Defense Issues

Military and general security

Stealth fighter characteristics and requirements overview

Posted by Picard578 on August 8, 2018

Introduction

Stealth fighters are spreading, yet very few to none have what is necessary for a stealth fighter to be truly effective. Some are better than others – PAK FA would eat F-35 for lunch and spit out the bones – but all have serious flaws and are, in essence, half-baked experiments in stealth fighter design. So what would an ideal stealth fighter be? (Note: It may not be possible for some countries to build such a fighter – an optimization for operational stealth might fly in the face of other design requirements).

Requirements

Survivability

Main idea behind stealth is to improve survivability. Survivability is one of the most important characteristics of modern weapons systems, yet it is far more complex than generally appreciated. It does not mean merely avoiding getting hit, but rather surviving to carry out the mission – in tactical terms, aircraft that had been forced to withdraw due to lack of fuel or could never take off due to a big hole in tarmac is as “dead” as one that had been shot down.

Lethality

Stealth improves lethality as well. Effectiveness of weapons depends in large part on employment range: it is not the same thing to shoot from 10 or 100 kilometers.

Endurance

In order to actually make use of the above, aircraft needs to be capable of getting to targets and back. Required endurance necessarily depends on mission profile: will the fighter be employed defensively or offensively? Since stealth fighters are by nature offensive weapons, they will require greater endurance than non-stealth fighters; but defensive stealth design is possible to envision as well. Endurance should be measured by combat tasks: e.g. acceleration from subsonic cruise speed to combat cruise speed followed by climb to operational altitude and acceleration to top speed in order to fire missiles. This could be more precisely specified as:

  • Ingress at 15.000 ft

  • Acceleration from Mach 0,9 to 1,2 at 15.000 ft

  • Climb to 30.000 ft and acceleration to Mach 1,7 (assumed dry cruise speed)

  • Cruise at Mach 1,7

  • Maximum deceleration turn from Mach 1,7 to Mach 0,8 at 30.000 ft and maximum power

Training

All the above characteristics depend on how well trained the pilot is. A well-trained pilot will be able to optimize aircraft employment, weapons employment etc., while badly trained pilot will unnecessarily waste weapons and fuel. As Iraqis discovered in 1991., 2003. and 2014., it is no use to give a rifle to a monkey. A well-trained pilot in shit aircraft will always beat a badly-trained pilot in excellent aircraft. Usefulness of BVR combat in recent conflicts was largely due to enemies being incapable of proper defensive action due to lack of training and equipment failures (no MAWS, no RWR). Human factors trump technology, yet this is not sufficiently realized in many circles. One good thing about newer fighters are their extensive networking capabilities, which can significantly improve performance – assuming, of course, networking works against a peer opponent.

Characteristics

Survivability

Ground survivability

No tactics are as useful as cheating, and in air combat, ultimate cheating is destroying the enemy before he has had a chance to get into air in the first place. Even the most “stealthy” fighter aircraft would find its stealth useless to hide it if its air base can be found as easily as most Western bases can. Fighter aircraft spends most of its time – two-thirds at very least – on the ground, and it is precisely there that it is the most vulnerable. Yet most Western fighters are not really optimized for road basing, let alone dirt-strip basing (even if most can fly from roads in extremis, sustained road operations are much more difficult). A proper road-based fighter needs to have low maintenance requirements, low fuel usage, low wing span and ability to operate from dirt-strip and muddy roads. For stealth fighter, this means very resillient radar-absorbent skin (not paint!) as well as robust undercarriage and FOD-resistant engine. Undercarriage should have good shock absorption and large, low-pressure tires, as well as mud and FOD protection. Nose wheel should be mounted behind the air intakes to prevent any FOD damage to the engine.

Further, fighter should have very good STOL, acceleration and climb performance to escape, if necessary, any attack against the air base itself. While not necessarily as important as it was in pre-missile era, altitude is still an advantage, meaning that fighters should reach combat altitude before enemy attackers come into range.

