The “Falcon” logo on the Falcon missile on display at the Virginia Air & Space Center.
Apr 292011
Apr 272011
One of the primary goals of this expedition has been to obtain information for a potential book on the XM-28 and XM-29 Davy Crockett atomic weapons systems. And while there have been a few disappointments, on the whole it has been fantastically successful, both in terms of getting actual stuff, and in terms of getting contacts to get more stuff.
Got: Photos of the Davy Crocketts on display at the West Point museum (New York):
Got: Photos of three Davy Crocketts on display at the Watervliet Arsenal museum (New York):
Got: Photos of the Davy Crockett on display at the Infantry Museum at Fort Benning (Georgia):
Got: Two different PDF files of a Davy Crockett Field Manual (“meh” image quality)
Got: Photocopies of most of a Davy Crockett Technical Manual (“really good” image quality)
Got: contacts with the possibility of detailed construction and layout drawings of the recoilless guns
Got: a heads up on a Technical Manual that deals specifically with the ammunition (including M388 atomic warhead) for the Davy Crockett system. More research required. Anyone know of a *complete* collection of Army TM’s? This one might, and might not, be classified.
Didn’t get: Photos of the Davy Crockett at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds museum. Guess what museum CLOSED FOREVER in September of 2010? So all I have on that are photos I took with a lesser camera in 2008.
Didn’t get: photos of *both* Davy Crocketts at the Fort Benning infantry Museum. The museum transferred all their stuff to a whole new building in 2009, and one of the Davy’s is in long-term storage. So all I have on that is a single photo I found online showing the previous setup. If anyone might’ve taken decent photos of the two of ’em prior to the move, please contact me.
BONUS Didn’t Get: good clear and unobstructed flash photos of the Fort Benning Davy Crockett, since flash photography is forbidden (!) and there are irritatingly placed signs in the way. I got a few flash photos when a docent said I could; then a security guard came along and over-rode her. Shrug.
Didn’t get: photos of the Davy Crocket on display at the Don F. Pratt Museum at Fort Campbell, Tennessee. If anyone is in the area and willing to take photos, please contact me. Willing to offer $$$.
STILL TO GET: photos of the practice Davy Crockett round on display at the National Museum of Atomic Science & History in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This will be a separate expedition at a later date, and will also obtain photos of the related SADM “nuclear backpack” bomb.
Unlikely to get: photos of the Davy Crockett on display at the Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Cap Canaveral, Florida; on display at the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada. If anyone is in the area and willing to take photos, please contact me. Willing to offer $$$.
————–
The idea of a book on the Davy Crockett has grown from a small, crappy and ill-conceived idea at the end of last year, to now looking like something pretty substantial. It is not my top publishing priority… Orion comes first. But this opportunity to scope out research for the DC book could not be sanely passed up. Of course, everywhere I go, when I talk to people about wanting to write this book, the response has been a pretty uniform “… uh, why?” Hell, damn near nobody has even *heard* of the Davy Crockett, much less are people clamoring to find out more. But for me, that’s prit near reason enough. Maybe I’d sell more books about the P-51 Mustang, saying the same thing that others have said in a thousands prior books, and showing the same nice photos that have appeared a thousand times before… but who’s ever seen *anything* on the Davy Crockett? I mean, come on… who wouldn’t want to read about an M-113 loaded with six nuclear weapons, or an atom bomb launched off a jeep and controlled by clockwork?
Apr 262011
On April 23, I toured the USS North Carolina (BB-55), a battleship moored at the port of Wilmington, North Carolina. As is my wont, I took a bunch of photos… a good percent of which are kinda crummy. But some turned out fairly well. Below are some shots related to the 16-inch gun turrets. More later (including panoramas) if there is interest.
These photos are higher-rez than what I usually post. I’m checking out the new “theme,” and if I can get the whole “blatant advertising project” underway, then future photos will be presented in a manner similar to this.
More photos below…
Apr 212011
I have recently, and for about the hundredth time, been accused of being “obsessed” with firearms. This is one of the more curious accusations that have been hurled my way, for it is simply, and massively, untrue.
–verb (used with object) 1.
to dominate or preoccupy the thoughts, feelings, or desires of (a person); beset, trouble, or haunt persistently or abnormally: Suspicion obsessed him.
–verb (used without object) 2.
to think about something unceasingly or persistently; dwell obsessively upon something.
Now, for myself and very likely the vast majority of gun owners that many in the hoplophobe community would refer to as “gun nuts” or “obsessed with firearms” or some such, this definition really does not even come close to applying. Even on days when I wear a concealed firearm, I expend less thought on it than I do on, say, my cell phone or my wallet. Does that make me a cell phone nut or a wallet obsessive?
