What Were They Thinking?

The Nissan Kicks (replacing the all wheel drive Nissan Juke), the Toyota C-HR, and now the Hyundai Venue, are all new "subcompact SUVs" (Kelley Bluebook calls them "SUV-lets") with front wheel drive only.

What were they thinking? Why bother creating a front wheel drive only SUV type vehicle?

I guess it makes sense for the California and Hawaii markets. But, for those of us who live in places that get serious snow, and who sometimes drive on dirt roads that turn to mud, this is insanity and an oxymoron of the worst kind.

Psychic Detective Yakumo

There are basically two kinds of love stories. In one, more than one person competes for the other's love. In the other, one person proves to someone who is hard to love that they are loved and can be redeemed. The second kind is uncommon. But, told well, it can be the best kind of love story.

Snuck away behind the mystery and supernatural elements, Psychic Detective Yakumo is an epic love story of the second type, which is why the series of novels have had two manga adaptation, an anime adaptation, a live action TV adaptation, and a stage play based upon it. 

The Limits of Diversification

Diversification only reduces risk if the risks are accurately quantified and not correlated with each other.

Quote of the Day

Wealth is careless -- so around it, you must be careful.

- John Green, "Turtles All The Way Down" (2017).

Disabling Drones By Disabling Their Eyes

Protestors in Chile and Hong Kong have used personal laser pointers to take down or disable drones monitoring the protests.

I've also been pondering another way to disable drones of all kinds by impairing their sensors inspired by the fact that the performance of my backing camera on my car is greatly impaired when I've driven through dirty, wet snowy roads that leave a thin layer of mud all over the lens.

What if you used spray paint, or hurled a fine mist of mud, or shot a paintball gun at the sensors of a drone? It would seem to me that this might be sufficient to take it out of action, and also to force soldiers within manned vehicles reliant upon cameras to target its guns or operate it, to get out of the protective hull to keep the vehicle fully operational.

What I'd Like To Have In A Future Social Media Platform

Consider this my request for proposals for Facebook® 2.0 (no claim to the trademark is made here, this is purely nominative use):

* I'd like a platform that doesn't show you the same post over and over again, even if it is shared and reposted (even months later), or at a minimum, minimizes repeat posts to just show the person posting it and new comments and content.

* I'd like a platform that clearly displays when linked material was published and gives old news lower priority without completely censoring it. At a minimum, it should prevent material that was breaking at the time but is now old news from appearing suddenly new.

* I'd like a platform the automatically flags and attaches to linked material sources debunking the link as fake, or including subsequent developments about events reported in the linked material.

* I'd like a platform that allows you to "bookmark" posts that you see for future review and reference without having to share them which can appear to endorse the posts or let the public know you are interested in something that you'd prefer not to advertise without having to read it right then.

* I'd like a platform that automatically makes a first shot at categorizing posts you've expressed interest in by subject matter. Posts could have more than one category. For example, a post about today's school shooting in Santa Clarita might have one "Santa Clarita November 14, 2019 shooting" category, and another category about mass shootings or gun violence. The categories would be personalized based upon cluster analysis of content you've responded to, posted or shared.

* I'd like a platform whose spelling checker has a larger vocabulary.

* I'd like a better way to review archived material.

* I'd like an ability to back arrow to the exact page you were on previously rather than seeing an updated version of that page that might not have what you were just in the middle of reading and accidentally clinked away from.

* I'd like a platform that automatically "yellow flags" posts and comments from people with a history of being the kind of people you unfriend, downrate, etc., but doesn't censor them unless you choose to do so.

* I'd like a platform that automatically shows you something describing the credibility and bias of sources of linked material, which you could manually adjust (e.g. maybe one to five stars that have a color from red to purple to blue reflecting their bias or white if unknown).

* I'd like a platform that automatically yellow flags potential friends who seem spammy or like fraudsters.

* I'd like a platform that allows you to flag a few categories of ads (not all of them, I recognize that they have to make money) that you'd prefer not to see.

* I'd like a platform that promptly (but accurately) resolves cases of two accounts for the same person, one real and one fake.

* I'd like a platform that allows two or three links that have a preview page in a post, rather than just one.

* I'd like more fine tuned control over what I am notified about. I usually don't want to know that someone reacted to a post or comment, but I do want to know if there is a comment that I might want to react or respond to.

* I'd like for there to be an easier way to retroactively change privacy settings for large numbers of prior posts at once.

* I'd like it to be fairly easy to deactivate features like the "Your Story" feature in Facebook. 

* I'd like a feature that you tell you, at least when you have a large enough number of friends, how many have unfollowed you and how many you actually reach with your posts.

* I'd like a way to sort posts with links from posts without links (both my own and other people's).

* I'd like a feature that stops a repeat loop GIF after a certain number of loops, unless you manually choose otherwise.

* I'd like a feature that translates non-English text embedded in an image.

* I'd like a feature that allows you to manually nudge your feed to have more or less or some kind of content without making an all or nothing rule about it. Hence, maybe you'd like more cat videos and fewer political posts, but don't want all of one and none of the other.

* I'd like direct messaging that don't involve "winks" and allows you to filter out or deprioritize direct messages targeted at lots of people at the same time.

* I'd like a platform that doesn't flag Wikipedia links as spam and trigger content filters for them.

* I'd like to be able to globally deactivate image hiding features designed to protect people from seeing gross or violent or not safe for work content, even though I think it is a good feature to have in the system.

Feel to add your own suggestions in the comments.

You Sunk My Battleship

Preface

People who make military policy and amateurs who follow it alike are in something of a vacuum when it comes to naval warfare.  While the Navy is a very large share of the United States Defense Department budget, there have been so few skirmishes in the past fifty years or so that it is hard to get a reality check on the multi-billion dollar expenditures involved. The few incidents which have occurred, meanwhile, have taken on disproportionate importance.  

While some naval history is too distant to be of much use, from the ramming battles between glorified rowboats of the Greeks, to the days of sails and cannons, it is fair, at least, to look at the experience of World War II, the last full fledged blue sea naval campaign in world history.  This experience has informed much of the current conventional wisdom regarding naval warfare, and while the lessons learned in World War II need to be updated to reflect technological advances that have taken place since then, they are too recent to safely ignore.

Among other things, World War II taught the lesson that the heavy armor of a battleship was no match for modern offensive weapons. 

As the Wikipedia article linked above explains:

Battleships were the largest and most complex, and hence the most expensive warships of their time; as a result, the value of investment in battleships has always been contested. 

As the French politician Etienne Lamy wrote in 1879, "The construction of battleships is so costly, their effectiveness so uncertain and of such short duration, that the enterprise of creating an armored fleet seems to leave fruitless the perseverance of a people". The Jeune École school of thought of the 1870s and 1880s sought alternatives to the crippling expense and debatable utility of a conventional battlefleet. It proposed what would nowadays be termed a sea denial strategy, based on fast, long-ranged cruisers for commerce raiding and torpedo boat flotillas to attack enemy ships attempting to blockade French ports. 

