Let’s face it. Enemy troops behind cover can be a real pain. In fact, someone was gonna have to root them out. Thankfully, that is no longer the case, thanks to new ammunition coming from Nammo.
According to a report by Soldier Systems, this programmable ammo is available for a variety of weapon systems, including 40mm grenades from rifle-mounted grenade launchers or automatic grenade launchers like the Mk 19, the 66mm rockets used in the M72 Light Antitank Weapon, the 120mm guns used on the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, and the 30mm chain gun used on some U.S. Navy ships and the M1296 Dragoon infantry fighting vehicle.
However, Nammo has also reported that the programmable ammo may also be able to deal with enemy drones. This is a huge development, given that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria made use of drones as a means to deliver improvised explosive devices. As a result, friendly troops could be that much safer (if not completely safe) on the battlefield.
Nammo is displaying some of the programmable ammo at the Defence and Security Equipment International show in London this week. In a release, Nammo claimed that its 40mm grenade has been combat proven. Nammo also stated that the use of programmable ammunition against drones would reduce collateral damage or damage from stray rounds.
Programmable ammo was used as part of the XM25 Punisher weapon system, a semi-automatic 25mm grenade launcher which proved itself in Afghanistan before being placed on hold. ModernFirearms.net notes that the XM25 had a range of up to 700 meters against area targets, and had a six-shot magazine.
Once you enter your password to access your accounts, you might imagine the website dusting off its hands in satisfaction that its verification process is complete and that, yes, it now knows it was you who just logged in and not an imposter.
But it doesn’t stop there — websites and the companies behind them often monitor your behavior as a security measure, too.
“We look into behavioral biometrics,” Etay Maor, a security advisor at IBM Security, told Business Insider. “We’ve been doing this for years … most of the industries I talk to look into these things.”
Behavioral biometrics are similar to regular biometrics, like fingerprints. But instead of recognizing a fingerprint, your actions and behavior within a website or app where you have an account with sensitive information are monitored to authenticate you.
You’ve probably encountered some examples of behavioral biometrics. For example, if you’ve ever seen an alert that says “You’re logging in from a device you don’t usually use,”where a website recognizes that you’re logging in from a new device.
There’s also location-based security alerts, where your account is being accessed from a location that you don’t typically frequent. Someone recently tried to access one of my accounts from Kuala Lumpur, but I was in bed in Connecticut when this attempt happened. I got an alert, and took the appropriate actions to better secure that account.
But there are other forms of behavioral biometrics that occur while you’re using an app or when you’re in your online accounts, and you likely have no idea it’s happening.
The way you move your mouse once you log in, how fast you swipe around an app, what you typically do within an app or website, and even the angle at which you hold your phone are being monitored, and they’re examples of behavioral biometrics.
Even when you’re not using your devices, behavioral biometrics are in play. In fact, not using your devices is a biometric in itself. If your bank account was hacked while you’re asleep and fraudulent transactions are being made, for example, banks can tell that the devices you usually use are offline. Your phone might be laying still and flat (because it’s on your bedside table) and your laptop is in sleep mode. From that information, and considering the activity going on, a bank might suspect that something is awry, and it can push out an alert of suspicious activity.
Indeed, your behavior is unique to you, like a fingerprint. And it’s more secure than passwords, PINs, and even your actual fingerprint, according to Maor.
“Passwords are not secure today because there are so many ways for hackers to guess and generate passwords. We’re in weird stage where passwords are becoming harder for a human to remember and yet still extremely easy for a machine or algorithm to guess,” Maor said.
Microsoft will make it an option to use passwords and encourage users to use PIN numbers instead, which the company argues are more secure.
That’s why Microsoft is ditching the common password and is encouraging users to log into Windows 10 using PINs and its Windows Hello facial recognition, where that data is stored in your devices. The company argues that on-device storage for security data is more secure than passwords stored in a company’s servers.
Still, even PINs and standard biometrics aren’t the ultimate in security. “If it’s something that a human knows or remembers, an attacker can extract that,” Maor said, whether it’s by hacking or social engineering, where an attacker can convince you to give them your password by, say, pretending to be tech support for a website.
Even regular biometrics like fingerprints and irises can be socially engineered out of you. At the end of the day, passwords, PINs, and standard biometrics won’t stop a “determined attack.”
With behavioral biometrics, your typical behavior isn’t something that can be easily replicated. “An attacker can’t extract your mouse movement, or your behavior from you. Maybe to a certain extent, but that’s a totally different level of attack,” Maor said.
It seems spooky, and it raises privacy concerns. And Maor recognizes that. “It sounds a bit Orwellian because it sounds like you’re being followed all the time. But yeah, as soon as you go into the website, we try to protect you by making sure it really is you without you knowing that we’re doing this.”