Combat survivability

By its nature, stealth fighter relies on stealth to protect it. What this means is minimizing radar, infrared and visual signatures. Radar signature is minimized by obvious means: proper airframe shaping, internal weapons carriage, hidden engine front and application of radar absorbent materials. These measures are especially effective against fire-control X-band radars, but are less effective as frequency decreases. VHF radar has significantly improved performance against stealth fighters, while HF radar can ignore stealth alltogether. However, neither can be employed on fighters or missiles.

Infrared signature can be minimized by optimizing both design and performance characteristics. Supercruise capability is especially important here, as it allows supersonic flight without using extremely detectable afterburner. Engine should have an additional cooling channel and external nozzle compared to “normal” fighter engines. Bypass ratio is an opern question: high bypass ratio would reduce engine IR signature at subsonic speed, but low bypass ratio would improve cruise performance and reduce engine power necessary for any given cruise speed. For an air superiority fighter, low bypass ratio engine should be chosen.

Visual signature is minimized via small size, which also helps reduce infrared signature. Another factors are camouflage paint and especially smokeless engine.

Electromagnetic signature has two aspects: incoming emissions (radar) and outgoing emissions. Enemy radar is defeated primarily via shaping for minimum radar cross section. This means a smooth shape with carefully controlled reflections, no corner reflectors, or any random protrusions. Consequently, weapons and sensors must be carried internally: hence faceted IRST/EOS housing on F-35. Radar cross section (RCS) should be based on in-air measurements, as different aspects, air conditions, condensation trails and engine emissions can affect RCS compared to ground-based model measurements. This is just as important for assessing fighter’s infrared signature, if not even more so. Measurement should utilize radars of different frequencies as well, as different aspects of radar signature (shaping, contrails etc.) have different impact on different frequencies, and shaping grows less effective as frequencies increase, being much less effective against VHF radars and irrelevant against HF over-the-horizon radars. Second aspect is emissions control. Fighter itself must minimize or eliminate all outgoing electromagnetic emissions. This means minimal to no radar usage, directional outgoing data links (if any), and either offboard or directional electronic countermeasures. Radar is especially important as it is by far the most powerful source of electromagnetic emission on the aircraft.

However, stealth fighter cannot rely on stealth to always protect it. It may come up against enemies with good IR sensors, be forced to defend a (relatively) stationary asset, or be caught in a position where range is too close. It might run out of BVR missiles and be forced to enter a dogfight. As such, it needs to have backup options: good self-defense suite, good maneuverability and cruise capability.

In order to avoid being surprised, fighter should have 360* coverage with most important sensors – RWR, LWR and MAWS. Radar will naturally be positioned forward, and should be capable of being used in active and passive modes both – with latter itself having options for picking up reflections by radar of an emitting friendly fighter, or else picking up enemy radar emissions – a giant RWR, essentially. IRST will also be forward-oriented, but IR MAWS should be configured so as to allow it being used as a short-ranged IRST. This will allow pilot to “see through” the airframe. Fighter should also be capable of cruising at speeds of Mach 1,5 to 1,8 for at least 20 to 30 minutes in combat area. This however may be problematic to achieve in a stealth design, but 15 minutes cruise should be absolute minimum. For this reason, a turbojet engine may have to be considered.

Electronic countermeasures will have easier time due to stealth fighter requiring less powerful signals to spoof enemy targeting regardless of the range. However, infrared missiles will present a significant threat as IR signature cannot be significantly suppressed. Enemy radar missiles may be jammed by AESA jammers alternating between two fighters in a “blinking” manner, forcing the missile in a home-on-jam mode to to alternate between two targets, expending fuel and energy.