The ideas of the Jeune École were ahead of their time; it was not until the 20th century that efficient mines, torpedoes, submarines, and aircraft were available that allowed similar ideas to be effectively implemented. The determination of powers such as Germany to build battlefleets with which to confront much stronger rivals has been criticised by historians, who emphasise the futility of investment in a battlefleet that has no chance of matching its opponent in an actual battle.

Large Warships In Existing Navies

Today, there are only two ships of the battleship class in the world, both in the Russian Navy, only one of which is in active service, the 28,000 ton Admiral Nakhimov commissioned in 1988 is currently undergoing refit and is out of service, and the 28,000 ton Pyotr Velikiy, of the same class commissioned in 1998 is in active service.  

The 14,564 ton Zumwalt class destroyer of the U.S. Navy, the largest warship in the U.S. Navy that is not an aircraft carrier or non-combatant logistics ship, and is is arguably misclassified as a destroyer deserves a battleship designation. Just three Zumwalt class destroyers have three have been built (and no more have been ordered). One was commissioned in 2016, one was commissioned in 2019, and one is awaiting a commission later this year. It cost $7.5 billion per ship of total cost to build and has been severely criticized:

Mike Fredenburg analyzed the program for National Review after Zumwalt broke down in the Panama Canal in November 2016, and he concluded that the ship's problems "are emblematic of a defense procurement system that is rapidly losing its ability to meet our national security needs." Fredenburg went on to detail problems relating to the skyrocketing costs, lack of accountability, unrealistic goals, a flawed concept of operations, the perils of designing a warship around stealth, and the failure of the Advanced Gun System. He concludes:

"The Zumwalt is an unmitigated disaster. Clearly it is not a good fit as a frontline warship. With its guns neutered, its role as a primary anti-submarine-warfare asset in question, its anti-air-warfare capabilities inferior to those of our current workhorse, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and its stealth not nearly as advantageous as advertised, the Zumwalt seems to be a ship without a mission."

Each of the three ships of the Zumwalt class have two six inch guns and room to hold almost a thousand shells for them, but no ammunition (emphasis mine):

The Advanced Gun System (AGS) is a naval artillery system developed and produced by BAE Systems Armaments Systems for the Zumwalt-class destroyer of the United States Navy. Designated the 155 mm/62 (6.1") Mark 51 Advanced Gun System (AGS), it was designed to provide long range naval gunfire support against shore-based targets. A total of six of the systems have been installed, two on each of the three Zumwalt-class ships. The Navy has no plans for additional Zumwalt-class ships, and no plans to deploy AGS on any other ship. AGS can only use ammunition designed specifically for the system. Only one ammunition type was designed, and the Navy halted its procurement in November 2016 due to cost ($800,000 to $1 million per round), so the AGS has no ammunition and cannot be used.

Indeed, only twenty navies in the world have surface warships (including aircraft carriers, but not transport ships) larger than a frigate: U.S. (111), Japan (48), China (33), Russia (20), India (14), France (14), United Kingdom (7), Norway (5), Italy (4), Taiwan (4), Netherlands (4), Denmark (3), Germany (3), South Korea (3), Egypt (3), Saudi Arabia (3), Spain (2), Brazil (1), Thailand (1), and Morocco (1).

Only seven of these countries (China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Thailand and Morocco) would plausibly be U.S. naval warfare adversaries in the foreseeable future (while many of the remaining thirteen countries would likely be allies of the U.S. in an future naval warfare in their region). These seven plausible adversaries have 62 large surface warships ships combined. Of these only China and Russia are really serious concerns militarily and they have 53 large surface warships combined.

The Russian fleet's large ships, moreover, are split between several global regions that are distant from each other in some case (Northern, Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific). The aircraft carrier, the battleship, one smaller cruiser, and six destroyers are in Russia's Northern fleet. One smaller cruiser and five destroyers are in Russia's Pacific fleet. One of its smaller cruisers and one of its destroyers are in Russia's Black Sea fleet. Three of its destroyers are in Russia's Baltic fleet.

Several other plausible U.S. naval warfare adversaries such as Iran and North Korea have submarines but no large surface combatants.

Currently, the U.S. has 20 aircraft carriers (11 "super carriers" of 100,000 tons or more, and 9 amphibious assault ships which can carry helicopters, Osprey aircraft, Harrier aircraft or F-35B aircraft of 40,000-45,000 tons), Italy has 2, Japan has 4, France has 4, Australia has 2, Egypt has 2, and Brazil, China, India, Russia, Spain, Thailand and the United Kingdom each have one. In all there are 42 aircraft carriers in active naval service in the world.

Five aircraft carriers (one each from the U.K., China, Russia, India and France in order of size) are between the size of a U.S. super carrier and the smallest U.S. amphibious assault ship ranging from 42,000 to 65,000 tons (and only four of these from the China, Russia, India and France, and the ten U.S. super carriers, allow for something other than a vertical landing). The other eighteen aircraft carriers range from 11,486 tons to 27,100 tons (eleven of which are restricted to vertical takeoff and landing aircraft such as helicopters and the MV-22 Osprey). All twenty-seven carriers under 42,000 tons and two larger aircraft (one from the U.S. at 45,000 tons and one from the U.K. at 65,000 tons) are restricted either to short takeoff vertical landing aircraft such as an F-35B or a Harrier, or to vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

Eleven more carriers (including two that are only VTOL carriers) are undergoing sea trials or ordered: the U.S. 3, China 3, and South Korea, India, Italy and Turkey one each.

Currently, the U.S. has 22 cruisers (10,000 tons each) and Russia has 4 (one battleship with 28,000 tons and three cruisers with 12,500 tons) in active service. In all there are 27 cruisers in active naval service in the world. The U.S. cruisers are virtually indistinguishable from its destroyers and slightly inferior to them as they are older designs.

Currently, the U.S. has 69 destroyers (including 2 of the Zumwalt class), Japan has 44, China has 32, Russia has 15, India has 13, France has 10, the U.K. has 6, Norway has 5, Taiwan has 4, the Netherlands has 4, Germany has 3, Denmark has 3, South Korea has 3, Saudi Arabia has 3, Italy has 2, Egypt has 1, Morocco has 1, and Spain has 1. The largest destroyer in active service (other than the two Zumwalt class destroyers in active service) is 10,290 tons and many of which are considerably smaller. Some of the destroyer class ships are larger, more capable ships actually called frigates in an effort to make comparisons comparable. All ships classified as frigates for these purposes are under 5,000 tons, although a few particularly capable frigates between 4,000 and 5,000 tons are classified as destroyers. There are 219 destroyers in all of the world's navies combined.

In all there are 42 aircraft carriers over 11,000 tons and 7 other surface combatants over 11,000 tons in naval service in the world. Of those, 20 aircraft carriers and 2 other surface combatants are in the U.S. Navy and 1 aircraft carrier and 4 other surface combatants (one battleship and three cruisers) are in the Russian Navy. The other navies of the world have 21 aircraft carriers, only 10 of which are more than VTOL helicopter carriers. There are 244 other surface combatants bigger than frigates in the world in active naval service (of which 67 are in the U.S. Navy and 15 are in the Russian Navy).