Behavioral biometrics also have a practical use, as they’re simply less annoying than traditional authentication methods, like remembering passwords or multi-factor authentication. Behavioral metrics that take place under the radar offer a better experience while also keeping you more secure. Maor argues that if a company tries to authenticate you by making it too difficult or time consuming to enter your account, you’ll go to another company or service.
Still, passwords, PINs, and fingerprints are still necessary first lines of defence, but they’re only used to identify you. The real security that’s used to authenticate you happens in the background, without you even knowing.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
Look out, Pakistan, the Indian Army just weaponized one of the world’s hottest peppers. If it can stop a charging elephant, it can likely make militants think twice about starting trouble in Kashmir. The newest biological weapon on the market is a homegrown substance for India: Ghost Peppers.
The Indian Army is developing a flashbang-style grenade that harnesses the spicy power of the Bhut Jolokia pepper, one of the world’s hottest peppers. The pepper, used by farmers mostly to keep elephants away, was one of the world’s hottest peppers until 2007, when a race began to cultivate the world’s new hottest pepper. The current champion is the Carolina Reaper. The Ghost Pepper is now number seven on the list, but still packs a mean punch, as anyone unfortunate enough to have tasted it knows.
To give some kind of reference to how spicy it really is, the habanero pepper has a Scoville rating of 350,000 units. The Bhut Jolokia has a Scoville rating of more than 1,000,000 units. Luckily, the burn of all of these peppers could only be felt if you were unfortunate enough to touch it.
If you thought this hurt. Just you wait.
The new weapon is pretty much a standard stun grenade with a spicy little addition. Inside are hundreds of ground-up Bhut Jolokia seeds. Once the flashbang goes off, the nonlethal grenade showers the area with baby powder-fine Ghost Pepper dust. Test subjects who were subjected to the Ghost Pepper grenade were blinded for hours by the powder. Some were left with problems breathing.
“The chili grenade is a non-toxic weapon and when used would force a terrorist to come out of his hideout,” says R.B. Srivastava of India’s Defense Research and Development Organisation. “The effect is so pungent that it would literally choke them.”
It’s like a regular flashbang, but horrifyingly painful and debilitating.
Guys, I think I’m just gonna wait for the Flamin’ Hot Cheetos grenade.
India’s new weapon isn’t designed to kill or be used in combat. The Indian government wants to use the Ghost Pepper Grenade as a crowd control device and for use during terrorist incidents. The powder in the grenades is also being considered as a self-defense measure for Indian women to carry on the streets and as an elephant deterrent for Indian Army installations.
Despite all the disruptions of 2020, Army modernization officials have tested new, longer-range and more precise infantry weapon systems. They also announced efforts that could lead to future machine guns, precision grenade launchers and possibly even hand-held directed energy weapons.
Soldier lethality is a key Army modernization priority, one that has gained momentum since the service unveiled a strategy in 2017 to equip combat units with a new generation of air and ground combat systems.
In the short term, the Army wants to field new squad-level weapons to close-combat units and a set of high-tech goggles that projects a sight reticle in front of soldiers’ eyes.
The service announced long-term efforts to develop new belt-fed, crew-served weapons, as well as to begin thinking about what infantry weapons will look like decades from now.
Here’s a look at five weapons-related programs Military.com has reported on this year:
1. Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS).
In October, Army modernization officials finished the third soldier touch point (STP) in which troops evaluated the first ruggedized version of IVAS. The Microsoft-designed goggles are intended to provide a heads-up display that offers infantry troops situational awareness tools to help them navigate, communicate and keep track of other members of their unit day and night.
But IVAS is also designed to enhance troops” marksmanship with a tool known as Rapid Target Acquisition. A special thermal weapons site mounts on the soldier’s weapon and projects the site reticle into the wearer’s field of view via Bluetooth signal. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division involved in the STP said it took some adjustment to learn how to shoot with IVAS, but most said they were easily hitting 300-meter targets from a standing position. If all goes well, the IVAS is slated to be ready for fielding sometime in 2021.
2. Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW).
The Army is in the final phase of evaluating NGSW rifle and auto rifle prototypes, chambered for a new 6.8mm round, that are slated to start replacing the 5.56mm M4A1 carbine and the M249 squad automatic weapon in infantry and other close-combat units in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2022.
Textron Systems, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Inc., and Sig Sauer have delivered prototype systems and ammunition that have gone through STPs. Each vendor’s design is unique and fires a different version of the 6.8mm ammunition. The Army plans to select a single firm to make both the weapons and ammunition in the first quarter of fiscal 2022.
Army weapons officials announced in November that the service is pursuing a longer-term effort to arm some infantry squad members with a precision, counter-defilade weapons system designed to destroy enemy hiding behind cover. Currently, two infantrymen in each squad are armed with an M4A1 carbine with an M320 40mm grenade launcher to engage counter-defilade targets, but weapons officials have long wanted something more sophisticated.