In maneuverability, stealth fighter will likely be at disadvantage due to its very nature: need to carry weapons internally. This means that it will be larger and heavier than an enemy with comparable normal payload. F-22 can carry eight missiles internally; Gripen E, with similar weapons load, is less than half the empty (or combat, for that matter) weight. Stealth fighter might gain some advantage due to having no interference drag from carrying weapons internally, but simple conformal carriage can eliminate most of these advantages, even when ignoring that smaller fighter will likely have maneuvering advantage – less impact from weapons carriage matters much less once one figures in the fact that baseline / starting point is not the same. However, maneuverability of a stealth fighter can still be improved (kept competitive) by ensuring low wing loading, high thrust-to-weight ratio, good transient characteristics (control response) and small size. Transient characteristics in particular can be improved by including close-coupled canards in the design. Since transient maneuverability is the most important aspect of maneuverability, canards should be included. Canards can be high (above the wing) or coplanar with the wing. In either case, some stealth will be sacrificed, but maneuverability benefits should be significant. Sustained turn performance is comparatively irrelevant, but for a stealth fighter meant to fight at beyond visual range, acceleration and climb performances are crucial.

Lethality

Beyond visual range missiles achieved good performance in recent wars. To fight at beyond visual range, fighter must be capable of identifying its targets at beyond visual range as well. While in ideal conditions this can be done via various mechanisms such as radar NCTR, various factors such as interference and jamming, unavailability of AWACS etc. can render radar ID too unreliable. That BVR missiles were used in the first place was due to presence of radar NCTR, persistent AWACS availability, which when combined with incompetent enemies led to excellent effectiveness. In more adverse conditions, radar-guided beyond-visual-range missiles cannot be relied on. This problem can be mitigated in two ways.

First, stealth fighter should be equipped with IR guided BVR missiles, such as French MICA IR. Combined with onboard IRST, it will allow both identification and engagement of unccoperative targets in ECM-heavy environments. Aside from being much more ECM-resistant, IR missiles have inherently greater lethality than radar-guided missiles. Meanwhile imaging IRST is the only reliable means of identification in ECM-heavy environment, unless both sides leave IFF turned on (which they may do if two sides utilize same aircraft types). Radar imaging cannot be used if radar is jammed. It is also the only way of ensuring reliable surprise due to being a passive sensors: radar is likely to give away fighter’s position, unless data is being fed from an offboard platform (possibility of which is questionable) or the enemy does not have a good radar warning receiver. Against Third World air forces, AESA radar can be left safely on. Radar itself should be capable of functioning as RWR and using that data (plus data from IRST) to optimize low-energy emissions for fire control purposes; in essence, radar becomes a rangefinding system.

Second, stealth fighter should have good cruise performance – that is, cruise speed and endurance. Cruise, not maximum, speed will allow it to dictate engagement terms and potentially catch enemies unaware (most fighters do not have sensors covering the rear aspect with the exception of various warning devices). It will thus be capable of choosing when, how and whether to engage. High cruise speed and endurance will also serve to extend its missile range and reduce enemy missile range from rear-quarter attacks – area where all fighters, but especially stealth ones, are relatively most vulnerable from.

Further, narrow-beam two-way datalinks should be ensured. While they still risk giving away fighter’s location, data links should allow it to utilize offboard sensory data for engaging targets. In theory, such a system could be utilized to allow some degree of a completely passive rangefinding. Datalinks should be utilized to share sensory feeds between fighters and from AWACS, as well as for communication. They should not be utilized for command; instead, pilots and flight leaders in particular should be left maximum freedom of action based on mission goals and situation overview provided via datalink.

If the enemy has not been shot down at BVR, and just letting him go is not an option, stealth fighter may need to close to visual range. As noted above, stealth fighter will be at disadvantage in maneuverability. This means that, assuming it has any advantage at all, stealth fighter will have advantage in energy fight: carrying out what are basically “hit and run” attacks instead of engaging in a turning fight. This however is extremely risky in a modern battlefield, as a well-placed IR missile shot can still force it into a turning fight where it will be at a disadvantage. Energy fight will also require significant fuel reserve. Combined with supercruise requirement, this leads to 30% fuel fraction being absolute minimum, 35% a possibly adequate value, and 40% to 45% to be achieved if possible. However, due to design limitations of a stealth fighter, anything above 30% fuel fraction may prove unrealistic for an air superiority design. Meanwhile E-M requirement means high thrust-to-weight ratio.

