The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s - We Are The Mighty
MIGHTY TACTICAL

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

Nearly two decades before the Harrier jump jet would prove the efficacy of vertical take-off and landing platforms, the U.S. Navy considered taking another approach to fielding fighters without a runway.

In the years immediately following World War II, the United States found itself trying to adapt its newfound airpower to a world with nuclear weapons in it. America knew its monopoly on atomic bombs wouldn’t last forever, and by the mid 1940s, it seemed clear that the Soviet Union would eventually become the planet’s second nuclear power.

That day came sooner than many expected, when a nuclear detonation at the Semipalatinsk test site in modern-day Kazakhstan on August 29, 1949, ushered in an era of military competition between global powers. In just a few short decades, the combined nuclear weapon stockpile of the U.S. and Soviet Union exceeded 70,000. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction tends to be discussed in terms of just the U.S. and Soviets these days, but with stockpiles that large, it was truly the world that hung in the balance as these two superpowers stared one another down from their respective hemispheres.

Nuclear war and the need for VTOL aircraft

(National Nuclear Security Administration)

For some time, nuclear war seemed not only possible, but even likely, as the two nations postured for territory and prestige. Within some defense circles, the question really wasn’t if a nuclear war would break out… but when.

The fact that just 21 years passed between the conclusion of World War I and the onset of World War II is an important piece of context to consider when looking back at the decades immediately following that second great conflict. Military leaders in both nations were largely old enough to have seen not one, but two world wars, each setting a new precedent for war’s horrific destructive capacity. World War III wasn’t a hypothetical concept for much of the world as it is today. World War III seemed like a very real and potentially likely scenario, and the one thing both sides were certain of was that the next global conflict would start the same way the last one had ended: With nuclear weapons.

(Wikimedia Commons)

While America’s politicians largely saw the concept of nuclear war as the end state of a diplomatic failure, America’s military leaders were stuck in the unenviable position of having to plan to fight and win such a war. That meant finding ways to stay in the fight after the first nukes made landfall, and one way that manifested in a number of military aircraft development programs was the concept of VTOL, or Vertical Take-Off and Landing.

Throughout World War II, the world saw an explosion of aviation infrastructure development, as landing strips popped up in every region of the fight. These airstrips throughout Europe and the Pacific would almost certainly be seen as an imposing threat to the Soviets in a new conflict, as they would provide America and its allies with ample opportunity to launch heavy payload bombers deep into Soviet territory.

U.S. Air Force B-29s in 1945 (USAF Photo)

As a result, Pentagon brass believed airstrips would be among the first targets of a Soviet nuclear attack. If they were right and the U.S. couldn’t count on having airstrips positioned around the globe to support combat operations, they needed a new fighter that could take off and land without the need for a well-manicured runway.

The U.S. Air Force considered the Canadian flying saucer known as the VZ-9 Avrocar. The U.S. Navy sought their own solution, and by 1950, they had received proposals from both Lockheed and Convair.

The Lockheed XFV “Salmon”

While the need for VTOL aircraft was seen all across the Pentagon, the Navy saw vertical take-off and landing platforms as an opportunity to deploy intercept fighters from non-aircraft carrier vessels. In fact, the Navy even considered launching VTOL fighters off of merchant ships in a new World War if necessary.

In June of 1951, Lockheed was awarded a Navy contract to build the XFV-1; a prototype fighter with traditional wings, a massive reinforced X-shaped tail, and a 5,850 horsepower turboprop engine spinning a pair of three-bladed contra-rotating propellers that made the aircraft look like the bastard child of a helicopter and a prop-driven fighter. Most unusual of all, the aircraft was designed to take off and land on its tail, with its nose pointed straight up in the air.

(Lockheed Martin)

Lockheed called on famed aviation pioneer Kelly Johnson to design their VTOL XFV, and one could have argued at the time that the program couldn’t have been placed in better hands. Johnson was just coming off of the development of the P-38 Lightning and then America’s first jet fighter, the P-80 Shooting Star. His long and storied career as an aeronautical engineer eventually included overseeing first of their kind platforms like the U-2 Spy Plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, and the F-117 Nighthawk.

For testing, the XFV-1 was fitted with an awkward-looking set of landing gear, which included mounting wheels on the bottom of the lower tail wings. In December of 1953, the XFV-1 got its first taste of the sky when Chief Test Pilot Herman ‘Fish’ Salmon managed to make the aircraft “hop” briefly during taxing tests. Less than a year later, in June of 1954, it would make it all the way into the sky for its first real flight.

XFV-1 with landing gear attached (U.S. Navy photo)

Unfortunately, the Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine installed on the prototype was not powerful enough to manage actual vertical take-offs or landings. Instead, Lockheed planned to use the forthcoming (and more powerful) Allison T54 engine, which would produce 7,100 horsepower, but issues with the engine’s development meant the XFV’s desperately needed power plant would never arrive.

Scaffolding for the pilot to board the XFV-1 (Lockheed)

The prototype XFV-1 did make a total of 32 brief flights and even managed to hover with its nose up for a short period of time, but never accomplished a single vertical take-off or landing.