During the past decade, the Army tried to field the XM25 Counter-Defilade Target Engagement System — a semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon that used 25mm high-explosive, air-bursting ammunition. XM25 stirred excitement in the infantry community but, in the end, the complex system was plagued by program delays that led to its demise.
The Army is currently conducting the Platoon Arms and Ammunition Configuration (PAAC) study — scheduled to be complete by 2024 — which will look at the enemies the service will face in the future and help guide weapons officials to a new counter-defilade weapon sometime in 2028, Army officials say.
The Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Benning, Georgia, live-fire tested a promising M240 sound suppressor from Maxim Defense during Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment (AEWE) 2021, which began in late October. Benning officials said this is the first year that a machine gun suppressor has created excitement in the maneuver community.
Other suppressors in past tests have not been able to stand up to the heat and audible roar produced by the 7.62mm M240. Finding a durable, affordable suppressor that can dampen the sound signature of an M240 would make it more difficult for enemies to locate and target machine gun teams from a distance, Benning officials say.
When the AEWE concludes in early March, Battle Lab officials will compile a report detailing the performance of equipment tested. If testing continues to go well, the Battle Lab may recommend that the Maxim suppressor undergo further testing for possible fielding, according to Benning officials.
Looking further into the future, it will likely be a long time until infantrymen are armed with the blaster weapons like those carried by Stormtroopers or Han Solo in the “Star Wars” saga, but Army weapons officials have already started thinking about it.
“We are working on the Next Generation Squad Weapon … but then what’s the next weapon after that?” Col. Rhett Thompson, director of the Soldier Requirements Division at Benning, said during the National Defense Industrial Association’s Armaments, Robotics and Munitions conference in early November.
“Does it fire a round? Instead of a magazine with ammunition, is it some sort of energy capacity … or is it something more directed energy or something else?” he said. “That is really what we are getting at as we get further out there, and some of that is kind of fun to think about.”
The Pentagon is investing roughly $1 billion over the next several years for the development of robots to be used in an array of roles alongside combat troops, Bloomberg reported.
The US military already uses robots in various capacities, such for bomb disposal and scouting, but these new robots will reportedly be able to preform more sophisticated roles including complex reconnaissance, carrying soldier’s gear, and detecting hazardous chemicals.
Bryan McVeigh, the Army’s project manager for force protection, told Bloomberg he has “no doubt” there will be robots in every Army formation “within five years.”
“We’re going from talking about robots to actually building and fielding programs. This is an exciting time to be working on robots with the Army,” McVeigh said.
In April 2018, the Army awarded a $429.1 million contract to Endeavor Robotics and QinetiQ North America, both based out of Massachusetts. Endeavor has also been awarded separate contracts from the Army and Marine Corps in as the Pentagon pushes for robots in a wide range of sizes.
The introduction of more robots into combat situations is intended to not only make life easier for troops, but also protect them from potentially fatal scenarios.
(U.S. Army photo)
But there are also concerns about the rapid development of robotic technology in relation to warfare, especially in terms of autonomous robots. In short, many are uncomfortable with the notion of killer robots deciding who gets to live or die on the battlefield.
“Once developed, lethal autonomous weapons will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend,” the letter said. “These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways.”
In May 2018, roughly a dozen employees at Google resigned after finding out the company was providing information on its artificial intelligence technology to the Pentagon to aid a drone program called Project Maven, which is designed to help drones identify humans versus objects.
Google has reportedly defended its involvement in Project Maven to employees.
America’s use of drones and drone strikes in counterterrorism operations is already a controversial topic, as many condemn the US drone program as illegal and unethical. The US continues to face criticism in relation to civilian casualties from such strikes, among other issues.
Hence, while the military is seemingly quite excited about the expansion of robots in combat situations, there is a broader debate occurring among tech experts, academics and politicians about the ethical and legal implications of robotic warfare.
The killer robots debate
Peter W. Singer, a leading expert on 21st century warfare, focuses a great deal on what is known as “the killer robots debate” in his writing and research.
“It sounds like science fiction, but it is a very real debate right now in international relations. There have been multiple UN meetings on this,” Singer told Business Insider.
As Singer put it, robotic technology introduces myriad legal and ethical questions for which “we’re really not all that ready.”
(U.S. Army photo)
“This really comes down to, who is responsible if something goes bad?” Singer said, explaining that this applies to everything from robots in war to driverless cars. “We’re entering a new frontier of war and technology and it’s not quite clear if the laws are ready.”
Singer acknowledges the valid concerns surrounding such technology, but thinks an all-out ban is impractical given it’s hard to ban technology in war that will also be used in civilian life.
In other words, autonomous robots will likely soon be used by many of us in everyday life and it’s doubtful the military will have less advanced technology than the public. Not to mention, there’s already an ongoing arms race when it comes to robotic technology between the US and China, among other countries.
In Singer’s words, the Pentagon is not pursuing robotic technology because “it’s cool” but because “it thinks it can be applied to certain problems and help save money.” Moreover, it wants to ensure the US is in a good position to defend itself from other countries developing such technology.
Singer believes it would be more practical to resolve issues of accountability, rather than pushing for a total ban. He contends the arguments surrounding this issue mirror a lot of the same concerns people had regarding the nuclear arms race not too long ago.
“I’m of the camp that I don’t see as an absolute ban as possible right now. While it might be something that’s great to happen I look at the broader history of weapons,” he said.
Moving forward, Singer said countries might consider pushing for banning the use of such weapons in certain areas, such as cities, where the risk of killing civilians is much higher.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
The Marine Corps wants to buy some second-hand Tigers. No, they’re not trying to replace Sigfried and Roy; they want to buy some F-5E/F Tiger fighters.
According to a report at Soldier of Fortune, the Marine Corps is looking to bolster its force of aggressors. The F-5E/F had long seen service as an attack airframe. In fact, F-5E/F aggressors portrayed the fictional MiG-28 in “Top Gun.”
So, why is the Marine Corps looking to expand the aggressors? One reason is the age of the fighters. The Marine F/A-18Cs are in some of the worst shape — it’s so bad that last year, the Marines had to pull Hornets out of the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
Currently, the Marines have VMFAT-101 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, in Arizona. The goal is to place detachments of F-5s at three other Marine Corps air bases. This will help meet the needs of the Marine Corps.
One of the reasons ironically had to do with a new capability for the AV-8B Harrier force in the Marines: the ability to shoot the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile. The AMRAAM capability required training to help the pilots use it.
So, why not just ask the other services? Well, the Navy and Air Force are having similar problems in terms of airframe age.
SOF also notes that the Air Force has resorted to using T-38 Talon trainers to provide high-speed targets for the F-22, largely because the F-22 force is both very small and expensive to operate. The Marines face the same issue with operating costs if they were to use the F-35B as aggressors.
The Marines are also looking to add light attack capability, possibly using one of two propeller-driven counter-insurgency planes, the AT-6C Coyote and the AT-29 Super Tucano. If such a unit were to be created, it could very well be assigned to the Marine Corps Reserve’s 4th Marine Air Wing.
Russia’s T-80 battle tank was once expected to be among the best in the world. They were the first tanks developed by the Soviet Union to utilize a gas turbine engine, giving it an impressive top speed of 70 kilometers per hour and a far better power to weight ratio than its predecessors. It was even dubbed the “Tank of the English Channel,” because Soviet war games calculated that it could plow through Europe and reach the Atlantic Coast in just five days.
Then it went into battle, and like so many Russian efforts since, reality failed to live up to the hype. When called into service to fight in 1994’s separatist war in Chechnya, the latest iteration of the T-80 (The T-80B) absorbed heavy losses against the lesser equipped Chechnyans. Inexperienced operators combined with fuel-hungry engines left some T-80s useless, as they burned through their fuel reserves idling before the fighting even began.
Others were quickly destroyed by Chechnyan RPGs thanks to a significant design oversight. The T-80 was among the first Russian tanks to utilize an auto-loader for its main gun, which kept stored propellant in the vertical position beneath the tank where it was only partially protected by the tank’s wheels.
Russian T-80 Main Battle Tank shown while not serving as a fruit chef
All it took was a few well-placed shots with RPG-7V and RPG-18 rocket launchers to literally pop the top off of a T-80, as the propellant exploded and destroyed the vehicle. T-80s, the Chechnyans quickly assessed, were easy targets — especially when they were out of gas. All told, nearly a thousand Russian soldiers and 200 vehicles were lost in the conflict, with the T-80s serving as both the most advanced vehicles present and the most often destroyed.
Today, the 51-ton T-80 remains in service in the Russian military in rather large numbers, despite its embarrassing debut. Some 5,500 total tanks were produced during its run, and thanks to Russia’s stagnant economy and the limited production run of their latest advanced tank, the T-74, it seems likely that Russia will continue to rely on the T-80 as a main battle tank for years to come.
History may have already shown that the T-80 is a troubled platform that’s perpetually thirsty for fuel and that harbors at least one fatal flaw along with a laundry list of lesser issues. But that doesn’t mean it’s without its uses. Sure, the T-80 may not hold up to ground troops armed with RPGs, but it actually makes for a pretty decent stand-in for your SlapChop.
T-80 tank VS battle group of fruits (watermelon, pear and apple) ARMY-2019, Kubinka, Russia
As you can see in this footage, surely meant as a demonstration of the stability and precise control allotted by the T-80s 125mm main gun, this vehicle really can do a passable job at slicing fruit.
Of course, you’ll need a Russian soldier that’s willing to stand there and do most of the busy work (like moving the fruit into the tank’s reach, separating it, and moving it away again) but that’s just the price you pay for a fresh fruit Soviet-Smoothie. I suppose this video would still be pretty impressive, if Russia weren’t the first to show off their tank skills using food. Long ago, Germany released a video of their own Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank (designed and built in the same era) hitting the trails with a stein of beer sitting comfortably on its turret.
If you think chopping a watermelon is good, you’ll love this.
Unlike slicing fruit, this actually serves as a good demonstration of the Leopard 2’s ability to keep its main weapon pointed at distant targets, even as it traverses all sorts of terrain. In a fight, that serves a far greater purpose than any fruit salad might, no matter how well prepared.
The Russian video does, however, offer a glimpse into what may be another secret weapon Russia has maintained since the cold war. If all else fails, their tanks can always fix bayonets.
Last year was a much better year. Fewer riots, no quarantines, or lockdowns, no elections. Man, 2019 was sweet. So far, the only good thing to come out of 2020 is Tiger King. Last year was also a great year because I purchased what became my very favorite gun, the ONG 870.
ONG stands for Ohio National Guard, and that is where this particular gun served from 1971 until it ended up in my hands. Guns rarely make it out of the military and into civilian hands. It took decades for 1911s to become CMP issued weapons. The ONG 870s hit the ground running by being sold to the Ohio Department of Corrections, and then to civilians.
The ONG 870 – History Alive
The ONG 870 saw service during the Katrina hurricanes, in quenching prison riots, and in many more events. The ONG 870 guns are pure riot guns. The term riot gun has largely fallen out of fashion. A riot gun is typically a short shotgun, made for combat roles. Riot guns hold anywhere from five to eight rounds.
The Riot Gun
The ONG 870 comes equipped with a clasp-like device at the end of its barrel. The device is a multiuse tool that keeps the magazine tube from bending, contains your sling keeper, and hosts a bayonet — bayonets being the sharp, pointy things that typically dissuade crowds of people without a shot having to be fired. An actual military shotgun with that device attached to it is very hard to find and is one of the factors that make the Ohio National Guard 870 so rare and unique.
Another rare fact is that this is a factory Wingmaster tactical shotgun. Most Remington 870 tactical shotguns are Express models with the cheaper finish and furniture and a tactical variant of the Wingmaster isn’t a stock item these days. Wingmaster models are more refined, with a rich blue finish; they have higher-quality control but are typically high-end sporting shotguns.
The metal finish is fantastic. The bluing is spot on and looks gorgeous. The wood furniture is pure American hardwood and also looks fantastic. This is an old gun with scratches and scrapes, but that gives it some real character.
Handling the ONG 870
The ONG 870 handles as good as it looks. This is an old school Remington action, which means it’s slick and tight. The pump glides rearward and functions without an issue. It also has integrated texturing that allows your hand to dig in and grip the gun with authority. Thus, you can manipulate the pump with speed without your grip slipping.
The gun is outfitted with nothing more than a simple bead sight. Beads on shotguns aren’t perfect, but when it comes to buckshot use, it’s all you need. The bead works perfectly at close range, and close is where the riot gun shines. It’s bright and eye-catching and allows you to quickly get lead on target. With a good tight load, the ONG 870 will allow you to engage threats out to 50 yards or so. Beyond that, the bead gets tougher to use, especially with slugs.
One thing to note is that these old 870s have 2.75-inch chambers and not 3-inch chambers, which although common these days, were not so much 50 years ago. For tactical and home defense applications, the 2.75-inch load is perfect and the preferred load for most shooters. The ONG 870 can hold seven rounds of 2.75-inch buckshot in the extended tube, giving you a proper loadout.
Like a Mule
This is a heavy gun. It’s an old school fighting shotgun devoid of lightweight plastics and polymers. The ONG 870 is a disciple of the church of wood and steel. That’s not a bad thing, especially when you consider that the weapon can be equipped with a bayonet. Heavier weapons make better melee fighting instruments. That extra ass that the ONG 870 carries around also reduces recoil.
Lots of people with relatively low body strength complain about the recoil a shotgun has. The heavy ONG 870 might help them if they can hold this beast up long enough to matter. But the length of pull (LOP), not the weight, is more important for control. The ONG 870 has a 13-inch length of pull.
Lots of shotguns these days are sporting the long 14+ inch LOPs, and they suck. The shorter 13-inch LOP gives you more control over the gun and its recoil. Longer LOPs push the gun further from you; this reduces control. Remington got it right in 1971. For some reason, modern gun makers think gorillas are wielding their shotguns.
Finishing it Up
The ONG 870 is also marked with a unique O.N.G. marking with the state of Ohio outlined on the receiver. This marking is unique only to these guns and marks them as legit ONG 870s. When these guns popped online, they sold out incredibly quickly. The original price was around 9; they are now are going for 10 times that cost on auction sites. If you see a good deal, these guns are worth scooping up.
I don’t think they are worth 2,000 bucks, but for 0 and under, they are a steal. They are collector’s items, but also living history and functional fighting guns. You can’t get better than that.
During a meeting Wednesday with a number of defense reporters and experts, outgoing Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus defended the Littoral Combat Ship against criticism.
The LCS has been noted for a series of engineering problems that has laid up a number of the early ships. The problems have called the program into question even though the USS Freedom (LCS 1) had a very successful 2010 deployment to Southern Command’s area of operations, while the USS Coronado (LCS 4) successfully defeated a simulated attack by a swarm of speedboats in a 2015 test of the surface warfare package.
Mabus particularly aimed his ire at the Pentagon’s Office of Test and Evaluation, or DOTE, which has been part of an ongoing verbal fight between Pentagon testers and the Navy.
“My reaction is that I’ve been there almost eight years,” Mabus, who was confirmed in 2009, groused to the gathered reporters. “And I’m pretty sure that [DOTE director] Michael Gilmore has never found a weapon system that’s effective, ever.”
“I know what this ship can do. I know what the fleet thinks of it,” Mabus added, citing how the office was also highly critical of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, claiming it didn’t work or do what the Navy said it would do. The DOTE criticism came even though the plane had already entered the fleet and was drawing rave reviews from operators.
The Littoral Combat Ship covered 20 pages in the DOTE FY2016 Annual Report, which claimed the Navy “has not yet demonstrated effective capability for LCS equipped with the MCM [mine counter-measures], SUW [surface warfare], or ASW [anti-submarine warfare] mission packages.”
The report also cited the 2015 cancellation of the Remote Minehunting System, and even claimed that the USS Coronado had flunked the 2015 test.
“The final thing I’ll say is, it does what we want it to do, not what you think it ought to do which is one of the things [Gilmore] does,” Mabus concluded.
A British F-35 pilot has pulled off what the Royal Navy called a “milestone” maneuver, executing a backward landing on the deck of Britain’s largest warship, the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The Royal Air Force test pilot Squadron Leader Andy Edgell flew his American-made F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter across the bow of the large British aircraft carrier.
The pilot then brought the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft to a hover over the deck before gently setting it down, the Royal Navy said in a statement Nov. 19, 2018. He said the F-35 jump jet “handled beautifully.”
The aviation achievement is intended to give the carrier crew additional options in the event of an emergency. Given the nature of the aircraft, the landing was not radically different from more conventional alternatives.
An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter landing on the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
(Royal Navy photo)
The British Royal Navy said this atypical landing was like “driving the wrong way down a one-way street.” Reflecting on the maneuver, Edgell said, “It was briefly bizarre to bear down on the ship and see the waves parting on the bow as you fly an approach aft facing.”
“It was also a unique opportunity fly towards the ship, stare at the bridge, and wonder what the captain is thinking,” he added.
This maneuver, like the previously executed conventional landings and rolling landings, was part of a nine-week intensive training program that began off the US east coast.
An F-35B Lightning II above the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth on Sept. 25, 2018.
(UK Ministry of Defense)
The first landing was carried out Sept. 25, 2018, when Royal Navy Cmdr. Nathan Gray landed an F-35B on the deck of the carrier. It marked the first time in eight years that an aircraft had landed on a British carrier. The UK had previously acquired the F-35, and its new carrier set sail in 2017. The combination of the two was championed as the dawn of a new era for British sea power.
Commodore Andrew Betton, the commander of the UK carrier strike group, called it “a tremendous step forward in reestablishing the UK’s carrier strike capability.”
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
Throughout the history of firearms, there have been plenty of weapons that were more for show more than they were useful. Many of these historical oddities never left the prototype phase and end up serving more as collector’s items. Others, however, made it into the hands of troops and earned reputations as duds.
As much as troops gripe about the small flaws in the weapons they’re issued, they can take solace knowing that they were never issued a Chauchat Light Machine Gun.
It was designed before WWI as one of the first light, automatic rifle-caliber weapons designed to be operated by a single troop. Before troops got their hands on the majesty that is the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, the Chauchat made due.
There were three major flaws with the Chauchat. The first and most glaring shortcoming is the magazine. The designers decided the magazine should have an “open design” to allow operators to see how many rounds they had left. This was pointless as the firearm shot 250 rounds per minute and the magazine only held 20 rounds. Basically, this hole just allowed mud and gunk to jam the weapon.
Even under pleasant conditions, this light machine gun is heavily flawed. The long recoil system mixed with its extremely loose bi-pod meant that troops couldn’t maintain anything more than very short bursts. But, a short burst of fire is all you were likely to get, given the amount of cartridges that fail to eject from the chamber…
If, somehow, you managed to keep it perfectly clean, only loaded 18 rounds to avoid the first-round, failure-to-feed problem, and you got lucky with cartridges “stovepiping,” you’d still run into such serious overheating that it causes the barrel sleeve assembly to lock in the rear position until it completely cools down.
All of these problems were made worse in the American Expeditionary Forces version of the Chauchat, which were chambered in .30-06 instead of the 8mm Lebel. This version’s chamber was also incorrectly measured which meant the weapon was, essentially, useless.
Despite all of its flaws, the Chauchat set the groundwork and laid out the problems to fix when it came time to field the M1918 BAR. For more information on the M1915 CSRG, commonly called the Chauchat, check out the video below.
The U.S. Air Force has successfully tested a new loadout for the F-15E Strike Eagle that allows the highly capable multirole fighter to carry a whopping 15 JDAMs at once, though it won’t be able to leverage them all in a single sortie.
Entering service more than a decade after the F-15 Eagle it’s based on, the F-15E is a multi-role fighter that specializes in high-speed interdiction and ground attack operations. That means the Strike Eagle uses the same brute force, high speed, and maneuverability that’s made the Eagle the world’s undisputed air-to-air champ for strike missions against targets on the ground.
In keeping with the F-15E’s ground attack specialty, Strike Eagles have come to rely on JDAMs, or Joint Direct Attack Munitions, for delivering ordnance with pinpoint accuracy during their bombing runs. JDAMs are, in their simplest form, dumb bombs with a smart guidance system added to them.
Each JDAM’s guidance system includes a GPS receiver and aerodynamic control surfaces to guide the bomb’s descent. With the guidance kit installed and GPS working properly (i.e. isn’t being jammed by the opponent), JDAMs ranging in weight from 500 to 2,000 pounds can hit their targets within less than five meters at distances as great as 15 nautical miles. Of the 400,000 or so JDAMs Boeing has built, around 30,000 have also added laser targeting capabilities, giving pilots even more options when engaging ground targets.
The Air Force’s inventory of F-15E Strike Eagles can be fitted with nine of these broadly capable weapons currently, but the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron has now confirmed that F-15Es can manage a whopping six more.
“Currently the F-15E is authorized to carry a max of nine JDAMs, but the success of this test expands that to 15 JDAMs,” said Maj. Andrew Swanson, F-15E Weapons System Officer, 85th TES.
Unfortunately, as much as we here at Sandboxx News love shouting “bomb truck” into the air while we spin in our office chairs, the six additional JDAMs these Strike Eagles can carry can’t actually be leveraged in a single combat sortie. Instead, the goal is to use each F-15E to carry those additional bombs to austere landing strips where they can be used to rapidly re-arm the jet they came from, or to re-arm other fighters in the area.
“The Strike Eagle can now carry enough JDAMs for an active combat mission, land at a remote location, and reload itself and/or another aircraft – such as an F-35 or F-22 – for additional combat sorties,” said Lt. Col. Jacob Lindaman, commander, 85th TES.
The F-15E has already been carrying up to three JDAMs beneath each of the jet’s two “Fast Pack” conformal fuel tanks, as well as two more that can be carried in place of external fuel tanks, and one more on the fighter’s centerline. The 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron was able to successfully mount three more JDAMs on upper hardpoints on each “Fast Pack,” but it doesn’t appear as though the weapons can actually be deployed from this position.
Despite not being able to drop these additional bombs, this is still an important development as the U.S. military pivots back toward an era of great power competition. Right now, in order to re-arm F-15Es on austere airstrips, the U.S. Air Force has to dedicate two C-130s to the job. One would carry bombs and JDAM kits for assembly, the other would carry the personnel required for the job. By carrying that extra firepower on the F-15Es themselves, they can eliminate the need for the second C-130. Fighter aircraft are also more survivable in lightly contested airspace than the large and comparatively slow C-130, reducing the inherent risk involved in re-arming aircraft while forward deployed.
This concept isn’t unique to the F-15E. The Air Force and Marine Corps have both been experimenting with the idea of re-arming F-35s from austere airstrips with an eye toward the potential for island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific.
China’s massive area denial bubble, created by their hypersonic anti-ship missiles, extends nearly a thousand miles from its shores, but America’s carrier-aircraft offer a combat radius of only 500-750 miles. In order to extend their range, the Navy has been exploring aerial refueling supported by drones, and both branches have tested landing F-35s on dirt airstrips as they might need to if their carriers can’t close the distance between them for fear of being sunk.
In those circumstances, heavy-lift helicopters have also been tested as a means of getting the resources to these aircraft where they need them, but F-35s could also be re-armed thanks to JDAMs flown in beneath the wings of a Strike Eagle.
Jamming 15 JDAMs under the wings of an F-15E might sound like putting a hat on a hat, but it might be the capability that gets America’s jets back into the fight faster in the event of a conflict in the Pacific. When every second counts, it never hurts to have an extra six JDAMs hanging off your belt.
It is one of the sneakiest, most insidious things in warfare. It can creep up on you, and you’ll suddenly find out that you no longer can do all that you wanted to do. It’s called “virtual attrition,” and while it doesn’t make many headlines, it matters more to military operations than you’d think.
