Archive for November, 2003
U.S. to Test ‘Mother of All Bombs’ at Florida Base
The Air Force is going to conduct the final developmental test on the 21,700-pound, satellite-guided GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb this week. If the test is successful, the bomb will be made available for use.
Although the Reuters story claims the 1991 Gulf War occurred in 1992, MO readers all know better.
Darren Kaplan points out a BBC story on some previous anti-war protests in London.
Organisers estimated that 100,000 had marched from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square for the event, although the police say the numbers were nearer 15,000.
(Note to protest organizers: Plan your marches, sit-ins, and traffic obstructions on WEEKDAYS instead of Saturdays. That way a lot of students will cut class to join the fun, regardless of your issue, and help your numbers tremendously. And, from what we’ve seen over the past couple of years, your numbers are in serious need of some tremendous help.)
Many protesters waved placards reading “Stop the War” and “Not in My Name” and a number of British Muslims held prayers for peace on mats placed on the ground.Marches have taken place in Glasgow, Australia, western European capitals and even the US since the Allies’ bombing campaign began.
The war being protested was the Afghanistan campaign in November of 2001. That’s right, folks. Less than ten weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, these types were “out in force.”
And everything they and their kind said back then has come to pass, right? Waves of terrorist attacks across the globe? Thousands of dead Allied troops? Slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents. Installation of draconian governments even more feudal and oppressive than those we deposed? Rape and pillage of the countryside?
I mean, we haven’t even added any stars to the US flag yet.
One prediction, though, turned out to be more or less accurate.
“Our campaign will not end until the war ends and Britain and the US stop the bombing.”
Although the greater war goes on, the bombing DID stop.
‘V’ for peace. Peace through victory.
Kaplan points out
[The earlier protests are] Just something to keep in mind when media commentators solemnly explain that the anti-Bush demonstrations we are going to see in London this week are the result of George W. Bush squandering the world’s post 9-11 sympathy for the U.S. by going to war with Iraq.
Apparently, not everyone was sympathetic to begin with. Also apparently, those that make the decisions didn’t care. Good.
A post today on Strategy Page points out that some experimental nanotechnology armor for Humvee turrets is being fielded in Iraq for testing.
Because of its light weight construction, you cannot put a turret on a Humvee that weighs more than 400 pounds. Armor, even Kevlar fiber armor, can only provide so much protection within the 400 pound limit. But an experimental (meaning very expensive to manufacture) nanotech armor was used to construct a 200 pound armor turret that can stop 12.7mm (.50 caliber) bullets.
The turret is called the SAG (Save A Gunner) turret and it mounts on the existing turret rings for Humvees. The nanofiber armor is over 100 times stronger than steel. The goal of the tests is more to see how the material holds up in the field than to see how it performs against enemy fire. As Strategy Page points out, live fire testing is more safely performed on the firing range.
A quick google turned up this March Yahoo! News story on najaco.com.
The S.A.G.(TM) Turret weighs less than 200 pounds and offers rapid rotational capability. Traditional armored turrets are far too heavy and impede a gunner’s ability to effectively and rapidly rotate the turret during battle situations. The S.A.G.(TM) Turret is approximately 4 feet in diameter, is designed to interface precisely with military HMMWV rotating turret rings and can be installed by two people in less than one hour using common hand tools.The S.A.G.(TM) Turret, made primarily of USGA’s proprietary G-Lam(TM) nano-fiber material, is designed to be impervious to petroleum distillates and to maintain performance at temperatures in excess of 400 degrees Fahrenheit. In one test using 7.62 cal ammunition, six successive strikes in the same spot did not penetrate the armor, outperforming ceramic faceplates in conventional composite systems.
I also found this story on MilitaryCity reporting on some live fire tests carried out at this summer’s Shootout at Blackwater.
The original plan was to shoot the ring with various ammo types but, considering the cost of fabricating the device, company officials wisely decided to offer up 12-inch plates of the material for the evaluation. The 1.25-inch-thick plates are formed from a G-Lam/ceramic composite.With the plates propped up in front of a target stand, a CheyTac marksman loosed a .408 round (419 grains/2,950 fps) from a distance of about 50 yards. The round punched through the plate.
The LeMas team then decided to see what its .300 WinMag HAARP round (130 grains/3,700 fps) could do: It, too, tore through the plate.
It’s a distinct understatement to say that the representatives from Global Nanospace were surprised by the effects of the CheyTac .408 and the RBCD .300 WinMag on their plates. But most observers realized that the terminal effects of both these rounds are different from those produced by NATO-standard .50-caliber ball ammo. Acknowledging that fact, we later rounded up some .50-caliber ammo and put it through an FNH Hecate II from 100 yards away. To the relief of the Global Nanospace folks, their heavier (1.4-inch-thick) panel withstood the impact of all three rounds.
