleet of AMPVs will include nearly 3,000 vehicles delivered within the next 20 years. . . .</span></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross Functional Team [said that the] "AMPV is a more rugged, reliable and capable platform than the M113s that it replaces, bringing more capability to our ABCTs and allowing our formations to transform how they are able to fight."</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are five variants of the AMPV that provide soldiers with improvements in survivability, protection, weight, size, power, cooling and compatibility with future technologies.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The AMPV shares a common powertrain and suspension with the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M109A7 Paladin self-propelled howitzer, which reduces logistical and mechanical burdens among ABCTs.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">"The Army is transforming our ABCT through integration of improved technology with warfighting concepts across the force. These modernization efforts increase our capacity to deter adversaries and if necessary, fight and win in combat," said Col Peter Moon, commander, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division. "We look forward to the capabilities that AMPV will bring to the battlefield to ensure we remain lethal and ready to win the fight."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Multi-Purpose_Vehicle">Wikipedia</a>, the "five variants of the 2,907 AMPV that are planned are:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* M1283 General Purpose (522 planned)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* M1284 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (790 planned)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* M1285 Medical Treatment Vehicle (216 planned) (a small armored field hospital)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* M1286 Mission Command (993 planned)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>* M1287 Mortar Carrier Vehicle (386 planned)</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are aspects of this purchase that don't make much sense. A general purpose AMPV is just an under gunned Bradley IFV with very little weight or performance improvement. There is already a Bradley command variant as well, so neither of models, which make up half of the planned purchase, make much sense.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The 120mm mortar carrier version, which makes up about 13% of the planned purchase, has a quite narrow niche. A 120mm has a minimum range of 200 yards and a maximum range of 4.5 miles, with much less accuracy than a direct fire tank round within its roughly <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829">2 mile range</a> (and so is only desirable in those circumstances against an opponent not in the direct line of sight), or compared to a Bradley 25mm cannon or TOW missile, each with a roughly 2.3 mile range, or compared to the M270 Bradley with a range of 9.3-20 miles for its shortest range missile. A 120mm mortar round weighs 29 pounds, of which only 4 pounds is the warhead, so it that packs a much less powerful punch than an MLRS missile (which has a 200 pound warhead) and also significantly less than a 105mm or 120mm tank round, a 105mm or 155mm howitzer shell, a 5" naval gun, a Viper Strike bomb from a fighter aircraft, and all but the smallest anti-tank missiles. It has about the same punch as a 3" naval gun or a recoilless rifle a.k.a. bazooka shell or a <a href="http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edequipment/edmis/edmis6a8.htm">Bofors RB56 anti-tank missile</a> or a MANPAD (like a Stinger missile), but moving slower than any of those.</span><span> It's only optimally effective against targets that are pretty much limited to dismounted infantry and unarmored or lightly armored vehicles at fairly close range. At the short end of its range where it is most accurate, is vulnerable to direct fire from enemy tanks and anti-tank missiles, while at the long end of its range it is less accurate. A <a href="https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/m120.htm">Humvee can tow a 120mm mortar system</a> on a trailer (with the same number of rounds which weighs about 2800 pounds including all components and 69 mortar shells) and can reach the same terrain, but lacks the armor of the AMPV mortar carrier. It is much cheaper to buy a 120mm unguided mortar round than to buy an anti-tank missile. But, why have a 27 ton armored vehicle with such modest firepower? </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Why not get more self-propelled howitzers, like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer">M109A7 Paladin</a> (which is itself partially Bradley derived) with heavier rounds than a 120mm mortar, a longer maximum range (13-25 miles depending upon the kind of shell used), and a similar minimum range (a 155mm shell has a <a href="https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4298366/howitzer-minimum-range">blast radius of about 100 yards</a>), instead? </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Or, alternately, why not develop an armored anti-tank missile launcher (sometimes called a "tank destroyer"), which would be much more accurate and at least comparably weight efficient, in at similar ranges, instead?</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Medical evacuation and medical treatment, which makes up about a third of the planned purchase, is a function that is not served by existing armored systems other than the M113, and heavy armor does make sense for medical evacuation and treatment near the front lines of a battle. This is the only part of the purchase that makes much sense.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Wikipedia continues its analysis of why the AMPV was needed by stating: </span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><b>The M113</b> has been in service since the early 1960s and while able to take on various roles, <b>has proven too vulnerable for combat</b>. In the 1980s, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley">M2 Bradley</a> replaced the M113 in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_line">front-line</a> transport role, moving it to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_(military)">rear-area</a> roles. <b>In the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War">Iraq War</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_warfare">urban warfare</a> tactics still defeated the M113, leading it to be almost entirely replaced in active service by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine-Resistant_Ambush_Protected">Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected</a> (MRAP) vehicles</b>. <b>MRAPs were useful on the roads of Iraq, but have less payload capacity and worse off-road performance.</b> The AMPV aims to find a vehicle more versatile and mobile against a wide range of adversaries while having off-road mobility comparable to Bradleys and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams">M1 Abrams</a> tanks.</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">. . .</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In order to keep development costs down, the Army is requiring the vehicle be a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf">commercial off-the-shelf</a> design that can be incrementally improved. The vehicle would have new technologies including electronics, networking, and communications gear added onto the platform as they become available later. If the AMPV can incorporate newer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_communications">satellite communications</a> as they are developed, they could be linked to other ground vehicles that would normally require a complete subsystems overhaul for new gear after a certain number of years. The operational maintenance cost requirement of the AMPV is up to $90 per mile, compared to $58 per mile for the M113. . . .</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Army leaders have rejected General Dynamics' idea of using a wheeled vehicle for medical evacuation in armored brigades, saying <b>a tracked vehicle's superior mobility</b> better enables it to retrieve wounded soldiers. <b>The requirements were for a vehicle that could go wherever the tracked vehicles of an armored brigade went, which would include rough terrain and soft ground that a wheeled vehicle could get bogged down in</b>, preventing an armored ambulance from reaching wounded soldiers in time. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Using BAE's Bradley-based chassis allows for commonality between 75 percent of an armored brigade's combat vehicles, easing maintenance and logistics and ensuring the vehicles have comparable mobility.</span></blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">As a practical matter, however, there has been surprisingly little use of the U.S. military's tracked armored vehicles in an off-road capacity in the post-Korean War period.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In part, because this takes more fuel (an M1 Abrams has a range of 265 miles on the road with 504.4 gallons of diesel fuel, but only 93-124 miles off-road), and is slower (an M1A Abrams can go 42-45 miles per hour on road and only 25 miles per hour off-road). Other tracked vehicles has similar reductions in speed and fuel efficiency off-road.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Gulf War demonstrated the strengths of tracked tanks off roads in open flat deserts and plains. The Ukraine war demonstrated, however, that heavy tracked tanks and armored vehicles still get bogged down in mud even on flat terrain, and also don't perform off road well in heavy forests. Vietnam demonstrated that heavy tracked tanks performed poorly in tropical, wet, jungles and swamps. Kosovo and Afghanistan demonstrated their limitations in narrow mountain passes. The Iraq War demonstrated their limitations in urban environments with narrow roads.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The wheeled <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker">Stryker Armored Personnel Carrier</a> has a range of 310 miles and can go 60 miles per hour on roads, is 18.2 tons in its standard version and 20.7 tons with its mobile gun system (a 105 mm tank gun). It also has V-shaped hull versions.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Also, the wheeled <a href="https://www.quora.com/Are-Humvees-good-off-roading">Humvee</a> (which is superior pretty much any wheeled civilian vehicle off-road, including the jeep which it replaced). As noted in a <a href="https://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2006/03/humvee-problem.html">previous post at this blog</a>:</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Its low center of gravity, wide frame, four wheel drive and other features <a href="http://www.csctce.com/demos/hmmwv_char/character.htm">allow it to</a> climb steep hills (60% grade), drive with a right side much higher than its left (40% grade), or visa versa, and its undercarriage is designed to give it exceptionally high clearance (16 inches) of rocks and tree stumps and debris that may be in its way, and ford shallow streams (30 inches in a standard configuration). In short, it is designed to be able to carry modest loads of cargo and troops anywhere tracked military vehicles, like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, could while getting fuel economy at about 12 mpg, which isn't great, but is far better than a tank, 0.5 mpg, or a Bradley, at about 1.5 mpg. (A Stryker gets about 6 mpg.)</span></blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The wheeled <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/army-preparing-future-all-terrain-warfare-195193">JLTV</a> also performs well off-road (and is </span><span>armed with .50 caliber M2 machine guns, 40mm Mk 19 automatic grenade launchers, and</span><a href="https://www.twz.com/40111/the-armys-plan-to-finally-replace-the-tank-busting-tow-missile"> TOW anti-tank missiles</a><span>, much like the original Bradley IFV, and will have a modified version that will carry intermediate range anti-ship missiles).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpH24kNlFf4dMFFkdynnKxcndoznr_zjzyUcwo9IiRadJQLCr2LM8iQG0M18-Lkw74C6QlKIcW44MqiOSsZ_aT-BUyjjppyCbi1JYNPS74PhFd1_lH5a8Q0h8cNluB9WcUBPPiQRX-IJ6_aEDlhXGNE2Tk3Q1R-mdvciuSdmtIeHRDzqtZWa3vww/s600/600px-JLTV-DEC14-4999.