Stealth fighter should not be too expensive – losses happen, and numbers do matter. Peacetime fighter fleet should include enough extra (reserve) fighters that pilots do not lose out on flight hours due to repairs, maintenance or accidents. This should also include a number of “spare parts” fighters, to be cannibalized in case that spare parts are not delivered in time. Ideally, each pilot should have two fighters, so as to spread wear over two airframes and allow aircraft to undergo proper maintenance. As stealth itself causes additional costs compared to conventional designs, fighter should be as small as possible.

Generally, a fighter in good position to shoot will achieve a kill – this was proven in wars from World War I to Gulf Wars. However, proliferation of missile warners may put that into question: importance of surprise in achieving kills was based on the fact that it was generally too late for a surprised target to do anything once “woken up” (typically by being shot at). In more than a few cases in modern wars – such as the case of Yugoslav MiGs in 1999 – enemy pilots only noticed they were under attack once missile detonated close to their fighters – or flew harmlessly past the canopy. But introduction of MAWS, especially IR MAWS, means that surprise becomes impossible unless one goes for a gun kill (assuming, of course, that MAWS is not configured to warn for fighters, and since modern IR MAWS is basically a high-resolution IR camera, even that will likely not be a surprise). If MAWS notices incoming missile early enough, pilot has time for evasive action. Therefore, visual-range performance of a stealth fighter is still crucial for its overall air combat performance. BVR missiles will still be important for scoring against Third World air forces, as well as for opening up for a closer, more lethal engagement. This means that MAWS IR cameras should be capable of feeding image as well as targeting and ID data to pilot’s HUD or HMD. This will make job of keeping track of targets in both BVR and dogfight much easier.

Training and tactics

Training should be optimized for operations in fours and pairs. Any larger formations harm fighter’s lethality, be it at within visual range or beyond visual range – larger number of smaller formations has advantage over smaller number of larger formations, even if larger formations have overall greater number of fighters. Large engagements in general should be avoided in order to achieve maximum kill-loss ratio. Fighter itself should be highly reliable and easy to maintain in order to facilitate “live” training.

Training should be literally “ground up”. Stealth starts and ends on the ground – a flaming wreck in a blown-up air base is not particularly stealthy, or particularly useful. Any proper stealth fighter should be designed to operate from hidden air bases. This means easy maintenance, low logistical requirements, small size and road basing capability at minimum. Each fighter should come with a fuel truck or two, a spare parts truck, ammunition truck, lightweight mobile maintenance and repair equipment. Additional equipment shoud include enough camouflage netting – effective in visual, radar and IR spectrums – to hide fighter as well as its entire support apparatus. A fighter without that is not a proper stealth fighter. Currently, Gripen C is far more stealthy than F-35 – just in different area, but people who focus only on in-flight stealth cannot understand that.

Conclusion

Ideal stealth fighter would be, in essence, Stealth!Gripen – certainly not an overweight monster like F-35. However, for maximum effectiveness, it should still be supported by non-stealth fighters, exploiting “cracks” these fighters create. Some of these non-stealth fighters could be Western versions of Flankers – large, twin-engined, two-seat aircraft with huge radar and capable of dirt strip operations. These could then act as command fighters.

Advertisements

Posted in proposals, weapons | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Type 21 Frigate

Posted by Picard578 on July 24, 2018

Defence of the Realm

TYPE 21 1

There was a time when Britain’s shipyards provided the world’s navies with the finest warships. British designs were highly sought after particularly in South America, Africa and Australia but in the 1960s this export success took a dramatic turn and the United States became the primary supplier of warships to the western world. British shipbuilders thought they knew exactly who to blame; the Royal Navy itself. The fact of the matter was that British warship designs were first and foremost tailored to British requirements and then modified to suit an export customer. In the 1960s the increasingly leaner Royal Navy opted for more sophisticated vessels to make up for the smaller number of hulls in service. The result was a number of ships that were exceptionally high in quality but subsequently came with an extremely high price tag.

