Sep 172012
 

An interesting article on efforts to keep the B61 nuclear weapons stockpile up and running:

The B61 bomb: A case study in costs and needs

And here’s the line that will fill you with optimism:

“We bought three or four on eBay,”

Nukes are not really “wooden rounds.” You cannot build a nuke, pack it in  a box, leave it in a dry cool place for a decade and expect it to function; they need constant attention and scheduled maintenance. And to do it right, they need an infrastructure that knows what it’s doing. By chopping away at the nuclear bomb-building base, you end up losing the experience needed to simply maintain what you already have, never mind build new stuff.

 Posted by at 7:37 am
Sep 122012
 

The USAF understandably wants new weapons for the future. One such is the “High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW),” which is to be an air launched hypersonic ground attack missile. A reasonable enough sort of thing for the USAF to want. well, they’re in the early stages of trying to work out just what they want, in cahoots with the aerospace industry. Behold:

High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW) Demonstration Program Industry Day 1

Included therein is a link to a PDF file of a draft Broad Area Announcement. now, a perfectly reasonable approach would be for the USAF to basically say “We want a missile that weighs less than W pounds, will go X miles in Y minutes and carry Z payload,” and then detail stuff about cost and meaneuverability and schedules and whatnot. What the USAF produced starts off like this:

General Program Objectives: The overall objective of the High Speed Strike Weapon Demo program is to identify, assess, develop (increase the technology maturity level), integrate and demonstrate through modeling and simulation, ground and demonstration flight testing of an S&T technology demonstrator weapon system, technologies for a hypersonic, air-launched cruise missile. The scope of the demonstration flight(s) includes launching the S&T technology demonstrator weapon from either an F-15E or a B-52 at a tactically relevant altitude and airspeed.

Good so far. But then they totally screw the pooch with this:

The propulsion system for the S&T technology demonstrator weapon must include an air-breathing engine capable of supersonic combustion.

Oy vey.

Instead of asking for capability, they are asking for a specific technology… scramjets. A technology that has been in development for sixty years and still doesn’t work.

Who knows, solid rockets or maybe conventional ramjets might have worked, and relatively cheaply. But instead the USAF looks like it’s saddling itself with a science project. Which would be ok… but a science project is rarely a good basis for a production program.

What’s next? Is the Navy going to specify a fusion reactor powered attack sub?

 Posted by at 8:52 pm
Sep 042012
 

Someone making a homemade copy of a sci-fi weapon? Not newsworthy. Making the weapon functional? Potentially newsworthy. Here we have a German feller who made a replica of the “Gauss Gun” from a video game, and went to the bother of making it a functional electromagnetic slug-thrower. It accelerates 5.7 mm diameter steel “bullets” to a claimed 100 meters per second. Certainly not in the category of a good firearm, but it’s respectable.

[youtube nVgbtqsmx54]

And here’s the actually exciting part: much of the limitation in muzzle velocity, rate of fire and rounds-per-recharge is wrapped up in the battery. And since numerous governments are pushing electric cars, battery capability is bound to improve… which means that homemade Gauss guns like this will be able to improve alongside ’em. Nothing here would seem to be restrictable as a firearm; so coupling battery advancements with rapid prototyping/3D printing, it’s conceivable that before too long the average enthusiast will be able to go to Walmart and buy some batteries and plug them into their home-printed full-auto, 900 fps Gauss assault rifle.

 Posted by at 5:13 pm
Aug 292012
 

In the vast pile of magical thinking that people have dreamed up over the millenia, “Onomancy” is the belief that you can figure something out about someone by using their name in divination. Aslo, people have believed that if you find out someone’s “true name,” you can develop some form of power over them. And of course as we all know, Muad’Dib is a killing name.

In recent years we have dropped a lot of this sort of belief, though perhaps not entirely: you might not be able to do much to me just by knowing my name, but if I posted my Social Security Number, I bet I’d be financially ruined by nightfall. And people online often choose usernames that hide their “true names,” perhaps not for magical reasons, but for reasons of protecting privacy. Still, it takes a special kind of Herp and Derp to see any sense in this news story:

Deaf boy’s name violates weapons policy: School

Short form: the family of a deaf three-year old in Nebraska was asked by his preschool to change his name. Why? His name is “Hunter,” and the sign for his name is a “shooting gesture,” with the fingers crossed to show that it’s a proper name. Why is this a problem? Because the school bans anything that looks like a weapon.

After the current school board either gets fired or voted out (come on, these are *Nebraskans,* not a bunch of wilting violet New Yorkers who freak out over guns or 44-ounce Pepsis), hopefully they’ll be replaced with a board that takes this as a “teachable moment” and institutes firearms training in grade school. A number of firearm options are available.

 Posted by at 9:09 am
Aug 242012
 

My faith in the American spirit is restored:

‘Wiki Weapon Project’ Aims To Create A Gun Anyone Can 3D-Print At Home

The goal is a firearm printable on a RepRap that will safely fire at least one shot of a .22. Granted, as guns go that’s not much, but the goal is a noble one:

But he doesn’t deny that the project’s goal is to subvert gun control regulations in America and around the world. “It’s one of the ideas of the American revolution that the citizenry should be the owners of the weapons,” says Wilson. “Every citizen has the right to bear arms. This is the way to really lower the barrier to access to arms. That’s what this represents.”

Defense Distributed website

 Posted by at 10:10 am
Aug 202012
 

American civilians buy as many AK47s as the Russian military and police… and demand is surging because gun owners fear they will be banned

In short: about 40% of the AK-47s made in Izhvesk, Russia, home of the Izhmash Kalashnikov factory, are going to the US civilian market.

While these are, sadly, semi-auto rather than full-auto, it’s good to see the increase. The Daily Mail article links to a New York Times article, and both make a massive journalistic faux pas: they both point out that many of the AK-47’s are going to American hunters, who are, contrary to the politically correct talking point, effectively using the AK-47 to go hunting. And why not? It’s cheap, reliable, easy to maintain, and kinda-sorta vaguely accurate.

This is good for everyone involved: the Russians get an economic boost, America gets more quality firearms. When you consider that gun rights and gun ownership rates have been on the rise for the last ten years or so, while at the same time crime has been on the decline, increased ownership of AK-47’s can only be a good thing.

——-

Heh. Reading the comments section of the New York Times is both instructive and entertaining.

Maybe start by passing local government laws to tighten up on gun control, then local government could take on central government on this issue. Who needs a semi-automatic weapon in an urban concrete jungle? The days of the Wild West have long gone and people go to the supermarket to get food these days. You’ve got the government and military forces to protect you. You need to put your trust in your government to protect you like other nations do.

Just you wait. The next mass killing is around the corner. And guess what the weapon will be? Why do we need this? Is there any way we can stop the insanity? Can we take to the streets? Let’s organize, people!

This is crazy. There isn’t one good reason why anyone over here would ever need one of these.

Wait. Did I say “entertaining?” I mean “sad.”

 Posted by at 3:24 pm
Aug 072012
 

Continuing:

OK, so here are the generators:

The larger generator in back looks like this:

This is a Caterpillar XQ400 genset. XQ400 as in 400 kilowatts of electrical output. That’s enough, at 25% efficiency, to run the proposed operational LaWS anti-aircraft/missile laser.

The smaller generator in front looks like it might be one of these:

… which is a Caterpillar XQ100 genset producing, as may be surmised, 100 kilowatts.

So, there is certainly sufficient electrical power on display just in the larger generator to power the LaWS laser to operational levels, assuming they can actually get 25% efficiency out of it. As for the second, smaller generator? A few theories:

1) It runs what may be a smaller MLD laser

2) It provides makeup power because the LaWS doesn’t actually get 25% efficiency

3) It powers secondary systems like tracking sensors and mechanical actuators

4) It powers the not-insubstantial cooling system needed to safely shed 300 kilowatts of heat.

5) I bet there’s a Caterpillar rental agent with an interesting story to tell.

 Posted by at 3:32 pm