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="600" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpH24kNlFf4dMFFkdynnKxcndoznr_zjzyUcwo9IiRadJQLCr2LM8iQG0M18-Lkw74C6QlKIcW44MqiOSsZ_aT-BUyjjppyCbi1JYNPS74PhFd1_lH5a8Q0h8cNluB9WcUBPPiQRX-IJ6_aEDlhXGNE2Tk3Q1R-mdvciuSdmtIeHRDzqtZWa3vww/w640-h512/600px-JLTV-DEC14-4999.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>The standard version of the JTLV via Wikipedia</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjA3TdY_ySizmKZt2ML6TGPE9eG4IPoGPaggOHs81pw3JBkljcr-74Umo45_nqsD1NleBGCgEEavrU-XHFPLcCc9JT-AAzNXB-fvh2AFBpexgtdBbxxL1DFffoP6E__AQMBVZOmLE5lydopD_DCaK5pgbfB4nrWNfHnbi31aOuM1veqDebBA3BzDw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1029" data-original-width="1440" height="458" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjA3TdY_ySizmKZt2ML6TGPE9eG4IPoGPaggOHs81pw3JBkljcr-74Umo45_nqsD1NleBGCgEEavrU-XHFPLcCc9JT-AAzNXB-fvh2AFBpexgtdBbxxL1DFffoP6E__AQMBVZOmLE5lydopD_DCaK5pgbfB4nrWNfHnbi31aOuM1veqDebBA3BzDw=w640-h458" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>A Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System launcher [based on the JLTV] deploys into position aboard Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands, Hawaii, Aug. 16, 2021. The NMESIS and its Naval Strike Missiles participated in a live-fire exercise, here, part of Large Scale Exercise 2021. (Maj. Nick Mannweiler/Marine Corps). From <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/west/2024/02/14/marines-underwater-missile-delivery-drone-faces-key-test-this-month/">here</a> (in an article noting the development of a semi-submersible drone designed to stealthily deliver two missiles at a time for this system).</i></div></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The eight wheeled the Stryker is <a href="https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2017/Strykers-on-the-Mechanized-Battlefield/">modestly</a> inferior to an M1 Abrams tank off road. <a href="https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2017/Strykers-on-the-Mechanized-Battlefield/">As one source notes</a>:</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">“The main difference between a Stryker and a Bradley is that a Bradley is far more maneuverable than a Stryker.” On roads, Strykers and Abrams tanks could move at about the same speed, but maneuvering off-road in rolling desert terrain, the wheeled Strykers were far slower than the tracked tanks.</span></blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Still, this is a pretty modest performance reduction that comes up only quite rarely, compared to a great performance enhancement on road, in circumstances that are the predominant norm in actual use.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Also, unless the entire logistics train is tracked, a entire unit can't deploy travel across extreme terrain that tracked vehicles can manage but wheeled vehicles cannot, for more than temporary excursions by the tracked vehicles into the extreme terrain.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIGQ8Yd_b36-aViRconTEqT1E3uesWDM97En5gsWfofjnduHnLOx-mATFhJxrvhllzL21sQChVg1CXp5SRm_rxrdUmSlOw0g3kOVqKMtnB5S7wLPGBp6UZDvWfZbqGJwPWpAFSB3v4Fs8DDvcnm5trOyCj7GaMsQ4n3QTfc5F4Fygr7Dpyq3xImA/s600/Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="600" height="506" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIGQ8Yd_b36-aViRconTEqT1E3uesWDM97En5gsWfofjnduHnLOx-mATFhJxrvhllzL21sQChVg1CXp5SRm_rxrdUmSlOw0g3kOVqKMtnB5S7wLPGBp6UZDvWfZbqGJwPWpAFSB3v4Fs8DDvcnm5trOyCj7GaMsQ4n3QTfc5F4Fygr7Dpyq3xImA/w640-h506/Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><p style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">Stryker Infantry Carrier Version (ICV)</span></i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">While the AMPV is indeed more modern than the 13.6 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier">M113 armored personnel carrier</a> which entered service 64 years ago in 1960, that they replace, "the M113 series have long been replaced as front-line combat vehicles by the M2 and M3 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle">Bradleys</a>, but large numbers are still used in support roles such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, and command vehicle. The U.S. Army's heavy brigade combat teams are equipped with approximately 6,000 M113s and 4,000 Bradleys." </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUfccMfU1Ds63_1N1Ot9lmfrpePI39ktBeqOc4g1g7E8rWlwQmqZ8WyYyFKLl01e31fvntYKRFlevHCSamu_ZjzPmvFikNIniMdEvMW3UQ_ZKEMjSQ2TQITt_oqEV2A5vkBZcEADFD-hErAThXbNgUtF82ZKi1C6djIbvFpsWV1JG549QMk6QnPA/s600/Allied_Spirit_I_150126-A-LO967-001.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUfccMfU1Ds63_1N1Ot9lmfrpePI39ktBeqOc4g1g7E8rWlwQmqZ8WyYyFKLl01e31fvntYKRFlevHCSamu_ZjzPmvFikNIniMdEvMW3UQ_ZKEMjSQ2TQITt_oqEV2A5vkBZcEADFD-hErAThXbNgUtF82ZKi1C6djIbvFpsWV1JG549QMk6QnPA/w640-h426/Allied_Spirit_I_150126-A-LO967-001.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">An M113 Armored Personnel Carrier</span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The replacement turretless Bradley, however, is based on a design that entered service in 1981, which is still 43 years old, and is on the verge of being replaced. This is woefully outdated for a new major military system that the U.S. plans on buying 3000 of over the next twenty years, at which point the design will be as old as the M113 is today. The Army is on the verge of replacing the M2/M3 Bradley right now with an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM30_Mechanized_Infantry_Combat_Vehicle">XM30</a> family of vehicles:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In July 2021, the Army awarded contracts to five teams: Point Blank Enterprises, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_Defense">Oshkosh Defense</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems">BAE Systems</a>, GDLS and American Rheinmetall Vehicles. The total value of the contract was $299.4 million. Teams will develop concept designs during the 15-month long phase. <b>All entries had to meet three general criteria: a tracked vehicle with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle">hybrid-electric drive</a>; an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_weapon_station">unmanned turret</a> housing a 50 mm autocannon, or a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_mm">30 mm</a> turret with the ability to upgrade to the larger caliber; and a reduced crew of two with space to carry six infantrymen.</b> The Army planned to pick three teams, reduced to two teams upon contract award, to move on to building prototypes by mid-2023.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In June 2023, the Army downselected American <b>Rheinmetall and GDLS to go forward in the competition.</b> These two teams will now move on to the next phase of the program and split a $1.6 billion development fund to develop a total of eleven prototypes each, seven being for a contract award with an option for four more. <b>They will also develop two ballistic hulls, turrets, armor coupons, and digital model twins during this phase of the program.</b> The Army also announced due to the initial design stage of the OMFV being complete that they would be redesignating the program as the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The AMPV, however, does have <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#Armored_Multi-Purpose_Vehicle">some innovations</a> relative to the original Bradley M2 from 1981:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">For the U.S. Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program to replace the M113, BAE offered a variant of the Bradley. The AMPV submission is a turretless Bradley chassis, providing <b>greater cargo space</b>, <b>increased armor</b>, and <b>upgraded engine and electrical systems</b>. For increased protection, <b>a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-hull">V-shaped</a> bottom replaces the flat base</b>. The AMPV has several modular roof sections to adapt to each role. For fuel efficiency, BAE is considered using a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain">hybrid-electric drive</a>. . . . Underbody blast tests demonstrated that AMPV survivability requirements could be met with a Bradley platform. BAE projected their AMPV submission to have similar operating costs to the M113 and lower costs than an M2 Bradley, as the platform's most expensive components are related to the omitted turret. To better accommodate modern electronics, the turretless Bradley has 78% more internal space than the M113, and two 400-amp generators.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">It doesn't appear, however, that the hybrid-electric drive made it into the initial version of the AMPV. </span></p></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The AMPV's greater weight compared to the M113 also means that while the M113 could be transported with a C-130, that an AMPV cannot, and that a C-17 can carry only three AMPV's while it can carry six M113s, which in turn carry twice as many soldiers each. One C-17 load of AMPVs or Bradleys can transport 6 crew and 18 passengers for a combined 24 soldiers. One C-17 load of M113s can transport 12 crew and 66-90 passengers for a combined 78-102 soldiers. Again, this argues for limiting the AMPV to the specialty medical evacuation and treatment role, to reduce the number of them that need to be deployed.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The M113 is 15' 11.5" long, 8' 9.7" wide, and 8' 2" tall, and carries 2 crew together with 11-15 soldiers. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The AMPV and the Bradley are 13' 2" to 13' 6" long, 10' 6" to 10' 9" wide, and 9' 9" tall. The AMPV carries 2 crew together with 6 soldiers in its general purpose version, like a Bradley but with less firepower. Thus, the AMPV is less suited than the M113 for use in narrow streets and mountain passes.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">By comparison the most advanced version of the Abrams main battle tank, the M1A2 SEP v.3 Abrams is 26.02 feet long (32.04 feet with its gun forward), 12 feet wide, 8 feet tall, has four crew, and weighs 73.6 tons.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Official dimensions of the M10 Booker with a crew of 4 (and a range and speed similar to other U.S. military tracked vehicles) are hard to come by, but </span><a href="https://forum.warthunder.com/t/m10-booker-the-micro-abrams/8563">one source</a><span> estimates that it is about 23' long (31' 2" with gun forward), 11' 6" wide, 10' 10" tall, and weighs 42 tons. If correct, it has only modestly smaller dimensions than the M1A Abrams and is the tallest armored vehicle, wheeled or tracked, in U.S. military service. I suspect that these estimates are on the high side in all dimensions. For example, in <a href="https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used">a side by side photo</a>, it appears to be quite a bit less tall than a JLTV which is 8' 6" tall. It is also supposed to be significantly smaller than the Abrams, as discussed in this <a href="https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used">larger analysis</a>:</span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Booker would prove a valuable platform in a <a href="https://www.twz.com/this-is-how-taiwans-military-would-go-to-war-with-china">Taiwan ground fight</a>, the armor expert explained to us. About two-thirds of the island is mostly rugged mountains. It features flat to rolling plains in the densely populated west, which faces mainland China. <b>The M10’s smaller size compared to an Abrams would allow it to better <a href="https://www.twz.com/37349/taiwan-disguises-armored-vehicles-as-cranes-and-scrapheaps-during-urban-warfare-maneuvers">maneuver through the tight, restricted urban areas</a> where much of the fighting would take place. It would be able to pass over bridges an Abrams might not be <a href="https://www.twz.com/this-is-what-m1-abrams-tanks-will-bring-to-the-fight-in-ukraine">able to cross due to weight concerns</a> and operate, as previously mentioned, with a much lighter logistical footprint.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Its 105mm main gun, he added, “is powerful enough to handle most Chinese equipment.”</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The vehicle would also theoretically be helpful to Ukraine, particularly in urban areas like those in and around Avdiivka and <a href="https://www.twz.com/ukraine-situation-report-small-town-near-bakhmut-recaptured">Bakhmut</a> in Donetsk Oblast. <b>A lot of fighting there takes place in rubbled settings like the <a href="https://www.twz.com/ukraine-situation-report-deluge-of-rodents-a-common-enemy">remains of the Avdiivka coke plant</a>.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>“I can see the Booker being used in conjunction with Ukrainian infantry as they're moving in restricted terrain,”</b> said the expert.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The more open terrain found in Ukraine, like in the Robotyne-Verbove salient of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, or even in farmland outside of Avdiivka’s urban areas, would be even more difficult for the Booker, he said.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The infantry would have to move up first and assess the situation and call in the Booker or place it in an area where they have an increased level of survivability when engaging targets that the infantry wants destroyed.”</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Those situations are proving a difficult challenge to both Ukrainian and Russian tanks and other armor, which are unable to mass without drones either spotting them and correcting artillery fire or directly attacking. For Ukraine, there is the added challenge of having to breach the<a href="https://www.twz.com/ukraine-situation-report-stalled-u-s-military-aid-to-kyiv-becoming-a-crisis"> massive layers of dense minefields</a> built up by Russia.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Still, in both the Taiwan and Ukraine scenarios, as well as <a href="https://www.twz.com/israel-gaza-situation-report-biden-netanyahu-friction-increasing">Israel’s tough urban fight in Gaza</a>, <b>the lighter-protected Booker will be more vulnerable than Abrams or the Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) <a href="https://www.twz.com/israeli-merkava-tanks-appear-with-cope-cage-armor">Merkava tanks</a>. The <a href="https://www.twz.com/hamas-fighter-shown-placing-bomb-on-israeli-merkava-tank">various types of rocket-propelled grenades</a> Hamas is using against Israeli vehicles have highlighted that threat, and the expert we’ve talked to said having the Bookers equipped with ERA and MAPS is essential in any urban fight.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The M10 would be able to stay on the battlefield longer “because it doesn’t consume as much fuel,” said the expert. However, “if it starts acting like an M1 Abrams and the force that has the M10 Booker considers it more of a tank in the traditional sense, then we might see issues with it because of its level of protection. It is there to provide fire support and mobility for the infantry.”</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">So while the Booker may fill an Army need, thinking of it as just a smaller M1 is not the right mindset.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The M10 Booker Combat Vehicle provides infantry forces organic, highly mobile, well protected, and large-caliber precise direct-fire capabilities,” Norman said. <b>“M10’s will enable our light infantry forces to attack and maintain momentum in the face of enemy heavy machine guns, prepared positions and field fortifications, and light armored vehicles.</b> In the defense, the M10 provides light infantry forces protected, direct-fire large caliber capabilities to defeat attacking enemy forces.”</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“In all cases,” he added, “M10-equipped quick reaction forces can respond to situations requiring highly protected, fast-moving tracked mobility, employing large-caliber cannons to support U.S. and partnered forces.”</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The wheeled <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker">Stryker Armored Personnel Carrier</a> is 22' 10" long, 8' 11" wide (just 1.3 inches wider than the M113), and 8' 8" tall, and carries a crew of 2 and up to 9 passengers.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The 11.32 ton wheeled <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Light_Tactical_Vehicle">Joint Light Tactical Vehicle</a> replacement for the Humvee and many MRAPs, has a length of 20' 4", a width of 8' 4" (5.7" narrower than an M113), a height of 8' 6", and has a crew of 1, plus 3 passengers and an optional gunner. It has a range of 300 miles at a speed of 70 miles per hour.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Multi-Purpose_Vehicle">More generally</a>:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="background-color: white; color: #202122; list-style-image: url("/w/skins/Vector/resources/skins.vector.styles/images/bullet-icon.svg?d4515"); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">M1283 General Purpose (GP): Replaces the M113A3 APC. Requirements are for <b>2 crew and 6 troops</b>, be configured to carry one litter, and mount a crew served weapon. Tasks include conducting logistics package escort, emergency resupply, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_evacuation" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Casualty evacuation">casualty evacuation</a>, and security for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_evacuation" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Medical evacuation">medical evacuation</a>. 522 planned.</span></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">M1284 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV): Replaces the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_the_M113_armored_personnel_carrier#United_States" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Variants of the M113 armored personnel carrier">M113 AMEV</a>. Requirements are for <b>3 crew and able to have either 6 ambulatory patients, 4 litter patients, or 3 ambulatory patients and 2 litter patients.</b> It must also have medical equipment sets and environmental cooling. Tasks include conducting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_evacuation" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Medical evacuation">medical evacuation</a> from the point of injury to an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_station" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Aid station">aid station</a> and medical resupply replenishment. 790 planned.</span></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">M1285 Medical Treatment Vehicle (MTV): Replaces the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_the_M113_armored_personnel_carrier#United_States" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Variants of the M113 armored personnel carrier">M577A3 Medical Vehicle</a>. Requirements are for <b>4 crew and one litter patient, as well as medical equipment sets and environmental cooling</b>. Tasks include serving as the forward aid station, main aid station, and battalion aid station. 216 planned.</span></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">M1287 Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MCV): Replaces the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1064_mortar_carrier" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="M1064 mortar carrier">M1064A3 Mortar Carrier</a>. Requirements are for <b>2 crew and 2 mortar crew, with a 120 mm mortar and 69 mortar rounds.</b> The task is to provide indirect mortar fire. 386 planned.</span></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">M1286 Mission Command (MCmd): Replaces the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_the_M113_armored_personnel_carrier#United_States" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Variants of the M113 armored personnel carrier">M1068A3 Command Post Carrier</a>. Requirements are for <b>2 crew, 2 operators, and a mount for a crew served weapon.</b> The task is to serve as a command post. 993 planned.</span></li></ul><div><span style="color: #202122; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley">Bradley chassis</a> is also "the basis for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System">M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System</a>, the M4 C2V battlefield command post, and the M6 Bradley Linebacker air defense vehicle. Armed with a quad Stinger surface-to-air missile launcher in place of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW">TOW anti-tank missiles</a>, but maintaining the 25 mm autocannon, the M6 Bradley Linebacker Air Defense Vehicle (no longer in service) possessed a unique role in the U.S. Army, providing highly mobile air defense at the front line."</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The light wheeled M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARs</span><span>) multiple rocket launcher system, which is C-130 transportable and uses the same missiles as the Bradley based M270 (6 MLRS missiles with a range of 20-28 miles (minimum range 9.3 miles), 1 ATACMS with a range of 186 miles, or 2 Precision Strike missiles with a range of 310 miles) except that the M270 can carry twice as many missiles at a time and comes with a reloading unit. HIMARs, introduced in 2010, has proved more attractive in modern warfare than its more heavily armored but slower counterpart, in part, because given the range of its missiles, its easier deployability and 53 mile per hour speed v. 40 miles per hour for the M270, are a better fit to a shoot and scoot strategy far from the front lines and it doesn't need to be in extreme off road locations. The 18 ton HIMARs with a crew of 3 is 23' long, 7' 10" wide, and 10' 6" tall. The 26.5 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System">M270</a>, which has been in service since 1983 (the last one was produced in 2003), and requires a crew of 3 is 22' 10.5" long, 9' 9" wide, and 8' 6" tall with its launcher stowed.</span></span></div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUMBtcCSluBUmcbKTG3fdz_InMuYKy_OsdKtAAJi02tp6mwbnp0g4mkebFmcTUEVwTgQPRB86jJV4uvByYzih4brwQ2Jtg6n4t47WMcwhYjd8ktkSqGD4PfUTooPb-9_QJyQT3nVzMALYC0zT5lTaXYhGwmA0HPkO9c3i-1TqZHFQKrEfbD5nVFA/s600/HIMARS_-_missile_launched.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="600" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUMBtcCSluBUmcbKTG3fdz_InMuYKy_OsdKtAAJi02tp6mwbnp0g4mkebFmcTUEVwTgQPRB86jJV4uvByYzih4brwQ2Jtg6n4t47WMcwhYjd8ktkSqGD4PfUTooPb-9_QJyQT3nVzMALYC0zT5lTaXYhGwmA0HPkO9c3i-1TqZHFQKrEfbD5nVFA/w640-h480/HIMARS_-_missile_launched.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>The M142 HIMARs via the Wikipedia article on it.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif4NTdtIQeOuXXTqqMW5XWEZFOzCHwdIurb7NBCGC65JparOji58O5fgXpuefDqNgmz50Hp84NiAZGiMI-E5110DSyLH1_CNQDagfmpIMBoD-zZ8au_J7tO6leUiOPCOk8Oi7683ifGN_KQVG9Eifzd-1vkZAoGhNTt6WUDXDMrDFx7TRo0FgbAQ/s600/M270A1_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_South_Dakota_ANG.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="375" data-original-width="600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif4NTdtIQeOuXXTqqMW5XWEZFOzCHwdIurb7NBCGC65JparOji58O5fgXpuefDqNgmz50Hp84NiAZGiMI-E5110DSyLH1_CNQDagfmpIMBoD-zZ8au_J7tO6leUiOPCOk8Oi7683ifGN_KQVG9Eifzd-1vkZAoGhNTt6WUDXDMrDFx7TRo0FgbAQ/w640-h400/M270A1_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_South_Dakota_ANG.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>The M270 via the Wikipedia article on it.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">More <a href="https://warriormaven.com/land/army-refines-war-tactics-weapons-for-new-xm30-infantry-carrier">XM30 program details</a>:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Exiting from the back of an armored vehicle while under fire, securing dismounted command and control and responding in real time to fast-emerging new threat dynamics, are merely a few of the tactics now being explored and refined by Army soldiers preparing to deploy in a new, next-generation service infantry carrier.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Army’s now-in-development XM30 Combat Vehicle Program has been the focus of intense evaluations referred to by the service as “Soldier Touchpoints,” experiments and analyses wherein infantry squads practice combat operation in the new platform to further inform and improve its ongoing development. Referred to broadly as a “Bradley” replacement, the XM30 is being engineered with a new generation of advanced technologies intended to expand the tactical envelope and introduce new concepts of operation for nine-man infantry squads closing with an enemy in combat. . . .