Ok, yes, I have multiple guns. But I have several orders of magnitude more books than guns. My collection of books cost considerably more than my collection of guns. My monthly expenditure on books (and book-like products) outstrips my expenditures on firearms and firearm related products by, again, several orders of magnitude. I bought a book two days ago. I made copies of several book-like items yesterday (and the day before). It has been *years* since I purchased a firearm. I am deep into the process of writing two fairly substantial books, and I’ve written probably a few books worth of other things over the years, and have plans for several more books and book-like products (but no current plans on carving an assault weapon out of a block of steel). Wherever I sleep there are a wide variety of books scattered wildly all over everywhere, within easy reach of theoretical; children, with not a book-lock to be found. So… does all of this make me a dangerous book nut? Will my obvious obsession with the written word cause me to go buggo and destroy a school? After all, assault books like “Mein Kampf” and “Das Kapital” and “The Little Red Book” have killed hundreds of millions of people. Books are dangerous!
I think where the problem comes from is that those obsessed with guns are, by and large, not the gun owners. Sure, there are gun owners who blow vast sums on guns, who stockpile them or make them themselves (as a hobby or a career). But it seems to me the larger number of “gun nuts” are those who are opposed to guns. After all, why would a guy like me mention firearms with respect to politics, but not, say, books in general? It’s really quite simple. Were I to take a stroll through downtown Manhattan, I doubt too much of anybody would give a damn if i did so with a paperback strapped to my hip and an Oxford English Dictionary across my back. But some people would freak right the hell out of I did so with a pistol and a SOCOM-16.
The hoplophobes seem to see *any* positive interest in firearms as the sign of dangerous obsession. For those of us who have firearms and see them not in the mystical terms that the gun grabbers do, but simply as the tools that they are, this is both inaccurate and mystifying. But it is, sadly, politically both popular and supported. For those of you who do not yet see my point, imagine a movement of anti-computer people arose that loudly proclaimed that anyone who wanted to have a computer, or who – GASP! – spent any time at all online or, worse still, discussed online topics, was, in fact, a “computer nut.” Not the people who stood in line for days to be the first goober with an IPad… just anyone with a low-end laptop used to send photos to Granny.
Were such a group of anti-computer goofballs to arise, they’d be soon seen as the nuts that they are. But sadly, if you simply replace “computer” with “firearm” or “handgun,” their position, which is based not in reality but in fearmongering, is politically supported and politically popular.
Here’s a hint: if you see someone simply discussing firearms, talking about which ones they like or would like to have, and your thought is “this person is a gun nut…” chances are, YOU are the gun nut with the unhealthy obsession.
Apr 202011
OK, *this* one should present a bit of a challenge.
I know what it is; I just don’t hardly believe it.
DING! Survey says:
This … thing was a Bell Aerospace design for an armored hovercraft MX launcher. Dating from the late 1970’s or early 1980’s, I know it only from a single three-view included in a Bell report detailing their conceptually similar entry into the Small ICBM (i.e. “Midgetman”) launcher design contest, to show prior art. Performance and most details are at best fuzzy from the limited info. It’s equipped with a multitude of lift jets and propulsive jet engines… and a number of liquid fueled rocket engines, for reasons unexplored in the available information. Presumably for getting-the-hell-out-of-Dodge purposes, but a rocket powered hovertank is going to have a strictly limited range at whatever the hell it considers to be “high speed.” The oddest thing is that there are rockets on all sides… forward, back, side-to-side. Shrug.
Probably make a nifty model. Anybody interested?
Mar 282011
A 15-round pump action bullpup 12-gauge shotgun.Gimme.
[youtube WPliHk1sLkw]
[youtube hi0OWQCkcVc]
http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/usa/shotgun-kel-tec-ksg-e.html
http://www.keltecweapons.com/news/preview-kel-tec-shotgun-ksg/
Mar 232011
The December 1, 1958, issue of Aviation Week magazine ran an article titled “Soviets Flight Testing Nuclear Bomber,” which included a simple 3-view drawing of the supposed nuclear powered supersonic craft. The article claimed that the aircraft was indeed flying, and had been seen by multiple observers.
Small problem: it didn’t exist. Aviation Week was wrong.
The drawing that Aviation Week included was clearly a crude, close-but-not-quite-right representation of the Myasishchev M-50, NATO code-named “Bounder.” But the Bounder was not nuclear powered. While Myasishchev did design nuclear powered versions of the Bounder, they never built one, much less flew one. The incident, while little known to the general public today (go ahead… ask a hundred of your closest friends, family and co-workers if they’ve ever heard of the article), is infamous in aviation journalism. It was a case of stating the factually inaccurate as the factually certain. It is occasionally brought up as a cautionary tale to not believe everything you read, even if it comes from a seemingly authoritative source.
But a question has lingered for more than fifty years: where did Aviation Week get this story? Was it, as some sources claim, a hoax? Did the author of the article make it up out of whole cloth? If so, how did he know about the configuration of the Bounder, which was not publicly shown until 1963?
As it turns out, Aviation Week and the articles author did not invent the story. A month earlier, a secret briefing was held for officials (USAF and Atomic Energy Comission) of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Office by staff of General Electric, Atomic Products Division at the Evenbdale, Ohio, GE facility. The 11-hour session covered a range of topics, one of which was Soviet nuclear aircraft activity. The aircraft described is clearly the aircraft upon which the Aviation Week article was based on. Interestingly, one of the charts shows that the design was already code named Bounder.
How did Aviation Week gain access to this presentation? One possibility is that a copy of the presentation charts were simply handed over to the Av Week staff in order to “get the word out.” Av Week did, after all, also publish an editorial about the disturbing development of Soviet nuclear powered aircraft, and called for the development of Americas equivalent. However, while clearly similar, the drawing of the Bounder in the GE presentation materials differs in important ways from that contained in the Aviation Week article. It looks more like the Aviation Week article was going off of a good verbal description, or just a brief glance. I can’t imagine that the details would be changed on a whim. And as it turns out, the GE drawings of the Bounder were in some ways closer to the actual Bounder than the Aviation Week drawings of the Soviet atomic bomber. Additionally, the available pages are just the charts that would have been either handed out or slide-projected at the briefing; it’s unknown what the presenter actually said. As with any presentation, the charts are a horribly incomplete part of the story… they tend to be jsut illustrations and bullet points, while the narrative is given out verbally via prepared remarks and answers to questions. Did the presenter (one J. H. Guill) say that the nuclear powered Bounder had flown, as Aviation Week claimed? That is unknown, though one of the charts seems to indicate that.
It seems not unlikely to me that someone at Aviation Week spoke to someone in attendance at the briefing, possibly an Air Force officer, who told them what had been said and described – perhaps with a simple sketch – the design of the supposed Soviet atomic bomber. The Aviation Week sketch includes dimensions, something not shown in the presentation charts… but possibly given out verbally.
Another possibility, of course, is that the Air Force simply gave Aviation Week the article to publish, complete with a slightly mutated bomber drawing. If the Air Force believeed that the Bounder drawing was accurate, they might not want to publicise it… a less-accurate public version of the drawing might confuse the Soviets as to the source the the Americans information.
In any case, it would hardly be the first – and certainly not the last – time that a news outlet was used for propaganda purposes. While arguably unfortunate, and in the end embarassing for Aviation Week (they were, after all, wrong), the evidence shows that Aviation Week itself was not hoaxing the public, but rather they themselves were working off of information that came from what should have been a reliable source.
But after all this, it turns out to be a matter of simply moving the goal posts. Where did GE get their – clearly partially right, clearly partially wrong – information?
Mar 222011
Zentih Star was the name of a little known program to develop a space-based anti-missile laser during the Reagan SDI days. Vaguely shaped like the Hubble space telescope, it was much bigger and heavier, and could not be hauled into orbit in the Shuttle. Since the Shuttle was the biggest launch vehicle the US had, something new was needed. While several launch vehicles were proposed specifically to launch the Zenith Star, another idea was to use the proposed Shuttle C. Shuttle C was an expendable all-cargo derivative of the shuttle… stame external tank, same boosters, same “boattail” of the orbiter, but no wings, no cockpit, no recovery systems and an extended cargo bay. The Shuttle C was a NASA-MSFC idea that Martin Marietta ran with; the artwork below is likely Martin.
Mar 102011
Massachusetts: Let’s put GPS trackers in firearms
Connecticut: Do you own a magazine that holds 11 rounds? We want to declare you a felon.
Feb 212011
One of the Constitutional arguements against Obamacare (beyond the fact that there’s nothing in the Constitution saying it’s the job of the government to provide healthcare… thus makign the whole damned thing unConstitutional) rests on the point that Obamacare tells each and every American citizen that they must, under penalty of law, buy insurance from an insurance company. If the government can tell people that they MUST buy one thing, then there’s no reason why the government can’t tell people they MUST buy some other things, and then some other thing, and then that thing over there…
South Dakota got the message.
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Here is the text:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. Not later than January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of twenty-one years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
Section 2. After January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota shall comply with the provisions of this Act within six months of attaining the age of twenty-one years.
Section 3. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm pursuant to §§ 22-14-15, 22-14-15.1, or 22-14-15.2.
If you believe it’s within the power of the US FedGuv to order you to buy insurance, explain why it’s *not* within the power of a stateguv or fedguv to order you to buy a gun. After all, guns are protected under the Constitution (healthcare is not even mentioned) as being a requirement of the militia, and the US federal code defines the militia as every male over the age of 18… and since we’re all modernized people, we can assume a lack of sexism and thus the militia includes all the womenfolk as well.