So it appears that the nanotech armor isn’t perfect, anyway. Still, I commend the military for trying out the new armor in Iraq. Hopefully, enough will be learned to help improve the armor and to allow planners to make an informed decision about buying and using the material.
Yahoo! News Photo of US troops in Baghdad, Nov 17, 2003
Members of the 82nd Airborne take a break and one shares his true feelings.
Did EVERYONE really miss that before it went live on the ‘net? (via LGF via Spacecraft)
I imagine that most, if not all, MO readers check out Instapundit. In case you don’t, he points out a great post on Random Nuclear Strikes covering a PRO-troop rally staged in Seattle, WA. From what I hear from someone who lives in the region, the area is fairly liberal. Not In Our Name planned an anti-war demonstration in response to the news that around 3000 National Guard members would be reporting for duty on Saturday.
Reportedly, about 30 NIONers showed up (apparently late) and were stunned to find over 1000 supporters (of the troops, of our policy, or of both) lining the exit from I-5 to the National Guard base. They massed on some overpasses so that their flags and signs of support would be visible to the troops as they arrived for duty. There were around 4000 supporters according to this TribNet story.
The post at RNS has a series of great photos covering the event. Check it out.
What does this tell us? Well, for one thing it illustrates clearly that the “organizations” like Not In Our Name and ANSWER are having trouble rallying the masses. When a couple of bloggers and a bunch of patriotic folks can outnumber the career protesters 100-to-1, it says something. And it is certainly easier to be motivated to demonstrate against a war than for a war. Stating support for our action in Iraq is very easily portrayed by opponents as support for death and destruction. Then the end-and-means people will sadly shake their heads and sigh “Is anything really worth doing if it takes a war to do it?” Never mind for a moment that support for troops doesn’t necessarily (and often doesn’t) mean support for war. If most people really thought our means didn’t justify the end we seek, wouldn’t the anti-war crowd have more members?
Contrast this turnout in Seattle with the “huge” rallies organized by the anti-war types that turn out hundreds or a few thousand protesters in Washington, DC or in San Francisco. 4000 pro-troop demonstrators in the Conservative heartland is one thing. In mostly-liberal Seattle it’s something completely different.
This doesn’t really “prove” anything. But it does seem to disprove the claim that the anti-war activists represent the silent majority.
While trying to at least not lose all contact with the world around me, I came across this item on Instapundit. Reynolds points out a Media Research Center CyberAlert that highlights a series of Hardball stories by Bob Arnot which portrays the situation in Iraq as being different than what we see in Al Jazeera, the BBC, and most US media.
“American G.I.s swarmed by friendly children, who want to speak English and love the Americans and their President for cleaning up their streets, providing clean water, opening the schools. They meet with cooperative village leaders, keeping the banks up and running, and get regular leads on who the bad guys are.”
Now, I’m sure that there are two sides to the story. The problem I have with most big media coverage is that they absolutely focus on the negative aspects of the story, and don’t give fair time to the positives. Then, when someone DOES highlight a positive event, they’re often portrayed as pro-Bush cheerleaders. Since there’s so little other positive coverage to provide a context for any positive story, the cheerleader accusations seem sensible to many.
Do the stories of our problems and setbacks in Iraq need to be told? Absolutely, they do. But why is it only hard-hitting journalism when bashing the US effort? Why is it only telling the whole story when focusing on the bad? Why is anyone who questions those who question our progress naive simpletons?
And I personally know liberals who insist that the media sucks up to the Bush administration.
I’m traveling AGAIN. This time to Colorado.
Intermittent blogging for the next ten days.
Chinese Defence Today: J-8 Fighter
A search engine hit looking for “f-8 crusaders for sale” brought someone to MO earlier today. Although I think that the F-8 Crusader is one bad looking jet, I didn’t recall ever posting about it. So I decided to look into it.
Turns out that back in April, I, for some unknown reason, seemed to think that the Chinese F-8 fighters involved in the spy plane incident back in March of 2001 were actually old Crusaders. Why I thought that, I don’t know.
In any event, they were not American-built fighters acquired from us or from someone who acquired them from us. F-8 is our designation for the Chinese J-8 fighter. Click the link for info.
China’s F-8
Our F-8 (In French Colors)
Somebody kick me.
Paul at All AgitProp notes this Reuters image of a US Navy oiler waiting to be scrapped in Britain. Take a quick look.
UPDATE: Paul comments that I called it a “UN Navy oiler” instead of a “US Navy oiler.” I had done so, and now I’ve corrected it.
You’ve got to admit that it’s at least a little understandable, though. When the United Nations needs troops or a navy, who gets the call?