</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">the soldiers will be testing the ease, fluidity and pace of how soldiers dismount from different vehicle design configurations, placement of key sensor technologies and panels and hands-on-practical maintenance questions such as how the engine will be accessible for field-level sustainment.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Soldier touchpoint included a number of practical drills, such as timing how long it took a team of Soldiers to dismount from various possible vehicle design configurations. It also included more nuanced discussions about access and placement of panels that provide exterior situation awareness for the Soldiers, and how the engine will be accessible for field-level maintenance.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Previously referred to as an “Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle,” the Army’s Bradley replacement is referred to by weapons developers as being engineered with a “soldier-centric” design intended to change and improve soldier lethality in a new threat environment. Many of the specific technologies are proprietary to competing vendors or unavailable for security reasons, yet there are several key areas of technological focus as the service further refines its requirements. <b>The vehicle is being engineered with an ability to operate autonomously and unmanned, meaning it can navigate and transit complex terrain, transport infantry and perform sensing missions without needing human intervention. The vehicle can also function in a “semi-autonomous” fashion, meaning it can receive command and control input from human decision-makers, operate air and ground unmanned systems and conduct high-risk reconnaissance missions under enemy fire.</b> Not surprisingly, much of the innovations being built into the vehicle relate to establishing the fire-control technologies, sensors and optics, protections and maneuverability necessary to support future formations.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Several years ago during an earlier phase of development for the OMFV, senior Army weapons developers told Warrior that <b>initial concepts for the vehicle included engineering a new infantry carrier that was powerful, lethal and precise enough to "out-range" an enemy with fires and also be light and maneuverable enough to cross 80-percent or more of bridges, narrowly configured urban areas and other challenged, high-threat transit areas.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">As for weapons applications, the two variants and <b>US Army lead weapons developers are likely exploring a range of cutting edge requirements, to include a Short-Range-Air-Defense like counter drone capability such as a Stinger missile and an ability to launch and recover advanced drones.</b> One possibility for American Rheinmetall could involve <b>the integration of a counter-drone-counter air vehicle-launched drone made by one of their XM30 teammates, Raytheon's Coyote.</b> Raytheon has been developing an advanced Block2 Coyote which includes what developers describe as a larger, optimized warhead with advanced tracking. Specific solutions being integrated are likely still being determined, yet both General Dynamics and ARV are likely to be integrating and testing a wide range of cutting-edge weapons systems such as <b>drones, cannons, sensors and counter-air weapons.</b> General Dynamics Land Systems, for example, has engineered several armored vehicles with <b>an ability to launch and recover surveillance and attack drones.</b></span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i></i></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhY2q8OJizsNBnF5XcopAjAGtW8v1vATcGgjNjMkiH2WkItTB-CQki5TSkwQQ29DFFyxoNi7DqRT60ES2v0QoeqiMDAz-B2ZRyX3vEZe02ihf0beWx2kpLr9yx5yNaeJ1KWfLcPA7oDaDsDn0Hs99VYPpEFH2EVF41NO61TsqRYDX7J3TtGb_5-rw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="700" height="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhY2q8OJizsNBnF5XcopAjAGtW8v1vATcGgjNjMkiH2WkItTB-CQki5TSkwQQ29DFFyxoNi7DqRT60ES2v0QoeqiMDAz-B2ZRyX3vEZe02ihf0beWx2kpLr9yx5yNaeJ1KWfLcPA7oDaDsDn0Hs99VYPpEFH2EVF41NO61TsqRYDX7J3TtGb_5-rw=w640-h412" width="640" /></a></i></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>A November 2023 Concept Image of an XM30</i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Another <a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-m2-bradley-replacement-xm30-mechanized-infantry-combat-vehicle/">report about the XM30</a> from June of 2023 notes that:</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Army’s <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/267920/army_announces_contract_awards_for_omfv">next armored personnel carrier</a> . . . which the Army is now calling the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle, will replace the decades-old M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle as the service’s primary armored troop carrier. . . . Defense officials said Monday that, <b>despite the “optionally manned” title of the program, the vehicle is unlikely to operate without a crew or be remotely drivable.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Soldiers who eventually ride in or operate the XM30 will find it similar to the Bradley, officials say, but with some key differences. <b>The heavily armored vehicle will carry six soldiers, the same as the Bradley.</b> But <b>while the Bradley has three crew members, automation will cut that number to two</b>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The vehicle’s main weapon will be the XM913 50mm chain gun developed by Northrop Grumman, which the Army says <b>has twice the range of the Bradley’s 25mm gun [i.e. about 4.6 miles].</b> The gun will be wired to a system that should allow soldiers to fire it remotely, reducing the exposure of a dedicated gunner to incoming fire.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">However, while an Air Force C-17 can fly three Bradleys at once, the cargo plane will be able to fly just two XM30s, officials say [i.e. <b>it will be more than 27 tons but not more than 42 tons</b>].</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Raytheon/Rheinmetall, one of the two finalists, has <a href="https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/news/2023/07/12/raytheon-and-team-lynx-xm30-combat-vehicle">the following concept XM30</a> vehicle (which will feature "the new Multi-Mission Launcher which can fire the company’s <a href="https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/land/tow-weapon-system">TOW™</a>, <a href="https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/land/javelin-missile">Javelin</a>, [and] <a href="https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/coyote">Coyote®</a> Block 3 loitering munition"):</span></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgMN8KNnpHyTpjLhGkgZ3EfCFz3ms4NXYh2X42Vm3lJYLRaUAuZ_qnFRSuK3auFN1G6A29U6dXJwoTER9yThHl2Byc7NXKICH_MWUXvQXJPebgfXAllAlYw6WQjlCJ3E4QE50V9EBlCfbQyuCc52EvdZPj4enNV5NZKmiZ0_RG-KbnQKxSwZsMvIw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgMN8KNnpHyTpjLhGkgZ3EfCFz3ms4NXYh2X42Vm3lJYLRaUAuZ_qnFRSuK3auFN1G6A29U6dXJwoTER9yThHl2Byc7NXKICH_MWUXvQXJPebgfXAllAlYw6WQjlCJ3E4QE50V9EBlCfbQyuCc52EvdZPj4enNV5NZKmiZ0_RG-KbnQKxSwZsMvIw=w640-h360" width="640" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The other finalist, from <a href="https://militaryleak.com/2023/06/29/gdls-awarded-769-million-to-advance-to-next-phase-of-us-army-omfv-competition/">General Dynamics Land Systems</a>, based upon its Griffin III, would be about 42 tons like the Griffin II which became the M10 Booker, but "while similar in weight to Griffin II, scaled down the main gun from 105mm caliber to the 50 mm <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM913_chain_gun">XM913</a> gun system. It is equipped with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Systems">IMI Systems</a>’ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure)">Iron Fist</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system">Active Protection System</a> (APS) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment">AeroVironment</a>’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade">Switchblade</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition">loitering munition</a> system") looks like this:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgn0NZWHJsazhyrHOqfeBQCQ6UNrPL7SSDicMpFGf5-UCg3yCnNQT6ONik9QVAZxSGurxYhfd3nJ18p7VdTFqawX8n_DlN5R0QgZFKkHZYQUPv_DHB3CMR2FmFnYwPtyZU_xtnluQcM2isWEs0fIuaHBjw1bE_mVfZinnBIVdE2_IIz4DLpMiwoBg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="592" data-original-width="800" height="474" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgn0NZWHJsazhyrHOqfeBQCQ6UNrPL7SSDicMpFGf5-UCg3yCnNQT6ONik9QVAZxSGurxYhfd3nJ18p7VdTFqawX8n_DlN5R0QgZFKkHZYQUPv_DHB3CMR2FmFnYwPtyZU_xtnluQcM2isWEs0fIuaHBjw1bE_mVfZinnBIVdE2_IIz4DLpMiwoBg=w640-h474" width="640" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Developing an "optionally manned" ground warfare system makes lots of sense. Unmanned aircraft, ground vehicles, ships, boats, and submarines are clearly a key part of any future military force.</span></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But, why would one pick an infantry carrier, of all things, to be optionally manned? </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">An optionally manned tank, or tank destroyer, or mobile artillery system, or multiple rocket launcher, or air defense systems, or transport vehicle, or reconnaissance vehicle, whose core mission does not involve having people in the vehicle, could make plenty of sense. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But a vehicle that is "optionally manned" doesn't make sense for an infantry carrier, whose whole reason to exist is to have real live soldiers in it, like the 18 ton Stryker, or the 27 ton Bradley and AMPV, or the Marine Corps' 35 ton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Combat_Vehicle">Amphibious Combat Vehicle</a> (whose introduction has been delayed by some late stage deadly mishaps <a href="https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/01/25/marine-corps-new-amphibious-vehicles-will-soon-deploy-to-the-pacific/">until sometime later this year</a>).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It isn't necessary for a vehicle with soldiers in it anyway. And, one of the benefits of a drone is that an unmanned vehicle can be smaller than a manned one with the same capabilities, because it doesn't need to meet the needs and protect the safety of the crew. But this benefit is eliminated in an optionally manned infantry carrier.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLYHpiAybDgywz4BDz_bO8fSMxkrTdwhevsZ1cbqb6qR1WZq3ym7p040Apudmydp7fzpXLUgIknz81OqoP6fwd2-22EA2CGLBSsF2KZPGDpBC1XIlxAfUwK3IrMf0C5BTlUhu4HYBMAtjV80tZATvVyYIIcL1h7dUPdy8_4IeEmRsQtwZJEq51tg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLYHpiAybDgywz4BDz_bO8fSMxkrTdwhevsZ1cbqb6qR1WZq3ym7p040Apudmydp7fzpXLUgIknz81OqoP6fwd2-22EA2CGLBSsF2KZPGDpBC1XIlxAfUwK3IrMf0C5BTlUhu4HYBMAtjV80tZATvVyYIIcL1h7dUPdy8_4IeEmRsQtwZJEq51tg=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><i>A U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle</i></div></span><p></p></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-37180842523130017262024-02-15T21:03:00.001-07:002024-02-15T21:03:36.578-07:00Palletized Anti-Drone Missiles<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjb1OsM_TOPYjhg977mzhLjnGzApOdJlVV1LpQtEfIIXSP5N-gho0v77g2riwV3jb6EFmob2Y_ZKHYaXTnFUFDeY0uCJL1_P0JVFC2jNUJus6xNHp61jpO07IKAOVjua3UKqoLMo-PT_ZccqhxxyW1-zX1dO0reCO9I2mqolyqNGfMqSP6YQf_xow" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjb1OsM_TOPYjhg977mzhLjnGzApOdJlVV1LpQtEfIIXSP5N-gho0v77g2riwV3jb6EFmob2Y_ZKHYaXTnFUFDeY0uCJL1_P0JVFC2jNUJus6xNHp61jpO07IKAOVjua3UKqoLMo-PT_ZccqhxxyW1-zX1dO0reCO9I2mqolyqNGfMqSP6YQf_xow=w640-h480" width="640" /></span></a></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Ukrainian Navy’s press service recently released footage showcasing the combat effectiveness of their air defense units, marking the confirmed debut of a new Counter-Unmanned Air System (UAS) weapon system developed by L3Harris for Ukraine.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The video captured the moment when a Russian kamikaze drone, identified as the Shahed-136, was successfully shot down by an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System">Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System</a> (APKWS) laser-guided rocket launched from the Vampire weapon system.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Vehicle Agnostic Modular Palletized ISR Rocket Equipment (VAMPIRE) system is <b>a compact and palletized rocket-launching platform equipped with modern sensors and four-shot APKWS launchers designed for installation on flatbed trucks</b>. Initially utilized by the U.S. Navy and Army for engaging air-to-ground targets, the VAMPIRE system introduces a laser-guided rocket capable of effectively countering unmanned aerial threats.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The Vampire is a low-cost and easy-to-assemble weapon compared to other counter-drone measures, such as electronic warfare technologies or surface-to-air missile systems.</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">From <a href="https://defence-blog.com/vampire-weapon-system-makes-ukraine-combat-debut/">here</a>. According to the Wikipedia link above:</span></div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The AGR-20 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a design conversion of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70">Hydra 70</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unguided_rocket">unguided rockets</a> with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guidance">laser guidance</a> kit to turn them into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision-guided_munition">precision-guided munitions</a> (PGMs). APKWS is approximately one-third the cost and one-third the weight of the current inventory of laser-guided weapons, has a lower yield more suitable for avoiding <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage">collateral damage</a>, and takes one quarter of the time for ordnance personnel to load and unload.</span></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">APKWS missiles entered service in 2012. Each missile costs $22,000. Each missile weighs 32 pounds, is 6' 1.8" long, and is 2.75 inches in diameter. It was originally designed to be launched from helicopters and ground attack fixed wing aircraft. It has a range of 0.68 to 3.11 miles (1.1-5 km) when launched from a helicopter and 1.2-6.8 miles (2-11 km) when launched from a fixed wing aircraft. Its top speed is about Mach 3. The WESCAM MX-10 RSTA <a href="https://www.l3harris.com/sites/default/files/2022-12/ims-eo-WESCAM-MX-10-RSTA-0402AB-Sell.pdf">sensor turret</a> that goes with it weighs 43 pounds. It isn't clear exactly how much the launch tube, mount and power supply weighs, but the entire package is in the low hundreds of pounds. The entire system costs $1.6 to $2.9 million U.S. dollars each based upon the $40 million U.S. dollar price paid by Ukraine for 14-24 four missile launch systems (it isn't clear how many missiles are included in each system). As a laser guided weapon, it is probably quite accurate, at least within a line of sight from the delivery point, making it basically a one-shot, one-kill system, unlike cannon artillery.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The big deal, in this case, is that you can drop the system in any commercial off the shelf pickup truck or flat bed truck or in a Humvee (or for example, the deck of any boat or ship or train or stationary air defense battery on a rooftop or in a parking lot or plaza or lawn) without having to have a dedicated vehicle designed to use the system. The defense contractor that manufactures it <a href="https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/vampire">claims that</a>:</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Installation can be completed in approximately two hours by two people using common tools.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Everything is on the pallet. Power supply eliminates the need for a 24-volt alternator on the vehicle.</span></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">You could probably mount it on a large speed boat that could escort other watercraft that lack that capability, or on a merchant ship to give it its own air defense system against armed drones (and perhaps also to eliminate small pirate speedboats that engage the ship as well), or even on a yacht. It also makes sense for military transport ships and amphibious transport ships that otherwise like significant offensive or defensive capabilities. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">While these missiles were designed as low end air to ground missiles, the VAMPIRE system is intended for air defense and can be used to provide ground to ground capabilities. They can also be used as air to air missiles for attack aircraft or light ground assault aircraft that would otherwise lack that capability entirely.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The missile payload is probably too small to be very effective against tank, infantry fighting vehicles, bunkers, armored personnel carriers, but would probably be sufficient to seriously disable, damage or destroy a large armed drone, helicopter, low altitude ground attack aircraft, mobile artillery piece, speed boat, unarmored ground vehicle, a sniper's nest, an unfortified storage unit (perhaps for ammunition or fuel), or an unfortified aircraft hanger.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This system has much in common with <a href="https://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2024/02/iran-has-shipping-container-based.html">Iran's shipping container ballistic missile system</a> that holds two long range missiles, that provides easy to set up, powerful, accurate, modern missiles in a delivery system agnostic manner. Iran's system can be put on a ship, a train car, a truck, or in a parking lot, and is small enough to be delivered by a C-130 short range military transport aircraft or the equivalent (but probably not by helicopter).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">These palletized or shipping container based weapons system would be very hard to interdict. And, the range of the weapon itself also makes interdiction hard. In the case of the Iranian system, it is sufficient to get the shipping container anywhere within a thousand miles or so of the target. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The VAMPIRE system, at least, can operate from outside the range of a tank's main gun, or a sniper's rifle. </span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-57572892496255804052024-02-15T17:33:00.007-07:002024-02-15T17:35:38.754-07:00Immigration Still Doesn't Increase Crime Rates<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Fear of foreigners, xenophobia, and other sources of intuition about immigration and crime are surprisingly persistent in the face of evidence to the contrary, and a few well publicized incidents can play into those cognitive biases. Republicans, who are less connected with factual reality, are much more likely to believe that there is a crime-immigration connection, than Democrats.</span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In a new <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/">Pew Research Center report</a> about the situation at the US-Mexico border, 57% of Americans say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime. . . . it flies in the face of years of studies looking at what actually happened after immigrants came to communities across the US. Many researchers crunching the numbers <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/03/us/immigrants-crime-numbers/index.html">have found there’s no connection</a> between immigration and crime. Some have even found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the US. . . . </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">when those surveyed were asked specifically about the impact of the migrant influx on crime, there were stark differences across party lines, with 85% of Republicans linking the migrant influx to crime, compared to 31% of Democrats. The survey also found that 39% of Americans don’t think the migrant influx has much of an impact on crime. The Pew report is based on a survey of 5,140 adults conducted from January 16-21. . . .</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Across a variety of studies that use different years of data that focus on different areas of the United States – with some exceptions, there’s some nuance there. I don’t want to deny the nuance – in general, on average, we do not find a connection between immigration and crime, as is so often claimed. The most common finding across all these different kinds of studies is that immigration to an area is either not associated with crime in that area, or is negatively associated with crime in that area. Meaning more immigration equals less crime. It’s rare to find studies that show crime following increases in immigration or with larger percentage of the population that are immigrants. . . . </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">New York Police Commissioner Edward Caban recently described a “wave of migrant crime” in the city as he announced a bust in a ring of cell phone thefts. Is that what’s happening?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There’s an increase in robbery. Is the increase enough to call it a crime wave? No. Are you sure the migrants were responsible for the increase in robbery? No. Do we know if the victims were also migrants? No. … It’s tough to call it a migrant crime wave when we don’t know all these things.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Is there any big-picture data that you would look at to think about what the impact might be of this large number of recent arrivals in the city?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">When a New York Daily News reporter asked me about this recently, I gave her what I thought was a good formula: Why don’t you take police precincts that have shelters in them and just look at that sample. Is crime up? Is crime down? </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/07/media/new-york-city-vigilante-group-fox-news"></a></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">That <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/02/10/fears-of-a-migrant-crime-wave-are-growing-in-nyc-but-actual-evidence-is-scant/">report in the New York Daily News</a> ended up finding that, in the places they looked at where shelters are located, crime is down this year compared to the same time last year in most categories.</span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">From <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/border-migrants-crime-cec/index.html">CNN</a>. </span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-16668204015098873692024-02-15T13:42:00.005-07:002024-02-15T21:09:41.951-07:00Iran Has Shipping Container Based Ballistic Missiles<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEioEi-GaYemd16qixcPZLEAV83OtPLc4wgI7GZcpYpZeefFbyKFGNDicXt3Fi7ne8eagZhKNniz33sObWbIFuj4W-Gzp5t-Zh_Qrx_gLonHu9NtjmeWiVM2lA86Us_gU3-Hy2h9VL3Tq-F2IuLU-FpjvMf3eab5yEK3ymb6rSIJIgucpJLDx3uMGA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="810" data-original-width="1440" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEioEi-GaYemd16qixcPZLEAV83OtPLc4wgI7GZcpYpZeefFbyKFGNDicXt3Fi7ne8eagZhKNniz33sObWbIFuj4W-Gzp5t-Zh_Qrx_gLonHu9NtjmeWiVM2lA86Us_gU3-Hy2h9VL3Tq-F2IuLU-FpjvMf3eab5yEK3ymb6rSIJIgucpJLDx3uMGA=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Image from Iranian State Media via The Warzone</i></div></i></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Iran's military capabilities, developed by a homegrown defense industry that arose due to international sanctions, can now launch ballistic missiles from ordinary looking shipping containers. Iran also recently proved its long range missile capacity by firing three ballistic missiles in different direction from its homeland on the same day at ranges of 1000 km or more. </span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has fired two ballistic missiles from launchers disguised as <a href="https://www.twz.com/army-counter-drone-system-pops-out-of-a-shipping-container">standard shipping containers</a> that were hosted aboard one of its sea base-like vessels. This particular combination, which has not been seen to date, greatly expands the reach with which those weapons could be used to strike potential targets by surprise, especially given that shipping containers can be embarked on any vessel that has the space to accommodate them.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The country's IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency <a href="https://www.twz.com/navy-shoots-down-irans-claims-it-forced-u-s-helicopters-to-land">reports</a> that two "Fateh class" ballistic missiles were recently launched from <a href="https://www.twz.com/navy-shoots-down-irans-claims-it-forced-u-s-helicopters-to-land">Shahid Mahdavi</a>, which the Iranian Navy took delivery of in March 2023 after it was converted from a state-owned and operated container ship known as the Sarvin. The outlet also notes that the launch was a collaboration between the IRGC's naval and aerospace forces. At least one of the missiles went on to successfully hit their target in the central desert of Iran, it <a href="https://www.irna.ir/news/85385701/%D8%B4%D9%84%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C-%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%88-%D8%B4%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%88%DB%8C-%D8%B3%D9%BE%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%86%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1">has been reported</a>.</span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">From <a href="https://www.twz.com/news-features/iran-fires-ballistic-missile-from-a-shipping-container-at-sea"><i>The Warzone</i></a>. </span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-54470127989955578452024-02-15T12:51:00.005-07:002024-02-15T21:13:54.882-07:00Planetary Defense Is Still A Good Idea<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmjXQqncku8pi881GFBdPcJZerhP_O4BDW8VXmwgEcpGJ3yE_AQQjdB7JGRJYGiscTVjycgfM4ECW4H-iKsM0P_MWaMq7hXTL9EY6szC3ZpfgKcFwMU_dtEPt7OmXVlWZmGe_JXGVWppd-xOZFcChLITp8XpssEJfbBHCE58pn1VkAKTUdbJyMYg/s1600/PolicyPaper_PlanetaryDefense01.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmjXQqncku8pi881GFBdPcJZerhP_O4BDW8VXmwgEcpGJ3yE_AQQjdB7JGRJYGiscTVjycgfM4ECW4H-iKsM0P_MWaMq7hXTL9EY6szC3ZpfgKcFwMU_dtEPt7OmXVlWZmGe_JXGVWppd-xOZFcChLITp8XpssEJfbBHCE58pn1VkAKTUdbJyMYg/w640-h360/PolicyPaper_PlanetaryDefense01.jpeg" width="640" /></a></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The technology necessary to defend Earth from meteors and comets that could cause massive harm to all living things on the planet as part of a planetary defense system <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08705">continues to advance</a>. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Preparing for this potential <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory">Black Swan event</a> continues to be a good idea because this low probability event could do extreme harm, on a scale comparable to a global nuclear war, if it happened.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-39338734982246207202024-02-13T15:27:00.003-07:002024-02-15T21:11:36.845-07:00Is The B-52 Past Its Expiration Date?<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW27sQY8aWO5EBECP8vzHK8xouCUFZU0aCNCHYYEscBHP07r9O8NtMKRNSzHF-dfuZpXKJ7WfcQlP1H6GpH90jgu-_4IQSeAjW4_IErkfnEXjmVaVm9ISwROBrt7BUStMhKLv6r3uia00LUTXvi-NBlCg7W-3nbTB0PPntaF9COeCkNtSHlVkSqA/s600/B-52_Stratofortress_assigned_to_the_307th_Bomb_Wing_(cropped).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="600" height="436" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW27sQY8aWO5EBECP8vzHK8xouCUFZU0aCNCHYYEscBHP07r9O8NtMKRNSzHF-dfuZpXKJ7WfcQlP1H6GpH90jgu-_4IQSeAjW4_IErkfnEXjmVaVm9ISwROBrt7BUStMhKLv6r3uia00LUTXvi-NBlCg7W-3nbTB0PPntaF9COeCkNtSHlVkSqA/w640-h436/B-52_Stratofortress_assigned_to_the_307th_Bomb_Wing_(cropped).jpg" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Image from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress">Wikipedia</a></i></div></i></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are 76 B-52s in service in the U.S. Air Force now. It is a long range, large capacity, non-stealth, subsonic bomber. It can't even utilize the ground hugging approach to radar evasion of the B1-B bomber. It is really only suitable in circumstances where the U.S. has air superiority, or it is firing very long range missiles.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, in truth, with a new round of upgrades, it will not be the original 1962 war plane. It will be a modern aircraft with a historic air frame façade. Bombers also experience less wear and tear than any other kind of military aircraft, since they are flown so much less often each year and don't conduct evasive maneuvers that stress the airframe to nearly the same extent as fighter aircraft. Still, a B-52 "transport bomber" replacement is long overdue. It is hard to believe that we've learned nothing useful and relevant about airframe design in the last 62 years.</span></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Air Force is preparing to bring on its newest stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider, and retire the aging B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit. Sometime in the 2030s, the service plans to have a fleet of two bombers — at least 100 B-21s and the current fleet of 76 B-52s, <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/01/09/how-to-re-engine-a-b-52-and-make-a-new-bomber-fleet/">modernized top to bottom with a slate of upgrades</a>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is the <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2022/12/05/us-air-force-lays-groundwork-for-major-changes-to-bomber-fleet/">most sweeping revamp of the U.S. bomber fleet</a> in more than a generation. This $48.6 billion overhaul is intended to keep the (eventually redubbed) B-52J operational until about 2060 — meaning the Air Force could be flying nearly century-old bombers. When the last B-52 was delivered in 1962, it was expected to last 20 years, the Defense Department’s inspector general said in a November 2023 report. . . . </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The centerpiece of the B-52J modernization will be the replacement of the bomber’s original <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/11/15/pratt-wins-engine-work-contract-to-keep-aging-b-52-awacs-flying/">’60s-era Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines</a> with new Rolls-Royce-made F130 engines; that $2.6 billion effort is known as the Commercial Engine Replacement Program. The Air Force expects the first test B-52J will start ground and flight tests in late 2028, and for more B-52s to receive new engines throughout the 2030s.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But that’s not all: The B-52J will also receive a new modern radar, improved avionics, the Long Range Standoff weapon to carry out nuclear strikes from a distance, communication upgrades, new digital displays replacing dozens of old analog dials, new wheels and brakes, and other improvements.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><p><span style="font-size: large;">From the <a href="https://www.airforcetimes.com/air/2024/02/12/the-new-b-52-how-the-air-force-is-prepping-to-fly-century-old-bombers/">Air Force Times</a>. </span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-34512862753830252952024-02-13T10:59:00.004-07:002024-02-13T12:03:47.532-07:00County Level Population Change<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh35otOBLeCAU8mB0vgXEyh3ReOAhvXDK91v_4kjEBC6O6tqYNLKmYw443HBqdTy2NfwN0wlrHcuAEoHzkVZqPU7oKWmbL59VrV3lKGe8sdgb6vUS3OtnlUTFCJ11q5DkVs5Fhv1jkb1dQ_PLjFs1I35nTj168G3a1B5abkGmgm36o6Ie6NZ7_EOw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1221" data-original-width="1456" height="537" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh35otOBLeCAU8mB0vgXEyh3ReOAhvXDK91v_4kjEBC6O6tqYNLKmYw443HBqdTy2NfwN0wlrHcuAEoHzkVZqPU7oKWmbL59VrV3lKGe8sdgb6vUS3OtnlUTFCJ11q5DkVs5Fhv1jkb1dQ_PLjFs1I35nTj168G3a1B5abkGmgm36o6Ie6NZ7_EOw=w640-h537" width="640" /></span></a></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">From <a href="https://www.slowboring.com/p/almost-half-of-american-counties">Slow Boring</a> which observes that: "almost all of West Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi are losing people." It also notes that: "Fully 47% of counties lost population between July 2021 and July 2022."</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">A one year map with the rebound from the pandemic isn't a perfect gauge, however. A ten year map avoids static and random variation, as well as the one time shock of COVID-19:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhWfc2mf_ZKbdrveHF27cJ-u3bX1fXEKxu42e30L9IZ2WipoKRtQ96-datSUI3DJ3RtnmDzkABTv5j1BBf4ofyRR1bLR0h0d6AwexSqGNxUR0CcwiLqypas8WemLtyCyfDl6x8OE5V4INaQ9_0kj8lZoGr4pPK6e64OB6PnAcW7-vmqHBEKYHNilA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhWfc2mf_ZKbdrveHF27cJ-u3bX1fXEKxu42e30L9IZ2WipoKRtQ96-datSUI3DJ3RtnmDzkABTv5j1BBf4ofyRR1bLR0h0d6AwexSqGNxUR0CcwiLqypas8WemLtyCyfDl6x8OE5V4INaQ9_0kj8lZoGr4pPK6e64OB6PnAcW7-vmqHBEKYHNilA=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What seems significant also looks different looking at changes in numbers of people per county rather than percentages:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiqnmxyibuqow1NQVKkGuonhTF2vuvkOmY7lW0s1Y6MZeZGd_yDEeKgCkVKFEGGhMEqAbhSaZqZ6yTfAtxrEilk3vy8wbrN06aBNpXkjXTodfm5YOM42PdmCEqzmu43ZtQdsmSpMAjAWfGXcZsWFO7oryKtapgbLeIscW_C6vRulogZWLznMqyurA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="921" data-original-width="1200" height="491" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiqnmxyibuqow1NQVKkGuonhTF2vuvkOmY7lW0s1Y6MZeZGd_yDEeKgCkVKFEGGhMEqAbhSaZqZ6yTfAtxrEilk3vy8wbrN06aBNpXkjXTodfm5YOM42PdmCEqzmu43ZtQdsmSpMAjAWfGXcZsWFO7oryKtapgbLeIscW_C6vRulogZWLznMqyurA=w640-h491" width="640" /></a></div></div></div></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">As noted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_States">here</a>:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Rural areas in the United States, often referred to as rural America, consists of approximately 97% of the United States' land area. An estimated 60 million people, or one in five residents (17.9% of the total U.S. population), live in rural America.</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The post then muses about the divide, closely related to this population trends, between places where the market price of homes is above or below replacement value:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here’s a 2,700-square-foot <a href="https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/3179-Key-Blvd-22201/home/11247927">two-story home sitting on a 5,600-square-foot lot</a> not far from the Clarendon Metro Station, but just far enough that the area is strict single-family zoning. It’s a nice house, but the $1.7 million price is mostly due to the expensive land. Absent that zoning rule, you might redevelop a parcel like that as a six-story building featuring ten 2,000-square-foot units (two on each floor) plus a 4,000-square-foot penthouse. The total value of the whole parcel would be much larger, but the individual units might be 50% of the price of the old house at 75% of the size. That redevelopment is possible because $1.7 million is so much higher than the replacement value of the house — <b>regulation ensures that the price of housing is dominated by the price of land.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In a scenario of population decline, though, the market value of a house falls below the replacement value of the structures. You can see this by looking at statistics, but it’s pretty easy to eyeball where it’s taking place because <b>the signature is a neighborhood with more vacant lots or vacant buildings than ongoing construction projects.</b> Huge swathes of Detroit are, infamously, like this. But it’s also true of <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/11/cleveland-wants-to-repair-abandoned-homes-but-its-more-expensive-than-demo-is-it-worth-the-money.html">Cleveland</a> and <a href="https://www.stlmag.com/history/architecture/st-louis-abandoned-houses-buildings-slumlords/">St. Louis</a> and <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2021/07/15/milwaukees-vacant-homes-threaten-neighborhood-safety-property-values/5026155001/">Milwaukee</a> and <a href="https://www.wbaltv.com/article/baltimore-vacant-homes-hurdles-to-solutions/39205061">Baltimore</a> and other cities. Abandoned or vacant buildings are a source of blight — negative amenity value to the neighborhood. And each city with a significant amount of vacant property has its own policy apparatus for dealing with it and its own local discourse about the merits of that apparatus and whether the problem should be handled some other way. In years of reading about this, though, <b>I’ve never heard of a city that has a magic formula to deal with vacant lots and blight. What I have seen is the vacant building problem vanish in my own neighborhood in D.C. due to robust market demand for housing.