British shipbuilders felt that under these conditions the chances of achieving export…

View original post 2,400 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

David Archibald – The China Trade

Posted by archibaldperth on July 2, 2018

The No 1 panda-hugger/lapdog of the Chinese communist dictatorship is Henry Kissinger, who was born in Germany and arrived on these shores in 1938. In his declining years Mr Kissinger has decided to trade on his reputation as a former Secretary of State and sell his services to an enemy of the Republic that gave him refuge 80 years ago. There is a thing called the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States within another institute that takes exception to US exceptionalism, the Wilson Center, named after the first do-gooder president. The way that Chinese political corruption around the world works is that a Chinese businessman connected with a state-owned company pays out funds so there is no direct connection with the Chinese Government, all coordinated by their United Front Work Department. Now it is possible, but highly unlikely, that Mr Kissinger’s efforts in deepening understanding with China are completely altruistic and he is funding his pro-China institute from his own pocket.

Another thing that happened in 1938 was the passage of the Foreign Agents Registration Act that requires agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a “political or quasi-political capacity” to disclose their relationship with the foreign government. If he already hasn’t done so and he is receiving funds originating in the Middle Kingdom, Mr Kissinger should be as honourable as he can be and register as required under that act. There is a good chance that he hasn’t as he is quoted as having said “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” His philosophy recently reached full flower in the FBI.

The problem for China is that Kissinger’s utterances are so blatantly pro-China that nobody gives them any credence. Whether or not they are getting their money’s worth with Kissinger, there are other intellects who are attracted by the notion of centralised decision-making and sing China’s praises, seemingly without need for payment, in the same way that Nazi Germany had many ardent admirers.

Thus the erudite Spengler has an output of columns praising Chinese accomplishments, the latest of which argues that China should continue to have unfettered access to the US market. To back up his argument Spengler provides three graphs, the first of which is Chinese exports to the US:

His graphs are useful but not as he intended – they show how little we have to lose by ceasing trade with China. In the first graph, the biggest Chinese import category is cell phones which are assembled in China and include high-value parts made in the arc of countries to the east of it – Taiwan, Korea and Japan. They could just as easily be assembled somewhere else – Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines. As China is going to attack Vietnam, shifting such assembly work to Vietnam from China should be done as quickly as possible. The best thing that Apple could do for world peace is to shift its operations from China to Vietnam. This is the cheapest foreign aid we can give an ally in the coming war with China.

The next biggest category is computers. We definitely do not want those things imported from China. As soon as they are plugged in they will be doing an ET and phoning home. Perhaps not always, but why find out after the event? From then on it is just Ikea/Walmart-type stuff that could be made in Mexico – screws and glues and plywood. As soon as the 200% tariffs come on the factories will move elsewhere in the blink of an eye.

Let’s turn our attention to Spengler’s second graph – US exports to China:

Aircraft is a big one but not permanent. Boeing has built a plant in China which will make one hundred 737s a year. Airbus has built a plant which will make six A320s a month. The jobs are going to China as a condition no doubt of maintaining access to the Chinese market. Japan attempted to enter the passenger aircraft market back in the 1970s and failed. In the end China is likely to do a Maersk on Boeing and Airbus and refuse to renew visas on the Americans and Europeans running their plants, effectively nationalising them without having to pay for them. Anyway, there are only a couple of years left of selling American-made aircraft to China.

Then comes the No 2 export to China, which is soybeans. China is not going to import any fewer soybeans because they now provide 20% of their protein intake. The Chinese public will become upset if pork disappeared from their diet. The only place China can get soybeans in that quantity is Brazil. We will sell to the countries currently taking soybeans from South America. Brazilian soybean production has topped out over the last three years at about 117 million tonnes per annum so there will be less competition from here as per this USDA article. This graph shows how the market has evolved:

Next comes cars which are $10 billion a year. That is 0.05% of the $20 trillion US economy. That is not enough to be worth providing comfort and succour to the enemy. As with the aircraft, cars as an export to China are at the whim of the regime. Next are semiconductors and industrial machines at $6 billion and $5 billion respectively, which combined is less than the cost of the Gerald Ford at $13 billion. If we didn’t have to fight a war with China, then we wouldn’t have to build such expensive aircraft carriers.