The Convair XFY Pogo

(Wikimedia Commons)

Convair’s take on the vertical take-off and landing premise shared a number of similarities with Lockheed’s. Like the XFV, Convair’s XFY Pogo was designed to sit upright on its tail so it could leverage its pair of three-bladed contra-rotating propellers to take off like a helicopter. Then, once in the air, the aircraft would re-orient itself to fly forward like a traditionally prop-driven plane.

XFY on a launch cart (Wikimedia Commons)

For its purposes, the Pogo was more successful than Lockheed’s outing. The first outdoor test flights began in August of 1954, and a series of 70 successful vertical take-off and landing drills following shortly thereafter. By November of that year, the team at Convair with test pilot and Marine reservist, Lieutenant Colonel James F. “Skeets” Coleman at the stick, achieved their first successful transition from vertical flight to horizontal. In order to make the transition easier, the pilot’s seat within the cockpit was mounted on gimbals that oriented the pilot at 45 degrees in vertical flight mode and 90 degrees when flying horizontally.

(U.S. Navy Photo)

Despite its successes, subsequent test flights began to reveal problems with the VTOL upright fighter’s very premise. While flying, the Pogo lacked airbrakes or spoilers to help it slow down after high-speed flight, but more troubling was just how difficult landing the unusual aircraft could be. Pilots had to look over their shoulder and back to the ground as they slowly lowered the fighter down onto its tail. Eventually, a low-power radar system was installed that would help the pilot gauge their altitude with a series of lights, but landing was still risky. It quickly became apparent that the Navy’s plan to put these fighters on a wide variety of non-carrier vessels just wouldn’t work, because only the best pilots in the force had a chance at landing the plane.

(U.S. Navy photo)

Further damning the concept were jet fighters of the era that were reaching speeds as high as Mach 2, while the prop-driven vertical take-off fighters the Navy was testing couldn’t even break the sound barrier. Ultimately, the concept was scrapped, damning both the Lockheed and Convair vertical take-off fighters to life in museums by the end of 1956.

Ultimately, the U.S. Navy would invest heavily into fixed-wing and sweep-wing carrier-based fighters like the F9F Panther, the F-14 Tomcat, and the F/A-18 Hornet. However, vertical or short take-off fighters did still find their way into America’s arsenal. The U.S. Marines began flying the AV-8A Harrier in 1971, and today, Marines are experimenting with using amphibious assault ships to launch sorties of the short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B.

This article originally appeared on Sandboxx. Follow Sandboxx on Facebook.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

The bravery of America’s first paratroopers will blow your mind – Video

America’s airborne forces did some truly amazing things during World War II — a conflict that marked the apex of airborne warfare.


American (and British) paratroopers in units like the 82nd Airborne Division wreaked havoc on the Nazis in World War II — particularly during the invasions of Sicily and Normandy.

After watching these badasses do their thing in the video below, it’s hard to imagine that Dwight D. Eisenhower wanted to disband the airborne units after Sicily.

We not only get a look at the paratroopers who helped kick in the door of “Fortress Europe,” but also their weapons: The M1 Garand, the M1A1 Thompson submachine gun, the M1 Carbine, the M3 Grease Gun.

While the show does not explicitly cite the Rule of the LGOPs, the phenomenon’s existence is very strongly implied.

Which of those weapons would you jump into action with? Let us know in the comments!

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Watch a Croatian Volcano battery erupt in a live-fire exercise

Artillery has long been the king of battles — but one of these kings has been far more devastating than others. Guns are accurate, but one conventional shell won’t do the job against a lot of bad guys, and a nuclear artillery round, like one from the W48, is overkill.


The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
A M270 MLRS fires a rocket. (Photo by Wikimedia Commons)

Thankfully, there’s middle ground: rockets. More accurately, there’re multiple-launch rocket systems. Perhaps the most well-known is the M270 Multiple-Launch Rocket System, or MLRS. This system fires 12 rockets to a range of up to 44 miles. It’s lethal and it’s been combat-proven in Desert Storm and the Global War on Terror.

But M270 isn’t the only system of its type out there. Russia had the first, notorious Katyusha and, most notably, the BM-21. The BM-21 was Russia’s primary multiple-launch rocket system. According to MilitaryFactory.com, the BM-21 holds 40 rockets and can fire them up to 20 miles away — not bad for a system that entered service in 1964, 18 years before the United States Army had the MLRS.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
The BM-21, a widely-exported multiple-launch rocket system. (Photo by Wikimedia Commons)

The thing is, like a number of older Russian systems, it was widely exported. And, just as India did with its MiG-21s, some countries have upgraded their old Russian tech. Romania, for example, made modifications to the BM-21 to create the APRA-40. This system is based on a six-wheeled truck. Romania exported this system to a number of other countries, including Croatia.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
A Romanian-built APR-40, that country’s own multiple-launch rocket system. (Photo by Wikimedia Commons)

The Croatians reportedly want to buy the American M270, but until then, this modern version of Russia’s famous BM-21 will help them hold the line. You can see what these launchers, assigned to the “Volcano” Battery of the Croatian Army, can do below:

Articles

These new mini-drones could revolutionize ground warfare

Many researchers are working to create the next revolution in drones for both war and peace. At the University of Pennsylvania, teams of researchers headed by Dr. Vijay Kumar are making progress on autonomous UAVs. Since they’re autonomous, they don’t need human operators, just the command to begin a task.