So, what exactly is “virtual attrition?” Well, plain old attrition is defined by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as “the act or process of weakening and gradually defeating an enemy through constant attacks and continued pressure over a long period of time.” In war, these are the planes that are shot down, the ships that are sunk, the tanks that go “jack in the box,” the troops that are killed. In other words, you lost them for good.
An F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to the Salty Dogs of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 conducts a captive carry flight test of an AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. (U.S. Navy photo by Greg L. Davis/Released)
Virtual attrition, therefore involves “losing” the assets. Only it doesn’t involve actually destroying the asset. Here’s a couple of examples:
Scenario One: There is a factory complex in Bad Guy Land that you want to remove from the landscape. It will take 16 Joint Direct Attack Munitions to destroy. Now, four F/A-18E Super Hornets from one of the squadrons in the air wing of USS Enterprise can each carry four JDAMs, that should put enough bombs on target, right?
Well, not quite. You see, Mr. Sleazebag Swinemolestor, the dictator of Bad Guy Land, just got some brand new Russian S-300 missile systems (the SA-10 Grumble). He’s got one defending the factory complex you want to go away. He also got some brand new J-11 Flankers from China that he’s using to protect the place.
Now, sending planes into the teeth of air defenses doesn’t work out so well. We found that out the hard way in more than a couple wars.
So now, you may need some escorts. Well, we can add a couple more F/A-18Es with AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles and AGM-154A Joint Standoff Attack Weapons to deal with the S-300s, and two more loaded with a ton of AIM-120 AMRAAMs for the Flankers.
Aviation Ordnancemen assigned to the Diamondbacks of Strike Fighter Squadron One Zero Two (VFA-102), load a CATM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation (HARM) missile on one of their squadrons F/A-18F Super Hornets aboard the conventionally powered aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The CATM-88 is an inert training version of the AGM-88 HARM missile, which is a supersonic air-to-surface tactical missile designed to seek and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems. Kitty Hawk and embarked Carrier Air Wing Five (CVW-5) are currently conducting operations in the Western Pacific Ocean. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate 3rd Class Jonathan Chandler)
Only those four additional Super Hornets have to come from somewhere. On a carrier (or even a land base), there are only so many airframes. The S-300s and the Flankers just forced the United States to double the size of the “package” they are sending to service the target.
A carrier usually has 24 Super Hornets. Some will be down for maintenance. Some will be needed to provide air cover for the carrier or planes like the E-2 Hawkeye or EA-18 Growler. There will be other targets to hit, like bridges, air bases, headquarters buildings… you get the picture.
Now, you can’t hit all the targets you want to hit, because you need to not only make the factory go away, you need to make the defenses go away. You have lost the use of the planes as strike assets. In essence, other missions get shortchanged. That is one way virtual attrition works.
Scenario 2: China’s DF-21 has gotten a lot of hype as a threat. That ignores the fact that the RIM-161 SM-3 Standard Missile is already capable of defeating it. But the DF-21 still inflicts the “virtual attrition.”
Let’s assume that BadGuyLand’s dictator, the aforementioned Sleazebag Swinemolestor, has bought 30 DF-21s. Now, while the SM-3 has proven reliable (a success rate of about 90 percent in tests), the usual practice will be a “shoot-shoot look” approach — firing two missiles at each target, and looking to see if you got it. That is a quick way to eat up missiles, especially when you miss.
An SM-3 Block 1B interceptor is launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency test and successfully intercepted a complex short-range ballistic missile target off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii. (U.S. Department of Defense photo/Released)
So now, the Enterprise’s escorts have to load more SM-3s into their Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems. The problem being, of course, they only have 96 cells each. And if you are carrying more SM-3s, you have to take other missiles out, like BGM-109 Tomahawks, RIM-66 SM-2 Standard Missiles, and RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROCs.
Now, you could fix this by adding the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group (originally planned for a WESTPAC deployment), with her escorts, the Bunker Hill, the Winston S. Churchill, the Harmon Rabb, and the Cole. But that carrier group has to come from somewhere… so you now have to make up for that or pray that the region stays calm.
The Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), steams in formation with ships from Carrier Strike Group Five (CSG 5) and the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) during Exercise Invincible Spirit. (U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Nathan Burke/Released)
The other alternative is to add more escorts. You could strip the Mac Taylor from anti-piracy duty off Somalia, or call in the John S. McCain from her Freedom of Navigation exercise in the South China Sea, or maybe even have the Dave Nolan detach from the replenishment ships. But then you take risks by pulling those ships from those missions.
In essence, virtual attrition means you have to pull in extra assets – and the assets you pull in, no matter how good they are, cannot be in two places at once. It is not spectacular. It doesn’t make headlines, but virtual attrition is a real problem that the military has to address.