Semiconductors have China in a bind. If they stopped buying US semiconductors then they would have to buy more from Taiwan, Japan and Korea. Korea is the only one of those three that China may not be going to war with. Spengler’s article tells us that China imports $220 billion a year of semiconductors of which the US provides less than 3%. That is another market which could disappear overnight.

From then on the list of top 20 US exports to China gets scrappy at about $2 to $3 billion per annum for each item. The 20th largest Chinese export to the US is $5 billion a year of camping goods. Our 20th largest export to China is $2 billion worth of cell phones and miscellaneous.

From Spengler’s charts of exports and imports, if the US were completely closed out of access to the Chinese market, the effect would be a rounding error on the US economy. If China were completely closed out of the US market, the effect would be at least a 4% shrinkage of the Chinese economy. Just as importantly, that industrial activity would be transferred to countries that are aligned with the US or at least not setting out to kill us. That is a win-win outcome.

Another effect that China-worshippers like Kissinger and Spengler neglect is that the Chinese economy is being recentralised under President Xi. Just as President Erdogan of Turkey said that democracy is like a tram you get off when you get to the stop you want, China’s brief experience of capitalism is being abandoned now that their economy is about as large as it can be. But workers in state-run factories have only one third the productivity of workers in private industry so this will hobble Chinese competitiveness. The most recent example of this effect in the US was the launch of the Falcon Heavy at one tenth of the cost of NASA’s efforts in getting large objects into space. The landing of the Falcon Heavy boosters, like a scene from a 1950s science fiction movie, was dispiriting to China’s Han supremacists. Democracies such as the US may be too messy for the likes of Kissinger and Spengler but they are far more creative and productive.

The biggest benefit of Trump’s opening to North Korea is that he can no longer be painted as a warmonger and that has given him considerable freedom of action on China. Bring on the 200% tariffs. Chuck China out of the World Trade Organisation. Make China the pariah state it needs to be seen as. That won’t stop China from going to war with the civilised world but there will be fewer deaths, destruction, maiming and disfigurement on our side.

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

How Islam led to world wars

Posted by Picard578 on July 2, 2018

Islam has, maybe not directly caused, but definitely set into motion events which ultimately led to the World Wars. In short, Islamic expansion cut off trade routes to the East and forced Europe to (eventually) turn to Atlantic. This led to discovery of the New World, which was then settled, giving rise to great colonial empires (and also heavy-duty slavery, started by islamic merchants selling slaves to Europeans – not that it was anything new at the time, slavery existed even in Merovingian Empire). Colonialism and colonial competition (not directly nationalism, as is often said) then caused global conflicts: Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II. Specifically, Seven Years War led to Napoleonic Wars. Napoleonic Wars eventually helped cause national unification of Germany, which became industrial power, leading it to conflict with West over the colonies, which led to World War I. World War I was never properly wrapped up, and so caused World War II.

Islam has appeared in 7-th century, after a man by name of Muhammad decided he is not rich enough and decided to dupe a bunch of people with God to pillage for him. He was supremely successful, and Islam spread rapidly. Within decades, whole of Middle East and North Africa were conquered. Eventually, in 15th century, Ottoman Emirate captured Constantinople. Islam also invaded Central Asia, cutting off the overland route to the East. Afterwards, islamic armies continued their advance westward until finally being stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683., specifically on September 11, 1683. Old overland route for trade with East now went through islamic territory. But in 1492., Spanish finally liberated the pennisula from islamic occupation, and Cristopher Columbus went sailling West to find the new passage East. This led to discovery of Americas.

Europe itself (in geopolitical terms) is product of Islam. Up until the expansion of Islam, there was no “European” civilization, but Mediterranean one, primarily centered around Eastern Mediterranean and tightly connected to the Fertile Crescent and through it to India and China. Greek civilization is a product of Egyptian one, Greek philosophers and artists had been to Egypt (as is obvious when comparing art: kuros, and other early Greek art, shows clear Egyptian influences). There was in fact an entire civilizational system along the Silk Road: Rome/Greece – Persia – India – China – Korea – Japan.