</b> I’ve also seen in Chicago that a city can be capacious enough to support a lot of construction activity in the West Loop, even while significant swathes of the South Side look a lot like Cleveland.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Generally speaking, counties with declining populations tend to lean Republican and counties that are growing, even a little, tend to lean Democratic, although there are exceptions, driven by race, religion, age, education, and the relative importance of fossil fuels and tourism in the local economy.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-51898983487890439852024-02-08T05:15:00.001-07:002024-02-08T05:15:06.633-07:00Outmarriage Rates<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgt-927Vfo1s-S5iF3XGiLtO8OWtozCA81hM1zpTmKVRIX5O4mxLjZfzh7iYGMjSlM6rSFDW80W0_fd3o4_LPWkq9ywaYMfwxivfQ8C3N1qv9o1BofZc7LiEp8-zT1YxsC5YLkPvY6nGAeVYT5hlLdjy-9n_pLwESEMSLAWXjTXUhLbbrbfOUXb0g" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="626" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgt-927Vfo1s-S5iF3XGiLtO8OWtozCA81hM1zpTmKVRIX5O4mxLjZfzh7iYGMjSlM6rSFDW80W0_fd3o4_LPWkq9ywaYMfwxivfQ8C3N1qv9o1BofZc7LiEp8-zT1YxsC5YLkPvY6nGAeVYT5hlLdjy-9n_pLwESEMSLAWXjTXUhLbbrbfOUXb0g=w627-h640" width="627" /></a></div><span style="font-size: large;">From <a href="https://www.brownpundits.com/2024/02/03/outmarriage-rates-for-us-born-indian-and-pakistani-americans/">here</a>.</span><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-84728154707053438642024-02-07T22:59:00.013-07:002024-02-16T00:08:11.973-07:00More Discussion Of Tanks<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXEQMtfKYt6deRamzGYFb9Xp6qWcj32B9cjD0IcNab8vukobdEk0tKxVpnEbxpU22AFmdULH0MXSlhVqaZGwsyzoTZFjC0eocmtfbrotiPRLjVzyPfNlEOf3hlwiP0wG1KB1Z30ab10ZvmeMEt_Uo2COCJv_v4y9-JGtFbmif9NhC4gEn3q4O29g/s1920/booker-m10.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXEQMtfKYt6deRamzGYFb9Xp6qWcj32B9cjD0IcNab8vukobdEk0tKxVpnEbxpU22AFmdULH0MXSlhVqaZGwsyzoTZFjC0eocmtfbrotiPRLjVzyPfNlEOf3hlwiP0wG1KB1Z30ab10ZvmeMEt_Uo2COCJv_v4y9-JGtFbmif9NhC4gEn3q4O29g/w640-h360/booker-m10.webp" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The first new armored vehicle in the U.S. Army in 40 years, the <a href="https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used">M10 Booker</a> Mobile Protected Firepower a.k.a. Light Tank is about to enter service. The Army wants to buy 504 of them. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is still basically a bad idea. The number of units of the M10 should be greatly reduced as it provides a brief interim respite until a better alternative that is better suited to the realities of modern warfare can be fielded.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The Ukraine war has demonstrated that tanks with a large main direct fire gun firing a dumb shell, tracks, and only minor secondary weapons, no matter how advanced, are generically sitting ducks in modern conventional warfare that provides little offensive capabilities that other military systems can't provide equally well or better. Other recent conflicts involving tanks tend to reaffirm this conclusion.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M1 Abrams was ill-suited for the Iraq War, was ill-suited for Kosovo, was ill-suited for Afghanistan, is ill-suited for the Ukraine War, and is ill-suited for any kind of war in the Pacific with China or North Korea. It isn't fit to fight in cities with narrow streets, in mountains with narrow passes, in jungles or other muddy terrain, and in countries with rivers crossed by bridges that can't hold 73 tons, although it performs adequately on plains and in deserts outside major cities that aren't broken up by canyons or rivers. It is also generically ill-suited to any kind of rapid response expeditionary mission where they cannot be prepositioned, because so few of them can be delivered by air and delivering tanks by sea is far slower than the pace at which modern warfare proceeds. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* But the M10 Booker solves too few of the M1 Abrams' flaws. It doesn't solve the limited ability of crews to see their surroundings, and limited angular range of fire issues that make the M1 vulnerable to mines, IEDs and infantry with short range anti-tank weapons when it lacks dismounted infantry support. It doesn't solve the M1s vulnerability to drone and missile attacks. It doesn't solve the weak top armor problem. It doesn't solve the problem that its direct fire main gun has a shorter range than artillery rounds and anti-tank missiles. It doesn't solve the M1s slow speed that denies it a capacity to flee attackers moving at even modest speeds and slows down units that could otherwise move faster. It doesn't reduce the number of soldiers in harm's way in the tank. It is basically just an M1 Abrams with a smaller tank shell and somewhat less strong armor, that is more fuel efficient and 32 tons lighter, which is a pretty unimpressive improvement after 45 years on a tank that has consistently proven how ill-suited it is for most of the missions where its use might potentially be considered.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The speed and lower fuel consumption and maintenance costs of wheeled armored vehicles make them superior to slower and more expensive tracked vehicles, in exchange for only minor reductions (if any) in their off road capabilities. Attacks on supply conveys were major military issues in the Ukraine, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, as modern warfare no longer has clearly defined front lines, so any vehicle located anywhere in the theater of conflict, including lightly armored and unarmed diesel fuel tankers, can be attacked.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Anti-tank missiles deliver the same punch, with greater accuracy and range, with vastly less weight than a main gun on a tank. Tank shells are less expensive, but the less expensive delivery devices for anti-tank missiles make up for that, unless the number of shells fired in anger is far greater than post-WWII combat history suggests are usually needed. And, the prices of anti-tank missiles can plummet as their tech goes out of patent.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10's fairly heavy armor which is second only to the M1 main battle tank is virtually irrelevant, because it doesn't appear to have a V-shaped hull to deal with mines and IEDs, it lacks active defenses against drones and anti-tank weapons, and it appears to share the flaw of having thin top armor relative to front and side armor of most tanks that have increased their vulnerability to drones and anti-tank missiles. It also doesn't have its own drones to provide situational awareness and/or sniper capabilities at greater ranges that it can without drones.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Unlike the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator">Russian "Terminator"</a>, it doesn't have a versatile and numerous enough set of weapons to take on large numbers of infantry effectively in all directions and at all angles in an urban setting, where many future wars with a need for protected firepower are likely to be fought.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsYQVUiNGOH5tVYNKw4skVWKoNnH3396hQae_to7pkcYQfK8f-Yvt1ypYd-1PY7Y_gnFKHKHU7a3risLGR3pUWVF-iIcLxVOlYmGU0AwoR5Hk5SixnndV3PUBHsjcvU0vXgOa1A6wHCzhjRgKqtgUaREYivslBA_jH4sPqVHqwLNeJi4lD8Pi9lQ/s1280/0x0.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsYQVUiNGOH5tVYNKw4skVWKoNnH3396hQae_to7pkcYQfK8f-Yvt1ypYd-1PY7Y_gnFKHKHU7a3risLGR3pUWVF-iIcLxVOlYmGU0AwoR5Hk5SixnndV3PUBHsjcvU0vXgOa1A6wHCzhjRgKqtgUaREYivslBA_jH4sPqVHqwLNeJi4lD8Pi9lQ/w640-h360/0x0.webp" width="640" /></a></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">"The Russian army’s three-person, 53-ton BMPT Terminator tank support vehicle combines the thickly-armored hull of a T-72 tank with an unmanned turret packing twin 30-millimeter autocannons and launchers for four anti-tank missiles.", via <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/08/13/a-swarm-of-tiny-ukrainian-drones-just-knocked-out-one-of-russias-nine-remaining-terminator-vehicles/?sh=5185dc7a2669">Forbes</a> magazine.</span></blockquote></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* There is no reason that a light tank entering service in the year 2024 should have the same sized four person crew as the M1 Abrams tank that entered service in 1979, 45 years earlier. It should have been possible with modern automation technologies to reduce the M10s crew to two, if not to make it optionally unmanned. The M2 Bradley which entered service in 1981, and has proven the equal of the M1 Abrams in actual combat, has a crew of three (commander, driver, and gunner) and could function with two.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 is still too heavy for an expeditionary armored vehicle meant to deploy rapidly with infantry by air. It is similar in weight at 41 tons to many other countries' main battle tanks. If the weight could be brought down by 14 tons to 27 tons, three of them could be deployed per C-17 sortie, instead of two, which would be huge in terms of its ability to get more systems in the field quickly, even if it didn't get down to the 19 tons of the Stryker that can be deployed four to a C-17 and one per C-130 sortie. More than tripling deployment rates is much better than more than doubling deployment rates.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Getting to 27 tons for a light, wheeled missile tank is very technically feasible. The M2 Bradley's initial version was 27 tons and it had to carry six infantry and three crew while a new armored vehicle should only need a driver and a gunner. The other suggested changes, like wheels and losing the main gun in favor of anti-tank missiles (with the same punch and more range and accuracy), would also help achieve that weight goal. It would also be feasible to trade some of its passive armor capabilities for active protection systems and a drone of its own that weigh less.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Key observations about the M10 Booker:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Mobility, Deployment, and Training</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The 41 ton M10 is too heavy to be transported on a C-130. But a C-17 can carry two of them on a roll on, roll off basis, while a C-17 can carry only one 73+ ton M1 Abrams main battle tank and some assembly is required with heavy equipment (such as an M-88 tank recovery vehicle) after a C-17 drops off an M1 resulting in considerable delay in it being battle ready. It is comparable in size to the most fully extra-armored and kitted out M2 Bradley, a design that started in its base model at 27 tons, and is heavier than many M2s.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">* An M10 can travel far more miles per gallon of diesel fuel than an M1, so they are less of a logistics burden. Every diesel fueled vehicle implies a caravan of tanker trucks that must follow not too far in their wake. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10, M1 and M2 Bradley are all tracked vehicles that travel at similar speeds (about 40 miles per hour). They are all considerably slower than wheeled vehicles on roads (where most tanks end up operating most of the time) like the Stryker and JLTV, and the cost of maintaining the tracks is more expensive per mile and harder to maintain than the wheels of wheeled armored vehicles. The M1, in particular, has proven expensive to maintain.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">* An M10 can operate on narrower roads and cross weaker bridges than an M1. The M1 has had problems dealing with narrow urban streets, narrow mountain roads, weak non-U.S. road and train bridges, and <a href="https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/02/07/the_tank_is_dead_1010158.html">mud</a>, due to its great weight and great width.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">* Operating an M10 is very similar to operating an M1. Minimal retraining is necessary for crews trains on an M1. Both have a crew of four.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Weapons and Defenses</span></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 has a 105mm main gun, while the M1 has a 120mm main gun.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* A 105mm tank shell, a 120mm tank shell, and a 105mm howitzer shell (with a 7 mile range), are all <a href="https://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2021/08/shells-grenades-rockets-small-missiles.html">in the 33-48 pound range</a> and an order of magnitude cheaper per round than guided weapons systems (ca. $800-$2,500 each) This is comparable in size to the Chinese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HJ-12">HJ-12 anti-tank missile</a> (37 pounds), the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW">BGM-71 TOW missile</a> (42 pounds), the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin">FGM-148 Javelin missile</a> (49 pounds), and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-176_Griffin">AGM-176 Griffin missile</a> (45 pounds), and Viper Strike guided bombs. An M2 Bradley with weight and deployability comparable to the M10, typically has a 7.62mm machine gun, a 25mm canon, and TOW missiles, giving it comparable or superior firepower (but fewer rounds of anti-tank class ammunition) to a tank, in addition to carrying six infantry passengers.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The 105mm and 120mm tanks rounds are significantly larger than rocket propelled grenades, bazookas (a.k.a. recoilless rifles), mortar shells (up to 120mm), 2-3" naval gun shells hydra rockets, and <a href="http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edequipment/edmis/edmis6a8.htm">Bofors RB56 anti-tank missiles</a>. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">But these tank rounds are smaller than 5" naval gun shells (70 pounds), 155mm howitzer shells (90-103 pounds), and heavier anti-tank missiles such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(missile)">Israeli Spike missile</a> (75 pounds), Chinese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HJ-10">HJ-10 missile</a> (94-95 pounds), U.S. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire">AGM-114 Hellfire missile</a> (108 pounds), and British <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)">Brimstone anti-tank missile</a> (110 pounds). </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Airplane launched bombs other than the Viper Strike bombs, Army MLRS missiles, and naval ship missiles and torpedos (250 pounds to 3,900 pounds for everything but bunker buster bombs and ICBMs) are all much larger than tank shells.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Stinger and French Mistral man carried surface to air weapons are in the same overall weight range as tank shells, but pack much less punch (6-6.5 pound warheads) because their weight is devoted to achieving guided supersonic speeds to take on jet fighters. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 has a secondary 7.62mm machine gun and a secondary 0.50 caliber machine gun, which is similar to an M1.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 has lighter armor than the M1, although its armor is still heavier than an M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, a Joint Light Tactical Light Vehicle (JLTV) or a Stryker armored personnel carrier. The need to fill this gap has <a href="https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used">not been demonstrated</a>:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">During the two decades of largely counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was little need for a vehicle that could bridge the gap between the Abrams and armored vehicles like the <a href="https://www.twz.com/this-is-what-bradley-fighting-vehicles-will-bring-to-the-fight-in-ukraine">Bradley Fighting Vehicle</a> or the <a href="https://www.twz.com/this-is-what-stryker-armored-vehicles-could-bring-to-the-fight-in-ukraine">Stryker Armored Vehicle</a>. A mobile gun system Stryker variant had a 105mm gun, but the Army <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/246274/army_announces_divestiture_of_the_stryker_mobile_gun_system">divested that in 2021</a> because of problems with its dated cannon and autoloader. That platform was also far less protected than the Booker and its wheels meant it could not get to the same places as easily as the M10 can.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">At present, Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) just have light tactical vehicles –<a href="https://www.twz.com/14039/under-new-deal-us-allies-will-keep-getting-the-ever-adaptable-humvee"> Humvees</a> that are now in the process of being replaced by<a href="https://www.twz.com/44014/new-ejltv-hybrid-electric-variant-of-militarys-light-tactical-vehicle-revealed"> Joint Light Tactical Vehicles</a> (JLTV) – armed with .50 caliber M2 machine guns, 40mm Mk 19 automatic grenade launchers, and<a href="https://www.twz.com/40111/the-armys-plan-to-finally-replace-the-tank-busting-tow-missile"> TOW anti-tank missiles</a>, for organic mobile fire support.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 does not initially have an explosive reactive armor add on, although it is designed to be able to receive one, or a "skirt" designed to protect against fire from the side at its tracks.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 does not have active defenses against anti-tank missiles or drones or a current plan to add these active defenses, while the Army's goal is to upgrade M1s with this capability. As noted <a href="https://www.twz.com/land/how-the-armys-new-m10-booker-light-tank-will-actually-be-used">here</a>:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">Initially . . . Bookers will not have a <a href="https://www.twz.com/19787/the-army-wants-this-modular-universal-system-to-shield-its-armor-from-rockets-and-missiles">Modular Active Protection System (MAPS</a>). . . . That system, designed to be adaptable to future threats, helps guard against <a href="https://www.twz.com/18922/it-looks-like-javelin-anti-tank-missiles-are-headed-to-battlefield-ukraine">anti-tank guided missiles</a> and <a href="https://www.twz.com/19753/us-marines-might-soon-get-new-versions-of-the-vietnam-era-m72-rocket-launcher">infantry anti-tank rockets</a> by combining radar with launchers that shoot out blasts of metal pellets, intercepting the incoming round.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>“The initial M10 Booker design is complete and vehicles are in low-rate initial production now,” Norman told us. “The M10 does not include an integrated Active Protection System. The Army is consistently evaluating best-of-breed APS from domestic and foreign sources and may elect to equip M10’s with one of those systems in the future but that is not currently programmed.” . . . </span>In addition to not having APS, the M10 will not have anti-tank guided missiles or drone capabilities, at least at first. </span></div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Anticipated Use</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 will be deployed in Army infantry brigades, which deploy more quickly and are more expeditionary, while the M1 is deployed in Army armor brigades. The Army also has Stryker brigades that will have neither M10s nor M1s. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 is being pitched as providing a way to allow infantry to take on medium strength fortifications and armored vehicles that don't have weapons effective against tanks at beyond its direct fire range. Cheaper ammunition seems like a weak reason to use tank shells rather than missiles for this purpose.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* This means that M10s and M2 Bradleys (if any) in infantry brigades, plodding along at 40 miles per hour on their tracks along the roads that they actually travel on the vast majority of the time, will slow down the advancement of the wheeled vehicles in the brigade that could otherwise advance at least 50% faster, thus degrading the mobility of the unit as a whole, which can move no faster than its slowest member. Nothing else in an infantry combat brigade is tracked and limited to 40 miles per hour. Yet time is of the essence in war, and this undermines scoot and shoot tactics.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* The M10 still doesn't have the range to take out artillery positions or anti-tank missile units with its main gun before it is within range of these threats, and doesn't have the speed to outrun these threats even if they are mounted on slow tracked vehicles themselves. In the vicinity of enemies with anti-tank missiles or artillery that has a range of at least three miles and can move at 40 miles per hour or more, the members of an M10 crew are dead men walking if they don't abandon their tank.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">* Tanks v. tank engagements have always been uncommon and remain rare (under 5% of destroyed tanks). Artillery shells, armed drones, helicopters, loitering munitions (i.e. one way drones), ground attack fighters, anti-tank land mines and IEDs, anti-tank missiles, rocket propelled grenades, and 20-40mm cannons all destroy more tanks than the main guns of other tanks. As explained <a href="https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/02/07/the_tank_is_dead_1010158.html">here</a>:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Hundreds of expensive tanks of both sides are being destroyed on the battlegrounds of Ukraine by cheap UPV drones. These include the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90">Russian T-90MS Tank</a> (worth about $4.2million) and the German <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2">Leopard 2A6 Tank</a> (about $6.3 million). They are being destroyed by ubiquitous Chinese UPV drones, and their local variants, that sell for about <a href="https://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Dji_Mavic_Pro_Drone.html">$3000</a>. The U.S. has also supplied Ukraine with 155mm howitzer rounds known as <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/04/12/why-so-many-russian-tanks-fall-prey-to-ukrainian-mines">Remote Anti-Armour Munitions</a> (RAAM). Each shell scatters nine 2.3kg magnetically activated mines. Tanks with limited vision, especially Russian tanks, often hit these mines, damaging their tracks, and making them sitting targets. They are all then finished off by precision artillery and antitank guided missiles.</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It also notes the massive losses of tanks in the Russian-Ukraine war (very few of which come from other tanks). More than 60% of tanks fielded by Russia and the Ukraine have been destroyed in the first year and a half of the war, with tanks every kind from the most advanced to the most out dated destroyed.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The same article also has interesting discussion of future tanks:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>In the short term</i>:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Tanks that are lighter in order to ease the logistic, with V-shaped floors, crewless turret, with minor heat signature, APS systems against drones (like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)">Trophy</a> or light <a href="https://www.defence-industries.com/articles/top-5-anti-drone-technologies">Droneguns)</a>, more equal armor thickness all around since now top hitting kamikaze drones and missiles are the main enemy, not other tanks anymore.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">They would all be armed high-trajectory indirect-fire weapons like rockets, missiles, or mortars. Many tank models would also have additional secondary weapons like rotary multi-barrelled autocannons, machine guns, anti-infantry explosive strips on the sides, side-firing ports for internally carried soldiers or crew, etc. They would also have various types of advanced computer brains, communications, systems, and sensors.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Increasingly they sound like the relatively inexpensive M3 Bradley and the variants America are about to produce.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>In the long term</i>:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Tanks will be AI controlled and/or remotely controlled, crewless vehicles, with light armor and focus on mass production and low maintenance.</span></div></blockquote><div><p></p></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2005-2020)</div>andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com4