The robots created at Kumar Labs are designed for disaster relief and agricultural work, but could change the way the infantry operates, assaulting contested buildings and objectives alongside troops and performing a variety of services.

The first step to moving drones from overwatch in the skies to clearing buildings with squads is getting them into the buildings. The autonomous UAVs created by researchers weigh between 20 grams and 2 kilograms, feature a quad-rotor design that allows hovering, and are nimble, allowing them to fly through small windows or openings.

Of course, if multiple drones are needed on a mission, the drones have to be able to enter the building and move around without interfering with each other or the human squad. UPENN researchers have created different ways for the drones to behave around each other. The copters can simply avoid one another while working independently or on a shared task, follow a designated group leader, or operate in a coordinated swarm as shown below.

Once inside of a building or a village, the drones would get to work. They could move ahead of the squad and create 3D maps of buildings the squad or platoon expects to hit soon.

The little UAVs are capable of lifting objects on order individually or as part of a team. Fire teams that are decisively engaged could quickly request more ammo be brought to their position and see it arrive slung underneath the autonomous drones. Medics could designate a casualty collection point and begin combat casualty care as more supplies are ferried to them. Drones could even be used as suicide bombers, moving explosives to a point on the battlefield and detonating their cargo.

The drones can also construct obstacles. While currently limited to cubic structures made from modular parts, the drones build according to preset designs without the need for human oversight. Platoon leaders could designate priorities and locations of simple construction and the drones would begin completing their assignments. Metal frames could be placed inside windows and other openings to prevent enemy drones from accessing structures. Mines or flares could be placed by drones on the approaches to the objective, slowing an enemy counterattack and warning friendly forces.

Of course, the copters are also capable of completing the traditional drone mission: Surveillance. While not as fast as the larger drones already in use, they could extend the eyes of the drone fleet into buildings. Also, since they can follow preset waypoints, the drones could continuously patrol an assigned area on their own, only requiring a human’s interaction when they spot something suspicious. The drone can even perch on an outcropping or velcro itself to a landing spot, allowing it to turn off its motors and become silent.

Dr. Kumar discussed the robots, the science behind them, and where he hopes to take them during a 2012 TED Talk.

NOW: DARPA’s new robot can jump hurdles, chase you down, and haunt your dreams

OR: The 7 coolest high-tech projects the military is currently working on

Articles

France’s nuclear arsenal is a lot bigger than you might think

You’ve heard the jokes about the French. Their surplus rifles have never been fired, just dropped once. Raise your right hand if you like the French, raise both hands if you are French.


But there is one thing that isn’t a joke: France’s “force de frappe.” No, this isn’t some fancy drink that McDonald’s or Starbuck’s is serving. The force de frappe – translated at strike force – is France’s nuclear deterrence force.

The French nuclear force is often ignored, though it did play a starring role in Larry Bond’s 1994 novel Cauldron, where an attempted nuclear strike on American carriers resulted in the U.S. taking it out.

France’s nuclear deterrence is a substantial force, though.

According to a 2013 CNN report, France has about 300 nukes. According to the Nuclear Weapons Archive, these are presently divided between M51 and M45 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and ASMP missiles launched from Super Etendard naval attack planes, Mirage 2000N bombers, and Rafale multi-role fighters.

When launching a nuke, the French have options.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
M51 submarine-launched ballistic missile used on French ballistic missile submarines. (Image from Wikimedia Commons)

The M51 ballistic missile is carried by the Le Triomphant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. According to the 16th Edition of Combat Fleets of the World, three of these submarines carry 16 M45 ballistic missiles, which have a range of just over 3,100 miles and deliver six 150 kiloton warheads.

The fourth carries 16 M51 ballistic missiles with six 150-kiloton warheads and a range of almost 5,600 miles. The first three subs will be re-fitted to carry the M51.

The ASMP is a serious nuke, with a 300-kiloton warhead that is about 20 times as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima. It has a range of 186 miles and a top speed of Mach 3, according to Combat Fleets of the World.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, steams alongside the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle (R 91). One of these carriers could launch aircraft equipped with a long-range nuclear-tipped missile – and it isn’t the Big E. (US Navy photo)

Furthermore, the fact that it can be used on Super Etendard and Rafale fighters means that the French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle now serves as a potential strategic nuclear strike weapon.

While Globalsecurity.org notes that F/A-18s from American aircraft carriers can carry nuclear gravity bombs like the B61, the retirement of the AGM-69 Short-Range Attack Missile in 1990 and the cancellation of the AGM-131 SRAM II mean that the United States lacks a similar standoff nuclear strike capability from its carriers.

In other words, France’s carrier can do something that the carriers of the United States Navy can’t.

Articles

This is perhaps the fastest shotgun in the world

Fostech Outdoors’s Origin-12 is a beast of a weapon and may be the fastest cycling shotgun in the world.