Islam destroyed all of it. It conquered Arabia, Near East (Middle East for Americans), Northern Africa, Persia and parts of India. It conquered as far as Soviet -stans. This last act in particular severed the Silk Road, and forced Europe to look West. First came expansion northwards: into British islands, Germany, Scandinavia and Russia (Byzantines), turning former Mediterranean civilization into European one, and giving birth to modern Europe. Then, after the route through Central Asia was severed, came the western expansion: Americas, and later Australia, Africa and Asia. Balance of power and trade shifted from Mediterranean to Atlantic, and this led to global expansion and first wave of globalization. It is not incorrect to say that European colonialism is a product of Islam.

This colonialism in turn led to a series of wars. First came the Seven Years War. This war was what made Britain into great power, but it was initiated by a conflict over colonies between Britain and France. Conflict started in 1754. when British attacked French positions in North America, and – much like World War II – it quickly spread to encompass most of Europe and much of the world into what became the first world war. The war ended in expansion of British Empire and destabilization of France, which ultimately led to the French Revolution and the next global conflict – Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleonic Wars are a continuation of French Revolution, itself caused by the Seven Years War. French Revolution did not last long, and as revolutions are prone to doing, it soon turned into a dictatorship by Napoleon Bonaparte. French expansion, even though it started from wars of self-defense, destabilized the continent and threatened other powers. This destruction of balance of power precluded peaceful settlement, and ensured that wars started in the Revolution would continue, both in Europe and in French colonies. After 10 years of Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon was defeated, borders redrawn, and both Europe and the world were free from major conflicts for next hundred years.

First and Second World Wars follow a nearly identical pattern. First World War was started by a conflict over colonies – rising Germany wanted resources and slaves to exploit, and established Britain and France did not want to give up their own resources and slaves. This led to formation of various alliances, which after some shuffling settled into well-known Triple Entente and Central Powers. The entire continent was a powder bag, and was easily set off by a single spark provided by Serb imperialist activists. The war led to dissolution of German, Austrian, Ottoman and Russian Empires, but solved little – colonies and colonial powers remained, and heavy-handed peace terms forced on Germany bred resentment.

World War II was little more than delayed epilogue of World War I. Germany, humiliated by the peace treaty – very different from light handling France received post-Napoleon – vied for a revenge. This in turn destabilized and illegitimized the Wiemar Republic, and everything was worsened by the Great Depression. Nazism was little but expression of uncertainty and insecurity caused by this, even if expressed in extreme terms (and even then, it was much less extreme back in 1930s than it seems today). In Asia, Japan itself embarked onto colonialist route, placing it at collision course with established colonial powers. Overall, Nazism, militarism etc. that are typically listed as causes of World War II were largely incidental – true cause of war was, again, colonialism.

Overall, Islam caused European colonialism, and European colonialism caused world wars. Normally stated causes of world wars such as nationalism are at best minor, if not irrelevant. Likewise, it is doubtful that United Nations, EU and other such institutions prevented World War III. It is unclear whether World War III had even been prevented in the first place – between 1814. and 1914. there were 100 years, whereas World War II happened “only” 73 years ago. However, if it had been prevented, it was not due to European Union. What prevented next European conflict was decolonization and transfer of balance of power from Europe to North America and, now, Pacific-Indian ring. Post-World War II Europe and its powers are simply not important enough to warrant a continent-wide conflict, and even if such a conflict had happened, they would not have had the power or influence to drag the rest of the world into war with them. If there is next world war – a prospect more likely than many think, thanks to globalized economy – it will begin in the Pacific.

Posted in history | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Trade Deficit Madness, From Ancient Rome To Modern Trump Card

Posted by Picard578 on June 30, 2018

Globalism works against democracy. Doesn’t matter whether it is technocratic European Union, United Nations, or massive international corporations, globalisation is the greatest danger to democracy – not populism, not nationalism, but globalism, regardless of what plutocratic media says.

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Warning; Roman Semi Direct Democracy Collapsed Because Of Global Trade:

Trade is a crucial subject: it’s about who has work, thus who has power, and who has an occupation deemed worthy. In the last massive global trade system we had, with 25% of world population, the core, Italy and Greece got emptied, in nearly all ways, by global trade.