The Japanese Naval Experience

The case that really brought this home for the Japanese was the sinking of the battleship Yamato.  This 71,000 ton ship with massive 18 inch guns was tough.  It  had previously survived a hit from a torpedo delivered by a U.S. submarine on Christmas Day in 1943, and two bombs that hit it in October of 1944, in the Leyte Gulf.  Two more 36,000 ton Japanese battleships, the Fuso and the Yamashiro, were sunk by naval gunfire and torpedoes in that same October battle.  Bombs damaged the 39,000 ton Japanese battleship Nagato in the battle of the Leyte Gulf badly enough to remove it from action. Ultimately, air power prevailed over the big guns and heavy armor of the pinnacle of the battleship era.  On April 7, 1945, the Yamato was sunk by carrier based U.S. aircraft and it took 2,498 Japanese sailors with it.  The 32,000 ton Japanese battleship Ise (already removed from service nine months earlier by a mine), and Japanese battleships Hyunga and Haruna were sunk by carrier based U.S. aircraft in July of 1945.

Japan had already lost its 32,000 ton battlecruiser Kirishima to 16” naval gunfire from the 47,000 ton American battleship Washington in 1942 in one of the last of the battles that went according traditional naval models of close range ship to ship combat, in this case, at a range of a mile and a half.  The 28,000 ton Japanese battleship Kongo was sunk by a submarine in November of 1944.  Its three sister ships were sunk by U.S. aircraft in World War II.

The American Naval Experience in World War II

Americans remember Pearl Harbor.  Yes, this carrier based air attack was a surprise.  But, a heavily armored hull did not prevent this attack from sinking the 32,000 ton U.S. battleship Arizona and three other battleships.  Four more battleships were seriously damaged, the 29,000 ton American battleship Nevada among them, although the Nevada was ultimately returned to service and survived further battle damage on multiple occasions.  Few naval strategists before Pearl Harbor had realized how vulnerable the fleet was to aerial attack.

The 33,000 ton American battleship Idaho ran aground off Okinawa in June of 1945.  American battleship Pennsylvania,  a sister ship of the Arizona, was taken out of action by enemy aircraft in August of 1945.

The 45,000 ton American battleship Indiana did exhibit the resilience in the face of damage which battleships are legendary for notwithstanding a mixed experience in real life.  It survived both a collision and a hit by a kamikaze pilot in 1944, and serious storm damage in 1945, and survived until decommissioning in 1963.  The 45,000 ton South Dakota similarly sustained and survived repeated battle damage. The 56,000 ton American battleship Iowa likewise survived serious damage from shore fire sustained in March of 1944, and the 47,000 ton battleship Washington survived a 1942 torpedo hit from a Japanese submarine and a 1945 friendly fire incident.

The German Naval Experience in World War II

Germany’s 51,000 ton battleship the Bismark found its fate at the bottom of the sea in May of 1941.  The British Royal Air Force damaged the 40,000 ton German battleship Gneisenau to the point that it never again was useable as a battleship in 1942.  Sister German battleship Scharnhorst, however, survived in the face of a seemingly never ending barrage of hits sustained.

The Italian and Vichy French Naval Experiences in World War II

Both Italy and Vichy France both saw battleships destroyed in port before they were ever launched.  

The planned 48,000 ton battleship Clemenceau was destroyed in its French port during a bombing raid in August 1944.  The 36,000 ton battleship Dunkerque, in the hands of the Vichy French, was damaged sufficiently to be taken out of action, and lost one in seven of its crew members, in July of 1940, by a combination of British warship attacks and torpedoes in two separate incidents.

The 30,000 ton Italian battleship Duilio wasn’t actually sunk, but a British bombing raid in November of 1940 took it out of service for about a year, and the ship served only a brief secondary role in World War II thereafter.  The 46,000 ton battleship Vittorio Veneto was taken out of action by British aircraft in 1941, then by a submarine, and then 1943 by another aircraft.  The 47,000 ton Italian battleship Littorio was taken out of commission by British aircraft by June of 1942.

The Spanish Naval Experience in World War II

The 16,000 ton battleship Espana was sunk by a “friendly” mine in July of 1937 during the Spanish civil war, killing a third of the sailors on board.

The British Naval Experience in World Wars I and II.

While it predates World War II, it is worth recalling that the 22,000 ton British battleship Dreadnought (the second of that name launched in 1906) which became synonymous with the very notion of a battleship, sank only one enemy vessel, a German submarine, in all of World War I.  It achieved this end not with its ten 12” guns, but with a methodology as old as Greek naval warfare.  It rammed it.

German dive bombing planes took the 30,000 ton British battleship Iron Duke out of service on October 17, 1939.  It Italian airplane’s torpedo took the 38,000 ton British battleship Nelson out of service for a year on September 27, 1941.  The British lost the 42,000 ton battleship Prince of Wales in December of 1941 to an attack by Japanese aircraft, after having suffered serious damage from naval guns, which was repaired, earlier that same year.  The 33,000 ton British battleship Queen Elizabeth was removed from service when an Italian frogman bombed it while it was in harbor that same month.

Colorado Supreme Court Revised Cruel and Unusual Punishment Analysis

The Colorado Supreme Court in lead case Wells-Yates v. People, and companion cases People v. McRae and Melton v. People has substantially revised the framework in which cruel and unusual punishment allegations are evaluated, generally speaking, in the favor of criminal defendants, although not in an unqualified win.

Some people serving long sentences for minor drug crimes in Colorado will probably have those sentences reduced as a result of these decisions.

The practical effect of this is that severe habitual offender sentences, which were once almost never disturbed under the 8th Amendment, especially for drug crimes, may now have some hope of being overturned as disproportionate and cruel and unusual. 

The official syllabus of the lead case is a good starting point:

The court holds that: (1) during an abbreviated proportionality review of a habitual criminal sentence, the court must consider each triggering offense and the predicate offenses together and determine whether, in combination, they are so lacking in gravity or seriousness as to raise an inference that the sentence imposed on that triggering offense is grossly disproportionate; (2) in determining the gravity or seriousness of the triggering offense and the predicate offenses, the court should consider any relevant legislative amendments enacted after the dates of those offenses, even if the amendments do not apply retroactively; (3) not all narcotic offenses are per se grave or serious; and (4) the narcotic offenses of possession and possession with intent are not per se grave or serious. 

The most serious drug offenses (sale and distribution) remain per se grave and serious based upon the high intent threshold and high penalties remaining on the books. Theft is also held not to be "per se grave or serious" in the Melton v. People case.

The key facts in the lead case were as follows:

The prosecution charged Wells-Yates in 2012 with second degree burglary, conspiracy to commit second degree burglary, theft, possession with intent to sell or distribute 7 grams or less of a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine), four counts of identity theft, and three habitual criminal counts. In February 2013, a jury found Wells-Yates guilty of all the substantive charges. Following a bench trial in May 2013, the court adjudicated her a habitual criminal based on three predicate offenses: 

• A 1996 conviction for possession with intent to sell or distribute 7 grams or less of a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine), a class 3 felony; 

• a 1997 conviction for possession of 2 grams or less of a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine), a class 4 felony; and 

• a 1999 conviction for possession of 2 grams or less of a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine), a class 4 felony. 22 

The court subsequently conducted a sentencing hearing. For each of the eight triggering offenses, it imposed the statutorily required prison sentence—four times the maximum prison term in the presumptive range: 

• 48 years (12 × 4) on count 1, second degree burglary, a class 3 felony; 

• 24 years (6 × 4) on count 2, conspiracy to commit second degree burglary, a class 4 felony; 

• 24 years (6 × 4) on count 3, theft, a class 4 felony; 

• 48 years (12 × 4) on count 4, possession with intent to sell or distribute 7 grams or less of a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine), a class 3 felony;9 and 

• 24 years (6 × 4) on each of the four class 4 felony counts of identity theft (counts 5, 6, 7, and 12). 

The court ordered all of the sentences, with the exception of the sentence on count 7, to be served concurrently. 

In total, Wells-Yates received an aggregate prison term of 72 years: 24 years on count 7, consecutive to all the other sentences. 

(The parties agree that the sentence on count 4 was incorrectly calculated; it should have been 64 years, not 48 years. Possession with intent to sell or distribute 7 grams or less of methamphetamine on the date charged in count 4 was an extraordinary risk class 3 felony, see § 18-1.3-401(10)(b)(XI), C.R.S. (2012); the maximum term of years in the presumptive range for such a felony is 16, not 12, years, see § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V)(A), C.R.S. (2019). Therefore, the trial court should have multiplied 16 × 4, not 12 × 4. The basis of count 7 was the sale of the identity documents during Wells-Yates’s first meeting with the agent; the sentence on that count was ordered to be served consecutive to all the other sentences. 23 (the longest of which were the 48-year concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 4).11 She is eligible for parole.) 

(Given the error regarding the sentence on count 4, the parties agree that Wells-Yates should have received an aggregate prison term of 88, not 72, years (24 + 64, instead of 24 + 48)).

The state legislature in Colorado has in recent years dramatically reduced the sentences for drug crimes in a non-retroactive way and this is what gives the ability to reconsider legislative changes that are not retroactive when evaluating proportionately so powerful.

If "Wells-Yates committed the triggering offense of possession with intent on or after October 1, 2013, instead of in 2012, she would have faced a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years, not a mandatory habitual criminal sentence of 64 years." 

The one point upon which criminal defendants do not prevail is that the Colorado Supreme Court holds that proportionality analysis needs to be conducted on charge by charge basis, rather than the aggregate sentence for all charges including whether sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively. So, they do not consider the total 72 year combined sentence, but only the sentences for each particular offense.

The cases are remand to the trial courts to reconsidering in a much more fact specific way in the face of a much more favorable legal standard.

The prospects of success on remand for these defendants and similarly situated victims of old draconian drug war sentences seems good, although the remedy for an 8th Amendment violation is to reduce the sentence to the highest amount that would not be cruel or unusual, which is still high.

A Comic Author's Shelf Of Ingredients

From SEIS.

Religion, Language, Agriculture and Vegetarianism In South Asia

Note that "Other Caste includes both Christians and Muslims thus artificially inflating meat consumption for higher caste Muslims and in particular for Brahmins who by conventional wisdom are most likely to be vegetarian.

From here via Razib Khan's pinboard. State by state data that mirrors that in maps below are available at the link. Also, gender differences in meat eating are fairly modest in most of India, but in North India, women consistently eat meat much less frequently than men.

There is considerable regional and ethnic variation in vegetarianism  and meat eating in India, however. 

From here.

Beef and buffalo eating, in particular, is not eaten by many people in India, although this percentage varies greatly by religious affiliation: 

Around 63.4 million Muslims consume beef/buffalo. That adds up to 40% of the total Muslim population. For Christians, this figure is around 26.5%. Although, less than 2% Hindus eat beef/buffalo, they are ranked second in absolute terms. More than 12.5 million Hindus consume it.

Most of the geographic diversity in vegetarianism and meat eating in India, however, is within majority Hindu regions and is only modestly impacted by the percentages of non-Hindus in each region.

The historical basis of the wide regional intra-Hindu vegetarianism and meat eating frequency isn't readily apparent, although areas that are linguistically Indo-Aryan are more likely to be vegetarian than areas that are linguistically Dravidian, Munda or Tibeto-Burmese. Meat eating may reflect a thinner Indo-Aryan influence even in places that experienced a language shift to Indo-Aryan languages. Vegetarianism may alternatively reflect a stronger influence from the pre-Indo-Aryan Harappan society.

The map below shows the most common first language in different parts of India with majority vegetarianism corresponding reasonably well to the region where the Indo-Aryan Hindi, Punjabi or Gujarati languages are spoken, with vegetarianism being less common in places where other languages are spoken, even when they are Indo-Aryan languages.

Both from here.

The divide also roughly corresponds to the divide between places where Fertile Crescent Neolithic package crops especially wheat, millet and pulses are grown (which tend to be vegetarian), and those where Sahel Africa especially sorghum is grown, roughly overlapping with historically Dravidian areas, or East Asia Neolithic crops especially rice is grown, roughly corresponding to historically Munda and Tibeto-Burmese areas (both of which tend to be meat eating). 

Consider, for example, this crop map (as of 1973 in India):

Vegetarianism is also somewhat correlated with areas with relatively low agricultural productivity.

The correlation with India's natural vegetation zones is worse:

The Larger South Asian Context

The chart above compiled from comparable figures shows that meat consumption is 12.84 kg/year/person in Pakistan, 3.27 kg/year/person in Bangladesh, and 2.9 kg/year/person in India. Meat consumption in Bangladesh probably isn't much different from neighboring parts of India which are less vegetarian than India as a whole.

A source covering only Pakistan and India says that Pakistan consumes 8.6 kg/year/person of meat v. 1.8 kg/year/person of meat in India (v. 9.4 kg/year/person of meat in Japan). 

Another source suggests that Pakistan consumes 6.71 kg/year/person, while Bangladesh consumes 0.91 kg/year/person. These numbers are probably correct relative to each other.

A third source, however, suggests that Bangladesh consumes slightly more meat per year per person than India and does not have data for Pakistan. These relative numbers are also probably correct.

Conclusions Regarding Meat Eating and Vegetarianism 

In sum, India consumes very little meat compared to almost every other country in the world and certainly compared to almost every other country in the world with similar or higher per capita GDP.

In India meat is consumed disproportionately by Christians and Muslims, with Muslims eating more meat than Christians and vegetarians are most common in the Northwest. Also, even among people who India who do eat meat, most of them eat meat only rather infrequently, and daily meat consumption is almost as uncommon in India as vegetarianism is in the U.S. (which as of 2015 is about 3.4% of Americans are vegetarian and about 0.4%).

Bangladesh consumes only a little more meat than India, despite being predominantly Muslim, while Pakistan consumes much more meat than either India or Bangladesh, even though it abuts the most strictly vegetarian parts of India. 

Religious Affiliations in South Asia

India

In India, the religious mix is as follows:

The majority of Indian Jews have "made Aliyah" (migrated) to Israel since the creation of the modern state in 1948. Over 70,000 Indian Jews now live in Israel (over 1% of Israel's total population). Of the remaining 5,000, the largest community is concentrated in Mumbai, where 3,500 have stayed over from the over 30,000 Jews registered there in the 1940s, divided into Bene Israel and Baghdadi Jews, though the Baghdadi Jews refused to recognize the B'nei Israel as Jews, and withheld dispensing charity to them for that reason. There are reminders of Jewish localities in Kerala still left such as Synagogues. The majority of Jews from the old British-Indian capital of Calcutta (Kolkata) have also migrated to Israel over the last six decades.

From here.

There is some geographic diversity in the religious mix of India although almost all predominantly Muslim areas were partitioned in West Pakistan (now simply known as Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now known as Bangladesh after Pakistan had a civil war).

The majority of Indian Muslims (over 85%) belong to the Sunni branch of Islam while a substantial minority (over 13%) belong to the Shia branch. There are also tiny minorities of Ahmadiyya and Quranists across the country. Many Indian Muslim communities, both Sunni and Shia, are also considered to be Sufis.

From here.

Pakistan

Pakistan is almost uniformly Muslim:

  Islam (state religion) (96.28%)

  Hinduism (1.85%)

  Christianity (1.59%)

  Ahmadi (0.22%)

  Other religions (0.07%)

Muslims comprise a number of sects: the majority practice Sunni Islam, while 5–15% are Shias. Nearly all Pakistani Sunni Muslims belong to the Hanafi Fiqh Islamic law school. The majority of Pakistani Shia Muslims belong to the Ithnā‘Ashariyyah Islamic law school, with significant minority groups who practice Ismailism, which is composed of Nizari (Aga Khanis), Mustaali, Dawoodi Bohra, Sulaymani, and others. Many Muslims of both types in Pakistan are also considered to be Sufis.

Bangladesh

According to this source (see also here):

The major religion in Bangladesh is Islam (90%), but a significant percentage of the population adheres to Hinduism (9%). Other religious groups include Buddhists 0.6%, (mostly Theravada), Christians (0.3%, mostly Roman Catholics), and Animists (0.1%).

The majority of Bangladeshis are Sunni. They follow the Hanafi Islamic jurisprudence, but there is also an increasing numbers of the Ahle Hadith.  Specifically about 96% are Sunni Muslim, 2% are Shia Muslim, 1% are "nondenominational" Muslim, and 1% are "other Muslims". About 26% of Muslims identify as part of a Sufi Muslim order.

The percentage of the population that is Muslim in the sixty-four districts of Bangladesh varies from 29.28% to 97.79%, and four of the sixty-four districts are not majority Muslim. One more is 63.53% Muslim. The other fifty-nine districts in Bangladesh are more than 70% Muslim.

About Facebook

One of the main reasons that I blog moderately less than I used to is that I post much more than I used to one Facebook, where I post a lot, maybe 300+ times a month.

Facebook is a medium with a bigger audience (1800+ friends), favors very short posts such as one or two sentence comments on links, is very "in the moment", and is bad for reviewing on an archive basis. It is good for documenting lots of isolated instances and examples of larger issues. It is more focused on an audience in Colorado. It also reaches more close personal friends and family, The different nature of the medium means that the kind of material that I post on Facebook is very different from what I blog about, in character, if not always in substance.

For the most part I'm (unsurprisingly) pretty much of a Social Justice Warrior.

What do I post on Facebook about? (Some posts fall in more than one category).

* Examples of bad cops.

* Examples of failures of the criminal justice system.

* Examples of injustice related to immigration.

* Examples of corrupt or abhorrent actions by politicians.

* Examples of inaccurate media reporting.

* Examples of troubling conduct in the name of religion.

* Examples of harm caused by firearms.

* Examples of blatant racism and anti-racist action.

* Examples of blatant homophobia and LGBTQ friendly action.

* Examples of blatant sexism and anti-sexist action.

* Examples of anti-scientific and conspiracy theory thinking.

* Examples of why we shouldn't treat Saudi Arabia as a friend.

* Examples of the failures of our healthcare system and possible solutions.

* Examples of poverty and homelessness as well as measures to abate those problems.

* Examples of problems with gross economic inequality.

* Links about reproductive rights and birth control.

* Urban planning and development stories.

* Public transit stories (especially local ones).

* Promotions of public health and safety, especially vaccinations, new cures and suicide prevention.

* Analysis of the consequences of good and bad policies.

* Interesting new inventions, technologies and scientific discoveries.

* Inspiring quotes and aphorisms.
* Examples of heroism by ordinary people.

* Notable stories about local weather and climate more generally.

* Big international news stories of types that often get little U.S. coverage.

* Cat videos and pictures.

* Birthday wishes for others.

* Rants about everyday life annoyances and triumphs.

* Intriguing food.

* Home team sports triumphs and disappointments.

* Funny and sweet stuff.

* Notable books, movies, TV shows and comics.

* Endorsements of and opposition to issues and candidates that I vote on.

* Analysis of flaws in our political system and possible solutions.

* Pieces about changes in culture, political identity and changing views of religion.

* Missing persons alerts likely to be present in Colorado or near someplace I have many friends.

I also comment about posts from friends that are blatantly and provably false and spread as if they were true.

Military Technology Quick Hits

(Meta: This is combined post number 9,705 for this blog and its sister blog combined.)

NEW MARINE WARSHIPS

* The Marines has started commissioning ships of "Expeditionary Sea Base" designation in 2015. The revised design, which uses adapted oil tankers, is quite inexpensive and makes it possible to deploy many Marines quickly in places that don't have U.S. bases nearby. 

Even more so than most surface combatants in the U.S. Navy, it isn't very fast and a sitting duck against any near peer with submarines, anti-surface ship missiles, warships, or warplanes that can deploy anti-ship missiles or bombs. It is armed only with 0.50 machine guns and has significant civilian component as its crew. 

But, against countries that lack those capabilities, it a a citadel from which a significant ground force with supporting helicopters and Osprey aircraft can be launched (its deck can't withstand the heat from the exhaust of an F-35B). As Wikipedia explains:

An Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD), formerly the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and a sub-class variant; the Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB), formerly the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB), are designed to be a semi-submersible, flexible, modular platform providing the US Navy with the capability to perform large-scale logistics movements such as the transfer of vehicles and equipment from sea to shore. These ships significantly reduce the dependency on foreign ports and provide support in the absence of port availability. 

The ESD and ESB (Expeditionary Mobile Base) and are part of a new ship class added in 2015 with an E as a new designator, similar to the L-class amphibious ships, S-class submarines, A-class auxiliaries and more. These three E-class ships were previously listed as seabasing ships in the Naval Vessel Register. 

In May 2011, General Dynamics NASSCO received a $744 million contract modification to fully fund the construction of the first two ships of the class, USNS Montford Point (ESD-1) and USNS John Glenn (ESD-2). Additional funding of $115 million for long lead time material and advanced design was awarded in August 2011. 

The first ship of the ESD program, USNS Montford Point (ESD-1) was delivered in May 2013, and the second ship, USNS John Glenn (ESD-2), was delivered May 20, 2013. 

In 2012, a third MLP, USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3), was added to the contract and reconfigured as an Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB), or formerly known as an MLP Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB). All three ships have been delivered to the U.S. Navy. 

In September 2015, the Navy decided to redesignate the MLP as the Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) and the AFSB as the Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB). 

The Navy plans to procure six Expeditionary Mobile Bases (ESBs) in total, with a fourth (ESB-6) ordered in FY2018, a fifth (ESB-7) ordered in FY2019, the sixth and final ship, (ESB-8) with an order date yet to be determined. . . . 

The Expeditionary Transfer Dock concept is a large auxiliary support ship to facilitate the 'seabasing' of an amphibious landing force by acting as a floating base or transfer station that can be prepositioned off the target area. Troops, equipment, and cargo would be transferred to the MLP by large-draft ships, from where it can be moved ashore by shallower-draft vessels, landing craft like the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), or helicopters. In order to transfer vehicles from the larger ships to the ESD, the vessels were originally to be fitted with a Vehicle Transfer System; a ramp connecting the two ships alongside, and able to compensate for the movements of both vessels while underway. 

USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2) naming, Feb 2014 

A preliminary design by General Dynamics envisioned a ship that carried six LCACs, with the ability to turn around (dock, unload or load, then launch) two landing craft simultaneously from the stern. The ESDs were to host a brigade-size force, sail at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph), and have a maximum range of 9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi). Each ship was to cost US$1.5 billion to build, but cutbacks to defense spending planned for the fiscal year 2011 budget forced the downscaling of the design in mid-2009. 

General Dynamics identified the civilian Alaska-class oil tanker (built by the subsidiary National Steel and Shipbuilding Company) as a suitable basis for an "ESD 'Lite'", with the design modified into a float-on/float-off vessel that could be built for US$500 million per ship. As part of the cost trade-off, the Vehicle Transfer System was scrapped in favor of skin-to-skin mooring of a host ship alongside the ESD, and the LCAC complement was reduced to 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). Converteam supply an integrated power system and vessel automation system for the ESD.

* The U.S. Marines are experimenting with U.S. the light aircraft carriers that used to be called "Harrier Carriers" and made up most of the rest of the world's aircraft carrier fleet, to launch squadrons of F-35B short takeoff, vertical landing steal fighters that are the next generation successor to the Harrier aircraft of the same type. Previously, the U.S. Marines had used their ships of the LHA class primarily as helicopter and Osprey carriers.

NAVAL MISSILES

* The U.S. Navy is testing a new "Naval Strike Missile" with a 100 mile range, which would be deployed on its ships to replace some existing anti-warship missiles which have inferior capabilities to it.

* The Tomahawk Cruise Missile designed for sea to land strikes is being updated to make it more capable.

The Tomahawk cruise missile, carried on 145 U.S. warships . . . first joined the fleet in 1983 and figured prominently in both Persian Gulf wars, but today’s Tomahawk is very different from the cruise missiles used in those conflicts, and tomorrow’s Tomahawks will be something else again. . . . All of the Tomahawks in the fleet will retain their land-attack capability, which enables precise destruction of high-value targets deep in defended territory with minimal collateral damage. Whether they are launched from a surface warship or a submarine, Tomahawks typically hit within ten yards of intended targets using a variety of guidance methods including GPS, inertial navigation, and terrain contour matching. 

What makes Block V different is that contractor Raytheon (a contributor to my think tank) is adding an anti-ship capability and a hard-target kill capability to specific lots of the missile. The “maritime strike” variant will have a new seeker capable of precisely identifying and targeting moving warships at sea. The hard-target kill version will carry an advanced warhead capable of destroying densely-constructed enemy assets previously requiring more specialized munitions. . . . Block V Tomahawk thus presents itself as the most affordable option for bolstering the Navy’s arsenal of long-range precision strike munitions without having to introduce a new weapon into the fleet. The basic footprint of the missile will not change—it will still fit into vertical launchers on surface warships, torpedo tubes on submarines, and other launch systems already extant that the joint force may elect to deploy in the future. (A land-based version of Tomahawk was successfully flight-tested in August.) 

The Navy has taken delivery of over 4,000 Block IV Tomahawks since 2004, about a tenth of which have been used in combat and testing. Naval Air Systems Command intends to update the arsenal to the Block V configuration by purchasing a mix of new missiles and existing missiles that have been enhanced via recertification. Some of the Block Vs will be maritime-strike variants, some will be hard-target killers, and some will be “basic” Block V Tomahawks delivering targeting flexibility and lethality similar to Block IVs. . . . Block V Tomahawks are likely to cost about a million dollars each, which arguably is a bargain for a munition that can reliably take out diverse targets over a thousand miles away worth many times that amount without causing major collateral damage.

* The latest purchases of Virginia class nuclear powered attack submarines will include more submarine to surface missile capabilities to make up for the capacity being lost of converted Ohio class submarines originally designed to carry nuclear missiles and converted to carry conventional ground attack missiles are going out of service.

BAE Systems is providing the Navy with missile payload tubes that would help new Virginia-class submarines carry more Tomahawks or next-generation guided cruise missiles. 

The service will be retiring its fleet of four Ohio-class guided missile submarines in the coming decade and “with that, they lose [a] significant amount of Tomahawk strike capability,” said Jason Warnke, director of launching systems and submarine programs at BAE. 

However, increasing the capabilities of the Virginia-class fast attack submarines in the Navy’s Block V buy will help make up for the loss, he said. BAE’s mission payload tubes are part of the Virginia payload module, which has an 84-foot mid-body section and includes four vertical launch tubes each. 

“It allows the Virginia-class to increase from 12 Tomahawks per submarine to 40,” Warnke said. “It increases the strike capabilities significantly.”

With the purchase of Block V boats, the Navy hopes to integrate significant changes and upgrades, according to a June Congressional Research Service report titled, “Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress.” Nine out of 10 subs in the block buy will contain the Virginia payload modules.

DRONES AND ANTI-DRONES

* The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are investigating using cargo drone aircraft, surface ships, submarines, and land vehicles to deliver supplies to troops. The size and nature of the vehicles remains a subject of ongoing deliberation. Early tests of this with converted transport helicopters have been very successful so far.

* The U.S. military is looking into converting UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters into helicopters that can operate as drones or have partial autopilot functions.

Sikorsky has two goals in mind for its optionally manned S-70 helicopter: to make the autonomous technology easy to retrofit on existing aircraft for users like the U.S. Army, and to give pilots various modes of autonomy so they can commit more time toward their mission, according to company officials. 

Sikorsky's original S-70 helicopter model would become the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk and spawn a family of helicopters used by multiple military services.

The standard Black Hawk is designed to carry 11 troops and a crew of three and is outfitted with a couple of machine guns as light armament (basically, it is a flying SUV) or as a medivac flying ambulance, although, in upgraded versions, it can be fitted with "up to 16 Hellfire missiles, as well as 2.75" FFAR (folding fin aerial rocket) rocket pods, FIM-92 Stinger anti-air missiles, as well as aerial mine delivery systems, such as the volcano and the M56 mine delivery system" in lieu of extra fuel or cargo.

* The U.S. Army is using drones that crash into enemy drones to protect Patriot anti-missile batteries. A recent attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields highlighted this vulnerability:

The attack on two major Saudi oil plants by low-flying drones in September highlighted an emerging vulnerability of long-range missile defense systems: The attacking systems were able to evade Patriot PAC-2 surface-to-air missile batteries in order to reach their targets.

* The U.S. military is looking into mounting anti-drone lasers and anti-drone microwave beam weapons on a variety of platforms, sometimes also using their own drones to identify targets.

As the Army moves forward with plans to mount anti-drone lasers on Stryker vehicles, the Air Force is preparing to send its own vehicle-borne laser drone-killers overseas in just a few months. 

Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems received a $23.8 million contract from the Air Force in August for two prototype high-energy laser weapons systems, designed to take out threatening unmanned aerial systems. The plan, according to contracting documents, is to deploy the systems for a year for testing and experimentation, wrapping up the effort by November 2020. ‘ 

At the same time, the Air Force has contracted with Raytheon for a $16 million prototype Phaser high-powered microwave counter-drone system, to be deployed and tested by service personnel within the same timeframe. 

At the Association of the United States Army [AUSA] annual meeting in Washington, D.C., this week, Raytheon executives said one of the high-energy laser systems has already been delivered to the Air Force, and the other will follow shortly. Related: 

"Where overseas, I can't disclose, but it is multiple [combatant commands]," said Evan Hunt, director of business development for high-energy lasers at Raytheon. "They have planned them for multiple different [areas of responsibility]." It will represent the first overseas deployment for the system, a milestone as major defense companies scramble to deliver smart solutions to counter a growing and diverse threat from enemy drones. 

At AUSA, the spherical laser multi-spectral targeting system was mounted on a lightweight Polaris MRZR all-terrain vehicle, a popular transport for special operations troops and small infantry elements. The system uses radar to detect and track unmanned aerial systems as small as commercial quadcopters, delivering data to a targeting screen. A human user can then employ an Xbox controller to lock in on a target and deploy the laser to shoot it down.

ARTILLERY

* The U.S. Army is trying to develop a howitzer with a 1000 mile range, although why this is a good thing is unclear, when long range cruise missiles and aircraft and drones carrying missiles already do the same thing, in an era when missiles and guided ammunition is replacing all large slug-throwers. I suspect that this is really just a missile launcher cosmetically modified to look like artillery to win in intra-DOD office politics over procurement. But, advocates argue that rounds of this "long range cannon" would be comparatively cheap.

“A lot of that comes down to cost,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville told Defense News in a recent interview. “If we are able to develop the strategic, long-range cannon system, the rounds may be only $400,000 or $500,000 compared to multimillion-dollar rounds. Cost does matter, and we are concerned about cost. There are some, definitely, physics challenges in doing these types of things, and that is the trade-off.”

The argument against that is that in modern, guided munition driven "small wars" we haven't used large volumes of ordinance, so "cheap" ordinance with an expensive delivery system may make less sense than it would have when the U.S. was fighting "big wars" with inaccurate munitions.

* The U.S. Army is also looking at options for automating its artillery in several recent request for proposals for proto-type designs:

A new Army research project calls for developing autonomous systems that can perform functions such as loading shells into cannon. It also follows another project that aims to replace forward observers, who call in artillery fire, with robots.

The research solicitation calls for developing “autonomous robotic systems that are capable of semi- and fully autonomous munitions handling inside a weapons system. Its functions would support loading of projectiles into the cannon breech, setting of charges and propellants, and management of excess case materials inside of the weapons system." 

A M109A6 Paladin, a self-propelled 155-millimeter howitzer, is operated by a crew of four: a commander, driver, gunner and loader. It is not clear which crewmen could be replaced by robots should this technology come to fruition, though the gunner and loader would seem to be prime candidates. At the same time, given advances in self-driving vehicles, it is conceivable that the driver could be replaced by a robot, which would leave the commander as the human element of the system.

But even the Army acknowledges there are risks, such as being hacked. “Potential solutions should consider the need for compact form factors, low electronic signatures, cyber security protections, shock and vibration management, and power supply constraints,” said the research solicitation. . . . 

The Army wants exoskeletons to assist its artillery crews with the physically strenuous task of operating the weapons. – and to keep gunners from going deaf. The project aims to develop “passive or active exoskeleton capabilities to assist crew-served artillery systems. Desired capabilities will mitigate injury due to human manipulation of objects weighing greater than 100 pounds as well as repetitive motion injury. Additional needs include solutions to mitigate the effects of exposure to high decibel acoustic transients and continuous acoustic signatures consistent with crew-served weapons system operations. Potential solutions will address harmful environmental exposure without impairing communication or sensing of the local environment, be capable of sustained operations, and not require extensive training.”

The Army is also eager for autonomous vehicles that can haul ammunition to the big guns. Currently, shells have to be crated, loaded and transported to a depot, and then unloaded, uncrated and transferred to a Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV). The FAASV then trundles forward to the artillery batteries, where the ammunition is transferred to the guns by hand. . . . 

The Army is looking for “autonomous robotic systems for transport of munitions in a state of storage to accelerate timelines and reduce personnel requirements. Solutions should enable unmanned unloading of crated and palletized items of various sizes from transport vehicles, and the stocking of primer and fuse boxes, propellant canisters, and uncrated projectiles onto the FAASV or alternative system for transport to the gun line. Alternatively, this system could deliver munitions to the gun line itself.” . . . 

The Army wants autonomous ground vehicles or aerial drones “for autonomous delivery of field artillery munitions from the FAASV, alternate vehicle, to the weapons system for tactical last mile resupply. Technologies must autonomously deliver a payload of sensitive items across unimproved terrain with a minimum payload capacity of 150 lbs. over distances of 1 kilometer or under.”

INFANTRY AMMUNITION AND BODY ARMOR

* The U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and United Kingdom's military are working together to replace traditional brass casings for its 5.56mm, 7.62mm and .50 caliber small arms and machine gun rounds with stainless steel or polymer casings that would weigh significantly less. A 6.8 mm round that the military is looking into might also have lighter weight casings.

* Research into body armor for troops is developing new materials by mimicking pearls and legos.

The result, the researchers claim, is an extremely tough outer shell with “a more flexible inner backing that's capable of deforming and absorbing projectiles.” This technology could be applied to body armor to benefit humans, a process known as biomimetics. 

The new armor technology takes ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, or UHMWPE, and adds silica nanoparticles for strength. The result, the Army Research Lab says, is a “lightweight plastic that is 14 times stronger and eight times lighter (less dense) than steel and ideal for absorbing the impact of bullets and other projectiles.” Kevlar, used in many types of armors, is five times stronger than steel. 

"The material is stiff, strong, and tough," Dr. Shenqiang Ren, project lead and professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at University at Buffalo, told the Army Research Laboratory Public Affairs. "It could be applicable to vests, helmets, and other types of body armor, as well as protective armor for ships, helicopters and other vehicles."

A further benefit is that the armor has high thermal conductivity, allowing it to dissipate heat from kinetic energy faster and absorb transferred energy from bullets and other projectiles.

TRUCKS AND TANKS

* The U.S. military is finally developing a militarized Ford Ranger mid-sized pickup truck, presumably (based upon prior reports) for low risk missions on military bases and in domestic settings, because it is much cheaper than a purpose built military vehicle with the same capabilities. But, none of the vehicles have been purchased yet. The Polaris firm that also makes ATVs and the engineering firm Ricardo is handling the military purpose upgrades. What features will the military version have that the civilian one lacks?

Ricardo added a full roll cage equipped with an integrated weapons mount; ballistic glass and floor protection; and heavy-duty bumpers, skid plates and side steps. Ricardo also increased the vehicle’s water fording capability to an unspecified depth; updated the suspension, wheels and brakes to handle the extra weight while improving its overall performance; and installed an electrical system protected against electromagnetic interference. Polaris, which builds several light off-road military vehicles, contributed to the design of the onboard power management and communication systems integration, according to Ricardo.

* A competition is underway to see which of three prototype ground vehicles designed to by airdropped to carry a squad of paratroopers or other forward deployed troops will be purchased. They are uncreatively called Infantry Squad Vehicles. They look a bit like dune buggies. 

The Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) is essentially a passenger-carrying truck that can drop out the back of an airplane. Once on the ground, a nine man squad of paratroopers will pile themselves and their equipment in the back and then quickly move out toward their objective. The ISV will allow an airborne assault force to choose a drop zone farther from enemy defenses but still quickly converge on a bridge, highway interchange, or enemy airport. The ISV prioritizes speed over armored protection, an easy choice to make since a heavy armored vehicle can’t be airdropped anyway.

One is from Polaris and called the DAGOR:

"Polaris DAGOR is . . . in service and has a strong background in all-terrain vehicles, which the ISV maybe is more than an actual truck."

One is from Oshkosh and called the Flyer-ISV:

"Oshkosh-Flyer can carry the most stuff and is already in service with the military."

One is from General Motors Defense:

"GM’s ISV is actually based on the Chevy Colorado mid-sized pickup truck, complete with ZR2 off-road suspension package. The vehicle is 70 percent of the commercial vehicle, or commercial parts. The ISV can also carry nine occupants or 3,200 pounds of cargo and passengers." It is the dark horse contender.

* The U.S. Army is considering purchasing the first light tanks it has bought since Vietnam a design called the Griffin II is one of two being considered:

A scale model of the Griffin II

In December 2018, the U.S. Army has chosen two companies to compete for the service’s new light tank program. BAE Systems and General Dynamics will each receive up to $376 million to develop and build 12 light tanks in fourteen months. 

In 2017, the US Army has launched a program called Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) that will purchase 504 light armored vehicles. The Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle is a new combat vehicle required to address the capability gap identified within the Armys Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). This vehicle would be incorporated in the IBCT structure as a weapon system solution to provide a protected, long-range, cyber-resilient, precision, direct fire capability for early/forcible entry operations. 

The MPF capability is one of the most critical needs for the U.S. Army, particularly for its Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) who lack protected, long-range, cyber resilient precision direct fire capability for early entry operations. IBCTs require this capability to be employed in austere and unpredictable locations allowing them to avoid the enemy's strengths and rapidly transition to offensive operations and exploit the initiative. 

According to the request of the U.S. Army, the MPF will be a light tank in the 30-ton class, armed with one 105 or 120mm main gun, and two tanks should be able to be transported into C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft. 

In December 2018, the U.S. Army has awarded a $335 million Section 804 Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping contract to General Dynamics Land Systems to deliver 12 prototype vehicles for the Mobile Protected Firepower program.

The final Mobile Protected Firepower light tank could be delivered to US Army in 2025.

The existing M1-A Abrams heavy tank at 70 tons each has proved not very useful in recent conflicts with most sent to the bone yards because they are slow to deploy, overwhelm foreign bridge and road infrastructure, and provide capabilities that can be obtained with other systems. 

It isn't clear to me that a light tank with a slug throwing large main gun, as opposed to something more like a missile tank, makes sense, but the Army is exploring the possibility anyway.

* In contrast, equipping Stryker armored personnel carriers with anti-armor missiles seems to make more sense.

Beginning in 2022, the Army will start turning large numbers of Stryker infantry carriers into tank-killers by equipping them with remote weapons stations armed with Javelin anti-armor missiles.

The fielding of the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station-Javelin (CROWS-J) is part of a larger effort to give the basic Stryker infantry carrier more firepower. . . .

Currently, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment is the only Stryker unit that has vehicles equipped with 30mm cannons or early versions of the CROWS-J. But the Army will begin equipping three more Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT) with both capabilities in 2022, Col. Syd Hills, director of the Stryker Warfighter Forum at I Corps, told Military.com recently. 

"Some will have the CROWS-Javelin, others will have the 30mm cannon," Hills said. "All of the formations will eventually have both. ... We will eventually kit out all nine [Stryker] brigades." 

The CROWS-J is an M153 CROWS II system, made by Kongsberg, that has been modified to launch an FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile. In addition to the Javelin, the CROWS II mounts either an M2 .50 caliber machine gun, M240 7.62mm machine gun, or an MK19 40mm grenade launcher. 

A gunner can detect a heavy armor target and destroy it with the CROWS-J out to roughly 3,000 meters from inside the Stryker vehicle, Hills said. 

Aside from infantry carriers, a Stryker brigade also has Anti-Tank Guided Missile Strykers and the Mobile Gun System, which is equipped with a 105mm cannon. 

But the driving force behind this lethality upgrade is that the SBCT is still an infantry-centric force, Hills said. 

"The additional lethality and the additional firepower is a means of force protection; it's meant to provide standoff and firepower so you can get the dismounted troops closer to the objective by using the vehicle to provide a support by fire and protect them so they can go further faster," he said.