The gas powered build of the Origin-12 allows it to unleash hell at an insane rate of fire — if your trigger finger can keep up.

“This thing can smoke an AA-12 in terms of speed,” said Eric in the IV8888 video below. “Bear in mind, an AA-12 is only about 360 rpm.”

via GIPHY

Released in 2013, the Origin-12 comes standard with a five-round 12-gauge magazine or an optional 30-round drum.

The design of the Origin-12 is made to greatly reduce recoil. The barrel is placed lower than the chamber and butt stock.

“In-line shotguns, when you shoot them, they climb. Pure physics will tell you about this firearm,” Fostech Outdoors executive Judd Foster said at SHOT Show 2016. “When you shoot it, it takes recoil out of it, and it punches you on target.”

via GIPHY

According to Fostech Outdoors, there will soon be conversion kits to allow 7.62 and 5.56mm fire coming in 2018. If you’re interested in having a forward grip, check out the Origin-12 SBV. It’s an arm braced, smooth bore, 12-gauge non-NFA Firearm.

“The Fostech Origin-12 is an awesome piece of hardware. As far as I know, its is the fastest cycling shotgun in the world, ” IV8888’s Eric said.

via GIPHY

Check out the IraqVeteran8888 video down below:

WRITER’S NOTE: I would like to personally thank you, the community, for bringing this beauty to my attention. The inspiration for this post goes to Marc Allen from this Facebook post. Thank you very much for your support. You rock!

Related: This automatic shotgun fires 360 rounds of bad intentions per minute

(Iraqveteran8888, YouTube)
MIGHTY TACTICAL

The Air Force is finally getting its long-delayed new tanker

The Air Force and Boeing have reached agreement on delivery of the long delayed KC-46 Pegasus tanker, with the two sides expecting the first aircraft to arrive in October 2018, according to Bloomberg.

Boeing’s original deadline to deliver 18 planes and additional materials was August 2017, but the $44 billion program has been hit by numerous delays and setbacks, and the Air Force said this spring it expected Boeing to miss its deadline to deliver the planes by October 2018, with the first KC-46 not arriving until the end of 2018 and all 18 planes by spring 2019.

The delivery of the first KC-46 by October 2018 is two months earlier than the Air Force anticipated. Matthew Donovan, the Air Force undersecretary, told Bloomberg the timeline was “aggressive but achievable.” Under the new schedule, the other 17 planes will arrive by April 2019.

The Air Force plans to buy 179 of the KC-46. Once it begins receiving them, the service will start phasing out its older KC-10 tankers. It will hold on to 300 of its KC-135 tankers, which average 55 years old. That would expand the tanker fleet to 479 KC-135s and KC-46s from the current 455 KC-135s and KC-10s.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
A KC-46 Pegasus refuels an A-10 Thunderbolt, July 15, 2016.
(Boeing photo by John D. Parker)

Under their contract, Boeing is responsible for costs beyond the Air Force’s $4.82 billion commitment. But delays in delivery could mean the Air Force will have to keep 19 KC-135s in service through 2023 at a cost of up to $10 million a plane annually.

The most serious problem facing the tanker has been the risk of its refueling boom scraping the surface of planes receiving fuel, which can damage stealth aircraft and potentially ground the tanker.

Other issues include the operation of the remote vision system, which is used to guide the boom; problems with the unexpected disconnection of its centerline drogue system, which is used to refuel aircraft; and concerns about the plane’s high-frequency radio, which uses the skin of the plane to broadcast. The latter two issues were downgraded to category-two deficiencies early 2018.


Settling on a delivery date may mean that both sides believe Boeing is close to resolving the tanker’s deficiencies. Donovan, the Air Force undersecretary, told Bloomberg that a software fix for the boom scrapping the receiving aircraft is undergoing flight testing and that flight test verification for the fixes is set for September 2018.

‘It is prudent to explore options’

The Air Force has been trying to replace its aging tankers for years, and military officials have been critical of the recent delays, even as they’ve complimented Boeing on its cooperation.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told acquisition officials in November 2017 that he was “unwilling (totally)” to accept flawed KC-46 tankers.

Early 2018, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told the House Armed Services Committee that “one of our frustrations with Boeing is that they’re much more focused on their commercial activity than they are on getting this right for the Air Force and getting these airplanes to the Air Force.”

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
The KC-46A Pegasus deploys the centerline boom for the first time, October 9, 2015. The boom is the fastest way to refuel aircraft at 1,200 gallons a minute.
(Boeing photo by John D. Parker)

Her remarks came a few days after Donovan encouraged Boeing to “double down” to “get this program over the goal line” during a visit to the KC-46 production and modification facility in Washington state.

Even as the KC-46 program inches forward, lawmakers are looking beyond the current, manned tankers to adapt to emerging threats.

It its markup of the 2019 defense budget, the Senate Armed Services Committee expressed concern “about the growing threat to large high-value aircraft in contested environments” and recommended an extra $10 million in spending on Air Force research, development, testing, and evaluation, for a total of $38.4 million.

While the Air Force’s tankers allow greater operational availability and range for fighters and bombers, “these assets are manned and increasingly difficult to protect,” the committee said.

“Given the increasingly challenging operating environments our potential adversaries are presenting, it is prudent to explore options for optionally unmanned and more survivable tankers that could operate autonomously as part of a large, dispersed logistics fleet that could sustain attrition in conflict,” it added.

Boeing is researching automation for its commercial aircraft, part of an effort to address a protracted pilot shortage, an issue that has plagued both civilian and military aviation.

Russian aircraft maker Ilyushin is also working on a similar project, partnering with Kronstadt Group to develop an unmanned transport aircraft that could be used to access remote or difficult-to-reach areas.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Real cheap but good handguns that you should actually consider

I tested at least ten handguns and found the Heritage Rough Rider to be the best cheap but good handgun.

I got into guns in my early 20s, which meant I didn’t have much money to spare. I learned everything I could about determining a gun’s true value and the best places to find the lowest prices. With proper preparation, you can find many affordable handguns perfect for target shooting, home protection, and more.

The Heritage Rough Rider is fun to shoot and easy to maintain. It’s also suitable for home defense because you don’t need much physical strength to aim and shoot it at close range accurately.

It’s not the only cheap handgun that you’ll want to know more about. Other options I found have additional safety features, increased durability, and more features you might be surprised to find on firearms in this price range.

Keep reading to learn more about real cheap but good handguns:

The best cheap but good handguns

While always keeping the price in mind, I also considered ease of use, quality of construction, suitability for target shooting and defense, and other relevant factors.  

Heritage Rough Rider 6.5” Blued Revolver

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

>>Check Price Here<<

Inspired by classics from the Old West, Heritage’s Rough Rider is affordable, accurate, and easy to shoot. It’s reliable and powerful enough for home protection but fun and lightweight enough for a day target shooting at the range.

It’s a 22 Long Rifle revolver with a micro-threaded, machined barrel, an authentic flat-sided hammer, and a cocobolo grip. The handsome combination of wood and steel has a true Western-style that turns the gun into a true work of art you’ll be proud to show off.

Pros:

  • Powerful but lightweight and easy to aim
  • Hammer block provides added misfire protection
  • 22 long rifle with a 6.5” barrel
  • Classic Western style

Cons:

  • Gun powder makes the gun get dirty fairly easily

Ruger Wrangler Silver Cerakote Revolver

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

>>Check Price Here<<

Ruger’s Wrangler is an awesome and affordable gun for shooters of any experience level, including total beginners. It’s not only easy to grip and shoot, but it’s also loaded with safety features, including a transfer bar mechanism and loading gate interlock.

Every component used is precisely engineered and durable. It has a Cerakote finish, a proprietary blend of ceramic and polymer that protects against scratches, dings, and weather damage.

The barrel is cold-hammer forged for precise rifling that results in reliable accuracy. Additionally, aiming is made even easier with the front blade and integral notch rear sights.

Pros:

  • Durable Ceratoke finish
  • Easy, accurate aiming
  • Multiple safety features
  • Synthetic grip with Single-Six pattern

Cons:

  • Single action limits firing speed

Taurus Spectrum 380 Auto

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

>>Check Price Here<<

Weighing 10 ounces with a 2.8” barrel, the Taurus Spectrum 380 is one of the cheapest concealed carry pistols around. It has a low profile with fixed sights, allowing it to stay hidden but also delivering quick accuracy when drawn.

Additionally, the extended mag holds an additional round, giving you a capacity of 6 + 1. It also extends the surface area of the grip, making the small pistol surprisingly comfortable to hold.

Pros:

  • Easy to conceal
  • Extended grip
  • 6+1 capacity   

Cons:

  • It might be hard to hold if you have large hands

Guide To Cheap But Good Handguns

I’ve purchased cheap guns that turned out to be awesome and others that were total duds. Here’s my advice to find great guns every time.

Features To Look For In A Cheap Gun

Finding a good cheap gun does require some flexibility because some features are limited. Here’s a look at what to expect:

  • Size – Cheap guns are generally small, with many concealable options.
  • Type – You’ll find a fairly robust selection of both revolvers and compact automatics.
  • Caliber – Most cheap revolvers at .22s while most cheap automatics are 380 Autos (ACP)
  • Magazine – Cheap revolvers typically hold six shots. With an automatic, look for an extended mag, which holds seven rounds.

Here’s a video with more information on cheap guns:

New Vs. Used

You can buy a cheap handgun either new or used. While a used firearm can have low prices, it’s not always the best value in the long run. A used gun’s longevity depends on how well it was cared for.

Determine the used gun’s value by carefully examining it for damage. Also, try to fire it at a range if possible. If you’re familiar with guns, and can find a used one in good condition, you can save.

However, if you’re part of the record-setting trend of first-time gun buyers, I recommend you buy new instead of used. A new gun includes a manufacturer’s guarantee and won’t have any potential damage due to neglect or age.

Conclusion

All of the cheap guns listed have value far beyond their price tag. They’re great for target shooting, display, and even provide some ability for personal defense. Plus, they’re easy to conceal and maintain.

My absolute favorite is the Heritage Rough Rider revolver. It’s a blast to shoot, and it has a classic cowboy style that looks great on the mantle. However, if you’re looking for something more concealable, I recommend the Taurus Spectrum.

Which gun is your favorite? Check out the following links for more information, or to buy these guns for yourself:

You don’t have to spend a fortune to buy a fun, reliable handgun!

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Here’s why China and Russia can’t beat US stealth fighters

China and Russia say their radars and detection systems can see US stealth fighters, but Western experts expect American fifth-generation fighters like Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to dominate for decades.

US rivals have been fielding tougher anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, including modern, next-level air defenses, designed to weaken the penetrating power of advanced US air assets, especially American stealth fighters and bombers.

The reality is that US fifth-generation fighters are large pieces of metal. They are not invisible, and they can be seen at certain points on the electromagnetic spectrum. Russia and China have both developed capabilities that could allow them to detect a stealthy US aircraft. Still, stealth fighters remain an invaluable part of the US arsenal.


“Countries buying [the F-35] know it’s going to be the winner for decades,” Rebecca Grant, a national security analyst and the author of “The Radar Game: Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability,” told Business Insider.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

A Marine F-35B Lightning II.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Samuel King Jr.)

“The beauty of fifth-gen,” Grant explained, is “it relies on more than one type of technology. It isn’t fragile, and you can’t shatter it with one breakthrough.”

China, like the Soviets before them, has been looking at long-range, long-wave radars. An over-the-horizon radar with this type of capability is referred to as China’s “first line of defense.”

This type of radar can detect stealthy aircraft. The drawbacks, however, are the low resolution and lack of a real-time target-grade track, which make it difficult to cue in missiles to kill the incoming fighters, Justin Bronk, an air combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told BI.

China is also extending its air defense capabilities out to sea with its newer, more advanced warships, as well as working to improve the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars on Chinese aircraft.

The country is also pushing for breakthroughs in infrared in addition to more theoretical research, such as exotic quantum radars and entangled photons.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

An F-22 Raptor.

(U.S. Air National Guard photo by Senior Airman Justin Hodge)

“I see China working hard to erode some of the advantages by improving their own capabilities and the way they operate, but fifth-gen still presents a very tough challenge for China to counter,” Grant told BI, adding that “even if China improves in one area, there are still advantages that go with the whole fifth-gen package.”

“It’s pretty much exactly the same for the Russians,” she said. “There’s not a magic breakthrough technology that’s going to make stealth obsolete overnight.”

That’s not to say it can’t be done. The US is, according to The National Interest, looking at a combination of long-wave infrared search and tracking systems, high-speed data networking, and algorithms for advanced multi-point sensor fusion. All of that takes time to develop and integrate into a country’s force.

Russia is currently developing the S-500 surface-to-air missile system, which the country claims will have the ability to intercept stealth aircraft, something the weapon’s predecessors have struggled to do. It’s impossible to know how the system will actually perform until its fielded.

S-500 Prometheus missile defense system

www.youtube.com

Grant explained that American stealth assets remain very powerful signaling tools. Potential adversaries, she pointed out, “don’t know where it’s going to be. They can’t detect it the same way. There is an element of uncertainty.”

Earlier this year, the US deployed B-2 Spirit bombers to Hawaii to train alongside F-22s. The US military said in a statement at the time that the move showed the world “that the B-2 is on watch 24 hours a day, seven days a week ready to protect our country and its allies.”

Both China and Russia are developing their own fifth-generation fighters. They include the Chinese J-20 and the Russian Su-57, each of which has its own merits but still trails behind US programs. The Chinese military is also developing the H-20 stealth bomber.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Articles

Here’s an inside look at North Korea’s ballistic missile inventory

North Korea’s been carrying out a lot of missile tests. And according to the latest info, April 16’s test was another flop. So, what are we looking at with these launches? What is being tested?


The fact is, the North Koreans have been really making a lot of missiles. So, here’s a scorecard to tell the Nodongs from the Taepodongs (which sound like the names of villains from an adult film starring Jay Voom).

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
Map showing the ranges some North Korean ballistic missiles can reach. (Graphic from Wikimedia Commons)

North Korea’s missile inventory started out with the Scud – that V-2 knockoff the Soviets produced and then exported to their allies and a lot of the globe’s most disreputable citizens, including Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, the Hafez al-Assad regime (where they were passed down to Bashir al-Assad), and the Iranians.

North Korea developed advanced versions of the Scud, known as the Hwasong-5, Hwadong-6, and Hwasong-7 missiles. These missiles were widely exported from Cuba to Myanmar. The Center for Strategic and International Studies notes that the Hwasong-5 has a range of 186 miles, and can deliver 2,170 pounds of explosives. The Hwasong-6 and Hwasong-7 are longer-range variants that trade payload for more range.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
Syria owns Scud-B, Scud-C, Scud-D, and variants of the Hwasong missile (similar to the North Korean variant pictured here). (Photo: KCNA)

Bad enough, right? Well, the North Koreans didn’t leave well enough alone. They made an improved version that South Korean and American media called the Nodong. The Nodong is a modified Scud able to send 2,750 pounds of high explosive warhead almost 1,000 miles away, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

North Korea’s been developing other missiles, including the Taepo-dong series. The Taepo-dong 1 is a missile with a range of up to 3,106 miles. The Taepo-dong 2 is an ICBM able to reach over 9,300 miles away.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s
Center for Strategic and International Studies/Missile Defense Project

The North Koreans are also developing the KN-08, a road-mobile ICBM, with a range of almost 7,150 miles, and the KN-14, a regular ICBM with a range of over 6,200 miles. Shorter-range missiles are also in development, including the KN-15, which blew less than 15 seconds into its launch on April 15 of this year, and the BM-25 Musudan.

Of course, North Korea’s had problems getting its Nodongs up recently so, this scorecard could be subject to change. But this should give you a rough roadmap to the North Korean missiles that they may – or may not – get up in the future.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Air Force taking steps towards rebuilding Tyndall AFB

Air Force leaders are leaving no stone unturned in their search for the best industry practices and innovations to consider in rebuilding Tyndall AFB, Florida, which was devastated by Hurricane Michael in October 2018.

To that end, members of the Tyndall Program Management Office, along with Air Force experts, industry and community leaders participated in an AFWERX-sponsored workshop June 25-26, 2019, in Las Vegas to rebuild the installation as a “base of the future.”

“The purpose of involving AFWERX was to assist us in moving much more quickly and agilely when it comes to the rebuild,” said Brig. Gen. Patrice Melancon, Tyndall PMO executive director in charge of the rebuild effort. “The point was to connect innovators to get after infusing innovations. At AFWERX, we came together to brainstorm the art of the possible for the rebuild.”


Hurricane Michael damaged nearly 480 facilities and the Air Force estimates the cost to rebuild at about .25 billion, with approximately 0 million spent so far.

“Let’s face it, we are basically building an entire base,” Melancon added. “The entire military construction budget is about .8 billion, which traditionally is the military construction program for the entire Air Force. We are going to do this all at one base in basically two fiscal years in terms of (contract) awards.”

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

Col. Jefferson Hawkins, Tyndall Air Force Base 325th Fighter Wing vice commander, leads a discussion during a recent workshop at the AFWERX facility in Las Vegas, June 25-26, 2019.

(U.S. Air Force Photo by Veronica Kemeny)

The workshop also featured TED talks, problem-solving and collaborative group sessions led by AFWERX facilitators. Attendees discussed bringing best practices from industry and streamlining acquisition processes.

Col. Jefferson Hawkins, vice commander of the 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall AFB, was an attendee at the workshop and appreciated the ideas shared.

“What a great step forward for Tyndall’s rebuild,” Hawkins said. “AFWERX created both open thought and open dialogue. The ideas and conversations generated and relationships built will be pivotal to our future success.”

The time spent at AFWERX facilitated outside-the-box thinking.

“The work and innovation we are exploring to rebuild Tyndall can be used as an example of how we build the 21st century air base in the Air Force,” Melancon said.

“Technologies such as frictionless entry or a fast-pass lane at a gate where you swipe your ID card or possibly use your fingerprint to go through a secured gate is technology in the commercial space that we need to leverage for our benefit.”

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

Brig. Gen. Patrice Melancon, Tyndall Air Force Base Program Management Office executive director and Renee Richardson, director of Acquisition Operations for the Air Force Installation Contracting Center, work together during an innovation exercise during a recent visit to the AFWERX facility in Las Vegas.

(U.S. Air Force by Veronica Kemeny)

Tom Neubaurer, Bay Defense Alliance president, whose organization works with Tyndall leadership and Program Management Office to ensure the preservation of the mission at the base, also attended the AFWERX workshop and expressed his optimism about the rebuild.

“Clearly, we have an amazing opportunity to partner with our military neighbors and build a great American defense community around the base of the future,” Neubauer said. “By working together now, we will reflect proudly on all that is accomplished in the years ahead for a better Bay County and for national defense.”

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Energy John Henderson reaffirmed the Air Force’s commitment to rebuild Tyndall Air Force Base during a second industry day held this past May to inform industry about the work that lies ahead. A third industry day is tentatively scheduled for August that will provide further updates on the innovative ideas submitted through white papers and what has developed during the AFWERX visit.

The focus and commitment of the 325th FW and PMO is to assess facility damage, determine usability and preserve capability.

This article originally appeared on United States Air Force. Follow @USAF on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

The weapons the Army, Air Force, and Navy all want desperately

Russian and Chinese advancements in hypersonic weaponry are driving the US military to field a viable hypersonic strike weapon within the next couple of years.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force are jointly developing a common boost-glide vehicle to clear the way for each of these services to bring American hypersonic weaponry to the battlefield in the near future.

For the Army, that’s the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW). The Air Force is building the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) and the Navy is pursuing its Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon, The Drive reported Oct. 11, 2018, citing an Aviation Week report. There is the possibility these systems could be deployed as early as 2021.


“There is a very aggressive timeline for testing and demonstrating the capability,” Col. John Rafferty, director of the Army’s Long Range Precision Fires cross-functional team, told reporters at the Association of the United States Army conference in Washington, DC on Oct. 10, 2018. The progress already made “is a result of several months of cooperation between all three services to collaborate on a common hypersonic glide body.”

The Navy is responsible for designing the boost-glide vehicle, as the fleet faces the greatest integration challenges due to the spacial limitations of the firing platforms like ballistic missile submarines, the colonel explained.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

U.S. Army Wisconsin National Guard Soldiers from the 1-426 Field Artillery Battery operate an M109A6 Paladin Howitzer at at Fort McCoy, Wis., Aug. 18, 2018

(US Army photo by Spc. John Russell)

“Everybody’s moving in the same direction,” he added, further commenting, “The Army can get there the fastest. It will be in the field, manned by soldiers, and create the deterrent effect that we are looking for.”

As the boost-glide vehicle is unpowered, each service will develop its own booster technology for launching the relevant weapons, which fly at least five times faster than the speed of sound. The goal for the Army’s AHW is for it to travel at sustained speeds of Mach 8, giving it the ability to cover 3,700 miles in just 35 minutes, The Drive reported.

The Air Force has already awarded two hypersonic weapons contracts in 2018, and the Navy just awarded one in October 2018. The Army’s LRPF CFT is focusing on producing a long-range hypersonic weapon, among other weapons, to devastate hardened strategic targets defended by integrated air defense systems.

The US military’s intense push for hypersonic warfighting technology comes as the Russians and Chinese make significant strides with this technology. Hypersonic weapons are game-changers, as their incredible speeds and ability to maneuver at those speeds make them invulnerable to modern air and missile defense systems, making them, in the simplest of terms, weaponry that can not be stopped.

Russia is expected to field its nuclear-armed Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicle in 2019, and China has conducted numerous tests of various hypersonic glide vehicles and aircraft, most recently in early August 2018, when China tested its Xingkong-2 hypersonic experimental waverider, which some military experts suspected could be weaponized as a high-speed strike platform.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

US Army to use Israeli defense missiles instead of Patriots

The US Army on Feb. 6, 2019, announced that it would buy an Israeli missile-defense system to protect its soldiers in a de facto admission that existing US missile defenses just don’t work.

“The U.S. Army has announced its intent to procure a limited number of Iron Dome weapon systems to fill its short-term need for an interim Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC),” a US Army statement sent to Business Insider read.


Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system, indigenously designed with a 9 million US investment backing it, represents the world’s only example of working missile defense.

While the US, Russia, and China work on high-end missile systems meant to shoot down stealth aircraft in ultra-high-tech wars with electronic and cyber warfare raging along the sidelines, none of these countries’ systems actually block many missiles, rockets, or mortars.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

Iron Dome launches during operation Pillar of Defense, November 2012.

On the other hand, Israel’s Iron Dome has shot down more than 1,200 projectiles since going operational in 2011. Constant and sporadic attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian-aligned forces in Syria have turned Israel into a hotbed of rocket and mortar activity, and the system just plain works.

Not only do the sensors and shooters track and hit targets reliably, the Iron Dome, unlike other systems, can tell if a projectile is going to miss a target and thereby save a 0,000 interceptor fire.

While the system does not run entirely without error, US and Israeli officials consistently rate the dome as having a 90% success rate on the Gaza border, one of the most active places in the world for ballistic projectiles.

But the US already has missile defenses for its forces.

The 2019 Missile Defense Review said the US’s Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile-defense system has a “proven combat record,” though US officials inflated its success rate during Operation Desert Storm.

The US, unlike Israel, which is surrounded by enemies bent on its ultimate destruction, doesn’t get many enemies firing ballistic missiles at its forces. Still, to protect its soldiers, the Army typically deploys Patriot defenses to its bases to protect against short-range missile attacks. In Iraq, the US Army also experimented with a Phalanx gun system that would rapid fire 20mm rounds at incoming rockets and mortars.

But Saudi Arabia, a weaker US ally, has put its Patriot defenses to the test and found them severely wanting either through user error or failings of the system itself.

In repeated missile strikes from Houthi rebels using relatively unsophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles, the Patriot missile defenses have failed, sometimes spectacularly.

The Navy’s insane vertical take-off fighters of the 1950s

MIM-104 Patriot.

Despite Saudi Arabia claiming a high success rate for the missile system, it proceeded to talk to Russia about obtaining advanced S-400 missile defenses after the Patriot failures. NATO allies such as Turkey have also sought to augment their defenses with the Russian system, causing friction with the US and others.

Overall, the US Army’s statement announcing the Iron Dome purchase made it clear that this would just be a short-term buy while the US assesses its options.

“The Iron Dome will be assessed and experimented as a system that is currently available to protect deployed U.S. military service members against a wide variety of indirect fire threats and aerial threats… it should be noted that the U.S. Army will assess a variety of options for” the long term, the statement continued.

But the Army is well aware of its own Patriot system and any planned or possible updates.

By buying an Israel system with a great track record and overlooking a US system with a checkered past, the US may have finally admitted its shortcomings in missile defense.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information