This made “We The Peoples” of the core of the empire weak, unmotivated, incompetent, and finally completely impotent in all ways, especially politically: Rome went from a somewhat Direct Democratic Republic to  a military and then dynastic dictatorship.

I explained all this in great details in many essays: the similarities with the present planetary situation are more than alarming. Roman plutocracy exploded, when the wealthiest and their corporations were able to evade Roman laws by going global. Just as US and EU laws are evaded by going global.

Unsustainable…

View original post 708 more words

Posted in reblogs | 2 Comments »

Inordinate Compassion is a Vice

Posted by Picard578 on June 30, 2018

Ungoverned compassion can be a greatest danger. Left is exploiting compassion to destroy Western civilization. Compassion can lead to not recognizing the danger until it is too late, and it is all too easy to manipulate the compassionate people.

The Orthosphere

A reader wrote objecting to my recent post on tattooing, faulting me with a want of compassion for the victims. I’ve answered his specific objection in the comments, and would point to my other entries in the comment thread as evidence that I am not altogether heartless, but here wish to say a few words against compassion.

View original post 448 more words

Posted in reblogs | Leave a Comment »

North-African migrant stabs Belgian boy to death for protecting a waitress

Posted by Picard578 on June 30, 2018

via North-African migrant stabs Belgian boy to death for protecting a waitress

Good going, multiculturalism.

Posted in reblogs | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

GlobalEye Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) Aircraft

Posted by Picard578 on May 28, 2018

Thai Military and Asian Region

GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft is a new multi-role airborne surveillance system developed by Saab.

The aircraft is capable of offering air, maritime and ground surveillance on a single platform. It can operate in dedicated or multiple roles and has the ability to simultaneously switch between different roles at any point of time during an ongoing mission.

The GlobalEye airborne surveillance system was launched at the Singapore Airshow 2016. Saab received a $1.27bn contract from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in November 2015, to supply a new airborne swing role surveillance system (SRSS) integrating a new variant of the Saab Erieye radar system based on the Global 6000 aircraft.

Dubai Airshow 2015: UAE signs with Saab for two surveillance aircraft and upgrades:Here

Excerpt

The contract, which was announced at the Dubai Airshow 2015, will see the UAE receive two of the latest versions of Saab’s Erieye airborne…

View original post 2,940 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Boeing T-X Trainer Aircraft

Posted by Picard578 on May 28, 2018

Thai Military and Asian Region

Boeing T-X aircraft is a new advanced pilot training system being offered by Boeing in partnership with Saab, for the T-X advanced pilot training programme of the US Air Force (USAF). The T-X aircraft is intended to replace the ageing T-38 trainer fleet of the USAF.

Boeing entered a joint development agreement with Saab to develop an all-new aircraft design for the T-X programme in December 2013.

Did Boeing Receive a T-X Prototype From Saab?:Here

Excerpt

On Monday, aviation enthusiasts in Sweden noticed the arrival of an Il-76, operated by Volga-Dnepr Airlines LLC, near the city of Norrköping, where a large piece of cargo was loaded onto the plane. From there, the large cargo plane took off for Reykjavik, Iceland — and then took an overnight flight to St. Louis, Missouri.

So what was the cargo loaded at Norrköping? Local radio station P4 Östergötland claim that the cargo aboard the…

View original post 1,291 more words

Posted in reblogs | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Gulf War Diaries – Missiles!

Posted by Picard578 on May 21, 2018

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/29/1174683/-Gulf-War-Diaries-Missiles

I was watching a movie a while back. I think it was Behind Enemy Lines. There’s a scene where an F-18 is getting chased by a Surface-to-Air missile for what seems like 10 minutes.

This is usually the point where I lose my ability to suspend disbelief and yell out “That’s not how they work!”

So stick around to find out how they really do work and what it’s like to be on the receiving end of one.

Or – “Who’s this guy Sam and why is he making my life miserable?”

Posted in reblogs | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »