Defense Issues

Military and general security

Plutocracy and death of representative democracy

Posted by picard578 on March 21, 2017

We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941)

West is thought of as a primary example of a democratic society. Free people freely elect their representatives, who then pass policies they were chosen for. But is the truth really that rosy? Have people gotten complacent, taking for granted something that should never be taken for granted? Democracy was won after a long and difficult fight, and even the early forms of democracy were only borderline democratic. It should not be assumed that democracy will last forever, or even until tomorrow, unless it is well cared for. In fact, it should not be assumed that it still exists in the first place. Democracy is frail, and plutocracy – rule of the wealthy – was, in its various forms (oligarchic plutocracy – Sparta, dictatorship, republician plutocracy – Rome, Athens) – predominant form of government for most of human history. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Air combat and stealth

Posted by picard578 on March 11, 2017

Introduction

For a long time, visual detection was the only type of detection possible. But in World War II, two significant advances appeared: radar, as well as radar- and IR- -guided missiles. Until 1970s, these were defeated through jamming and decoys. Early German attempts at building LO aircraft – Ho-229 – never got anywhere, albeit their RAM paint utilization at snorkels and aircraft was noted. In United States, first attempt at reducing the radar signature of aircraft was on U-2, by utilizing RAM paint, but it was not very successful. First actual stealth aircraft appeared in early 1960s – SR-71 Blackbird, which utilized shaping such as canted surfaces to reduce radar signature. In 1970s a second generation of stealth aircraft appeared with B-1A, and also began a programme of development of VLO aircraft. Result of that was diamond-shaped F-117, to soon be followed by B-2. All these aircraft successfully performed against enemy air defenses, but in the case of B-1A and later aircraft, their performance against air defenses was similar or identical to performance of conventional aircraft they were deployed alongside. Fourth generation of stealth aircraft are F-22, F-35, PAK FA, J-20 and J-31. While still stealth aircraft, they sacrifice stealth characteristics for the sake of better flight characteristics, allowing them to match conventional fighters in terms of maneuverability. However, their stealth requirements make them larger and heavier than comparable conventional aircraft, thus sacrificing kinetic performance for the sake of stealth.^1 Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in technology | Tagged: , , , | 20 Comments »

Secular Talk’s unrestrained dishonesty

Posted by picard578 on March 10, 2017

Aussie Conservative Blog

Some weeks ago, Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk released a grossly inaccurate video regarding Islam in America which deserves critical attention. As Kulinski is a young, increasingly popular youtuber, it seems appropriate to deconstruct the work of this leading ‘progressive’ voice, to demonstrate why the Left is so wrong about modern Islamist infiltration.

In fairness, Kulinski has in part has shown to possess a distaste for political correctness and contrived Leftist outrage.

Moreover, he claims to be ‘loyal to the facts’, and this was evident as Kulinski thoroughly exposed the flaws of Hillary Clinton in 2016 election cycle.

Nevertheless, in this case he is terribly wrong, arrogant, and betraying of his supposed ‘liberal principles’ in order to avoid raising the truth about Islam in America.

As I did some weeks ago in my review of Yassmin Abdel- Magied, I will proceed to list and explain the misleading aspects of his video, and then post the whole video at the…

View original post 681 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Defining stealth

Posted by picard578 on March 1, 2017

Introduction

Word “stealth” has lately become a catchword used to define the weapon – mostly aircraft – as “superior”, with little or no thought as to what the term actually means. Stealth fighters, stealth bombers, stealth ships… even stealth tanks, the craze is in full swing. But how much do these weapons deserve the label? What is stealth? Is merely having low radar cross section enough – as commonly held – to define the weapon as “stealth”? Is USAF stuck on denial that no military advantage lasts forever, or even on denial that it never understood the true meaning of stealth? Every successful use of stealth aircraft had seen them acting as a support of, and being supported by, an array of nonstealthy aircraft – AWACS, standoff jammers etc. Yet USAF is now aiming for an all-stealth tactical fighter force, even though it will make the force less flexible and arguably less capable as well. How stealthy these aircraft really are, and what are their vulnerabilities? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in doctrine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Is Islam Destroying the European Union?

Posted by picard578 on February 28, 2017

Multiculturalism is a plutocratic ploy. People without identity are easily manipulated, and multiculturalism (plus moral relativism) destroys identity and any semblance of a coherent social structure. By doing this it prevents any possibility of an actual democracy existing. By purpoting that all cultures are equally valuable, it endorses islamic intellectual fascism and places it level with Enlightment. But in practice, multiculturalists do not really believe that all cultures are equally valuable: they believe that all cultures are more valuable than Western one, and they believe that because they do not know history. Western educational system teaches people of Western slavery, but remains silent about far worse slavery that has existed – and still does – in Islamic countries. It teaches people of Western colonialism, but does not say that it was islamic imperialism which forced the West to embark on its colonial endeavour. Half a truth is the worst lie there is. By destroying civilization in this way, it enables plutocracy. For this reason, modern Left is the greatest ally that plutocracy has – and most don’t even realize it.

Nazism is used as a disparaging label against those who oppose multiculturalism, despite the fact that both Nazism and multiculturalism have the same root. They are two sides of the same coin, but brainwashed ideologues are too stupid to see it. But multiculturalism leads, invariably, to monoculturalism: by its very nature it is merely a transitional state. Only monocultural societies are stable enough for extended existence, and multicultural societies will bath in conflict and blood until monocultural equilibrium is achieved. And unless something is done about it – and quickly – this end state will, in Western Europe, mean islamofascist totalitarianism.

And this is precisely what plutocrats want. Conflict is conductive for plutocracy, because people are too busy fighting and surviving to care about what elites do (those more interested in how plutocrats utilize conflict for their own needs should read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”). Multiculturalism is lethal to democracy because it causes conflict, and thus advances plutocracy. But since plutocracy controls the government – legislature, executive and judiciary alike – anyone who does not toe the multicultural line is declared a “Nazi” and faces persecution (formal or not). This despite the fact that Nazis were gloriously multicultural, as explained in my “Nazi roots of multiculturalism” article, published some months back.

Brexit itself is not an alienation. It is a consequence of alienation, of alienation of EUs bureocracy from the people it is supposed to represent. Brusselcrats do not represent the people, they do not care about the people and are in fact doing anything they can to cause continent-wide armed conflict (through importation of islamofascism). Brexit is a rebellion against illegitimate plutocracy ruling the European Union (of course, Britain itself has proud plutocratic history, so it may be merely an exchange – one evil for another).

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Is Islam Already Deconstructing Europe? Yes: consider Brexit.

I would not have thought this, that Fundamentalist Islam was already devouring Europe, a year ago, or any time before: I would have laughed derisively. Now I am not laughing anymore. Meanwhile there was Brexit.

Brexit was a first blatant revolt against the established order. The next blatant revolt was the colossal sweep of Donald Trump’s electoral victory: Trump controls the presidency, the Senate, the Congress, and most states (and the army, by putting the key generals in his government, and soon Trump will control the Supreme Court). Trump does not like the European Union (at least not as an alter ego of the USA; an independent Scotland may well suit his golf courses…)  Trump is a rebellious Pluto threatening the plutocracy, the ultimate horror, haunting plutocracy, ever there is plutocracy, and it plots.

Meanwhile the so-called judges, all…

View original post 2,606 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Regressive Left’s takeover of our Defence Force

Posted by picard578 on February 26, 2017

Politically correct insanity has made its way into Australian military.

Aussie Conservative Blog

The Leftist war on traditional norms and its interminable yearning to force political agendas down the throats of ordinary Australians, is an unfortunate trend.

However, for the Regressive Left to distract our military by proselytizing them into various radical beliefs, is something else.

Put simply, the Left’s symbolic, politically correct crusades must not be allowed to further infect our Defence Force, which sadly looks more like an agency for Multicultural Integration, Gender Fluidity and Organic Sustainability, than an organisation responsible for safeguarding our nation’s security.

“By promoting diversity over fighting ability the Army is alienating its warriors”, Daily Telegraph, February 25, 2017:

Five years after the former Army chief and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick launched a social engineering experiment aimed at stamping out the male “Anglo Saxon” warrior culture, the troops are unimpressed.

The top brass might have drunk the feminist Koolaid of “Pathway to Change” and its mutant offshoots, but most of the people they…

View original post 871 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Seven Stars and Seven Crowns: A Catholic Monarchist’s Perspective on The Lord of the Rings

Posted by picard578 on February 25, 2017

The Fellowship of The King

     The great Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien once described his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings as a “story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power…” Of all these, the battle between Kingship and Tyranny is one of the most deeply Catholic themes in the story. It is also one of the most obvious.

     Most Catholics who have read The Lord of Rings will rightly recognize in these fictional histories the figure of Aragorn, the prophesied King, as a type2 of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will return like Aragorn to reclaim His Kingdom. Yet these same Catholics will often overlook a more hidden meaning in the portrayal of Kingship in The Lord of the Rings for the simple reason that we…

View original post 1,327 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?

Posted by picard578 on February 23, 2017

One important aspect in Europe’s domination was its fragmentation. Combination of cultural diversity and political fragmentation enabled it rapid advancement, which placed it into position to culturally and politically dominate the world. It did lead to conflicts, but without conflicts there is no change. Today, Europe is working on a self-annihilation, spurred on by mentality caused by the guilt complex forced onto Europe by modern progressives. That guilt complex is caused by not knowing the history, and permeated by plutocracy’s interest in destroying advanced culture. Multiculturalism leads to cultural and societal annihilation, returning humans to stupid animals they were long time ago. Yet any protests against multiculturalism are met with accusations of xenophobia and racism, in order to prevent a reasonable debate. Dogmas and dogmatics do not like the debate, because it might force them to become enlightened. So they stop it through ideology and political correctness. Today’s West is on the road of self-destruction, precisely because it does not have the diversity, primarily diversity of ideas, that it once had.

Ancient China is a good example of progress through fragmentation. It developed huge array of technological devices, many of which were – much later – independently developed in Europe. Gunpowder rockets, printing press and many other advancements were developed. But that development stopped, and China got conquered – by Mongols, and then by Europeans. Reason? Formation of the empire. China united, became big and powerful… but it also became sluggish and unresponsive. Its size protected it from reality and from change. In the end it collapsed on itself. Same thing is happening in Europe today, the ever-increasing political integration of the continent through the European union is throwing the continent into political, cultural and economic regression. This integration was largely helped by the US plutocracy, and looking at Brexit one can see how many plutocrats tried to prevent it. Especially George Soros, the most visible plutocrat and the most extrovert agent of plutocracy, cried bloody murder about British exit. This is indicative of how plutocracy feels about integrations in general. They do not want independence, they do not want national self-determination, and they especially do not want the advancement.

Latin Roman Empire did not advance much. Their advancements were taken from the huge number of small(ish) tribes they fought. Roman sword, gladius, came from Spain (it is often called the “Spanish sword”). Another sword, spatha (cavalry sword, later adopted by infantry), was taken from the Celts. The entire concept of iron working and iron weapons originated with the Celts, and later was adapted through the known world. Greece made impressive advances in natural sciences, culture and philosophy, and was divided among city-states for the most of its ancient history. Cultural and political pluralism produced pluralism of inventions. Similar thing occured in India, where huge number of small kingdoms competed among themselves – “Arabic numbers”, algebra, and many other inventions were made in India, only to be stolen by Muslim conquerors and then brought to Europe. Muslim empires on the other hand can boast of no progress, other than what they stole from others. Even the car bombs were invented by Western terrorists. Part of the reason is certainly religious dogmatism, but more important was cultural homogeinity created by Islam. Islam is a perfect war religion, and it imposes single culture and single mind upon the conquered people. This singularity then halts any progress in its tracks. And what Islam had done for the Arabic world, multiculturalism is doing for the West.

European colonialism, which is now threatening to destroy Europe, was not the cause of the European advancement. It was a consequence of the advancement, originating in the need for resources and markets that said advancement produced. But today’s people care not for truth or history; and so it became politically correct to believe that everything bad came from the West, and that Western civilization has to be replaced. Political correctness is in fact the enemy of advancement. As noted before, advancement can only happen through plurality and pluralism. This is because cultural pluralism produces the plurality of ideas. The more different ideas are produced and explored, the faster the advancement happens. But any idea, especially a new one, is insulting to somebody. If one fears insulting other people, one will not express new ideas and may not even produce them. This fear of insulting and being insulted is the very basis of political correctness, it is in fact a definition of political correctness. And just like any other kind of (intellectual) fascism, it is lethal to any sort of advancement.

———-

MGRA: Make Reason Great Again! Europe is an emerging phenomenon, now towering over the entire planet, from her possessions, colonies (Africa, Americas, Oceania, much of Eurasia), and mental grip (w…

Source: How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Bicycle at war

Posted by picard578 on February 21, 2017

History

First bicycles (“Penny-Farthings”) were tall and dangerous to ride due to propensity for causing inadvertent sommersaults. These bikes were first tested in war by the French, used by dispatch riders and scouts during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, while Prussians still relied on push cycles. This conflict destroyed the French bicycle industry, and further advancement was left to United Kingdom and United States. It was English inventor John Kemp Starley who developed the “safety bicycle” by applying the invention of drive chain. In 1870. Italians introduced bicycle to their bersaglieri troops. Trained to carry dispatches, they averaged 12 miles an hour across open country. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in weapons | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Light Tank Proposal 1

Posted by Riley-Amos on February 20, 2017

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 8.17.24 AM.png

“If the tanks succeed, then victory follows.” – Heinz Guderian

The opinion of many people today is that tanks are obsolete, losing their survivability to modern man-portable ATGMs and precision guided munitions. What must be understood is that main battle tanks are the play-ground bullies of ground warfare, they are big, intimidating, and sound of a 120mm cannon thundering across a valley saps the enemy’s moral like little else. The effectiveness of such large, high velocity cannons is well known and the concept of the “tank” in general will likely never be phased out – only improved.

During the Second World War, tanks were primarily used as infantry support and tank-on-tank battles where rare. The large majority of tank casualties were caused by anti-tank cannons. During the Yom Kippur war of 1973, the Israelis faced a barrage of Soviet AT-3 “Sagger” ATGMs of which they were simply not prepared for, causing mass panic amongst tankers. Several extractions from the CIA’s report entitled “The 1973 Arab-Israeli War: Overview and Analysis of the Conflict” outline the alarm these missile caused, however, it is important to read until the end.

“In accounts immediately after the war, however, the effect of the antitank missiles was exaggerated. Detailed information now available indicates that in the whole war the Israelis lost approximately 500 tanks; among them 119 disabled units………. at least 6 percent but no more than 25 percent, were killed by Saggers.” 

The Israelis focused fire on exposed ATGM teams, and seldom moved mechanisation anywhere without cover of indirect fire. ATGM teams must not operate without being transported in a vehicle with at very least protection against shrapnel. Granted, Saggers were first generation MCLOS guided missiles that were incredibly difficult to control. Modern ATGMs are far more advanced, however they are exceptionally more expensive. A Sagger will cost a military under $1000 per unit, whereas a modern “Javelin” ATGM can costs upwards of $100,000.

MBTs are, and will continue to be a staple on the battlefield, although they are not without drawbacks. The M1 Abram’s cost is sky rocketing, and at 70 tons, it is quickly bogged down, not easy to air transport, lumbering and fuel hungry.

 

The Light Tank: 

There is no standard definition for a “light” tank, so for the sake of this piece we will define it as the following: A tank of no more than 20 tons, capable of air transport by C-130 with an operational range similar or greater than that of an MBT. Light tanks are not a replacement for main battle tanks, to paraphrase Picard; light tanks exploit the breakthroughs of MBTs. Unlike their heavier brother’s, the light tank should have anti-tank capabilities as a secondary priority, it is first and foremost an infantry support vehicle and due to its often extremely light armour, should seldom go toe-to-toe with anything carrying more than a heavy machine gun. Perhaps a good way to think of the light tank is as a Bradley IFV, with heavier armament and no troop carriage ability.

 

Chassis:

Picture1.png

Picture1.png

Picture2.png

General Dimensions: Excluding turret and appliqué armour 

Height: 1.45m (4.75 feet)

Width: 2.7m (8.85 feet)

Length: 6m (19.5 feet)

Armour: 

Light tanks sacrifice a great deal of armour to earn their designation, and rely on heavy sloping and other methods of armouring such as protruding ribs, which have been seen on both the BMP-2 and STRV-103 of Sweden. The Swedes found that their STRV-103 was essentially impossible to penetrate with any then existing anti-tank weapon during it’s early operational history.

Picture3.png

Armour for the light tank chassis is as follows:

Front upper glacis: Sloped at 15 degrees, fitted with protruding ribs, protection from 30mm armour piercing.

Front Lower Glacis: Sloped at 50 degrees, protection from 30mm armour piercing.

Sides: Sloped at 75 degrees, protection from 14.5mm armour piercing.

Rear: Sloped at 80 degrees, protection from 7.62mm armour piercing

Power plant:

 Engine will be a V8 diesel, optimally the same Scania DSA 14 litre version used by the CV-90. This should give the vehicle a maximum speed on-road in the vicinity of 80km/h (50 mp/h), and an operational range of ~400km (250 miles). Extra fuel will be carried in external tanks that can be dropped when empty or if there is a danger of puncture, similar to that of Soviet tank designs. A recess may be designed into the rear of the vehicle to allow some amount of armouring, however a better idea may be to design the external fuel tanks with some amount of shrapnel protection. These tanks may not be mounted during operations within close proximity of friendly infantry so as to avoid.

Armament:

A heavy main battle tank has the luxury of being able to mount heavy, powerful, high velocity cannons – something a light tank may not be able to achieve, if we examine the use of large guns on light vehicles we can see that the results are very rarely acceptable. Both the Sprut-SD (125mm HV cannon) and the US M551 (Medium velocity 152mm cannon) had recoil issues, this resulted in much discomfort from the crew, difficulty when firing on the move and in a lot of cases, the turret ring being bent irreparably (especially when using aluminium armour).

From this, we can gather that the best light tank armament will be either: a high velocity small shell, or a low velocity large shell.

We will explore both, however my preference is with the later for the following reasons:

  1. A small HV shell (i.e. 60mm HVMS) results in a smaller capacity for HE, and lacks the heavy APSFDS rod to penetrate heavy armour. The velocity of a 120mm APSFDS may be achieved, however the dart will not have sufficient kinetic energy due to its low weight.
  2. A HEAT charge does not rely on velocity to penetrate armour, and will function at the very furthest reaches of its range (where KE penetrators will not)
  3. The lower velocity allows us to utilise a larger diameter shell, making the HEAT charge more effective. Where a 60mm HVMS APSFDS rod will not penetrate a modern MBT, a 120mm HEAT charge has at least a fighting chance – especially against the sides, rear and top.
  4. The lower velocity and lack of rifling (shells should be fin stabilised) mean that we can fit far more HE into the same area – note that a 120mm mortar shell has similar, if not more destructive power then a 155mm artillery shell.

Low-velocity/large-caliber

In my opinion, the best armament for this light tank would be a large diameter, breech loaded, low velocity gun/mortar – we will use a 120mm diameter gun for this project due to logistics ease (120mm shells are already in use), however the optimal diameter would be slightly larger (130-140mm).

Parallels can be drawn to the aforementioned M551 “Sheridan”, however there are numerous deviances from the design.

The cannon will fire the following four types of ammunition

Standard mortar shells:

  • High explosive
  • Rocket assisted (RAP)
  • Smoke
  • Illumination
  • IR Illumination
  • Inert/practice
  • HEAT (Shouldn’t be too difficult to create)

Low velocity cannon round (similar to BMP-3 100m shell):

  • HE
  • HEAT
  • Canister/Flechette (most importantly!)

LAHAT ATGWs

STRIX Laser guided, anti-tank mortar-fired munition

With sufficient propellant, a mortar shell can (and will be) used for direct fire. The main reason for the addition of LV cannon shells is for using flechette shells, however this may not be necessary if a 120mm shell is developed along the lines of the 81mm Mk-120 mortar (below) used on Mk-2 Mod 0 deck mounted mortars during Vietnam. Should the LV cannon shell provide no sizeable benefit over direct fire mortar techniques, it should be deleted.

81mm Mk-120, immediate left of the 105mm APERS-T:

Picture1.png

Alongside direct fire, the mortar will also be fired in the conventional indirect fire roll, this will prove very valuable when supporting armour advancements as the constant shelling of the advancement location will thin out any resistance before it becomes a problem, the persistence of mobile mortar-tanks will be a massive improvement over towed artillery, with its shoot-and-scoot speed, counter-battery radar will be rendered useless.

Picture2.png

The Swedish laser guided “STRIX” shell (above) will allow the vehicle to shine in the anti-tank role. For this to be its most effective, it will be coupled with a collapsible sensor mast (example below) mounting cameras and a laser designator.

From behind cover, the vehicle will extend its sensor mast and paint the target of choice, the gunner will then fire a STRIX over the target, impacting directly downwards onto the target (where a tank’s armour is thin). This tactic will allow the vehicle to expose nothing but the tip of its sensor mast, and without the need for an engine the STRIX takes up far less space than a conventional ATGM. The main limitation is obviously the lack of direct fire capabilities; this will be solved by carrying 2-3 LAHAT missiles alongside.

Picture3.png

This heavy cannon will be supplemented by a co-axial 40mm CTA cannon firing cased telescoping 40mm rounds. The cannon should be modified to select between 200RPM for ground targets, and >800RPM for aerial targets. The necessary elevation of the mortar means that we have an excellent platform for a “pseudo-SPAAG”. Inside the turret will be a tri-feed system for HE, APSFDs and Air-burst with an optimal capacity upwards of 100 rounds.

Screen Shot 2017-02-22 at 8.17.06 AM.png

Conclusion:

A light tank can be produced in larger numbers, and the flexibility of deployment is fantastic. The US lost a great advantage when they retired the M551 and cancelled the M8 Buford that cannot be measured, a solution will be extremely easy to engineer and my proposal has many aspects that can be replaced by already existing equipment to lesser, but still good effect (i.e. the new chassis may be replaced by a cut-down M113 or a Bradley).

To make use of airborne and expeditionary forces in the future, the light tank has to be explored – there is no alternative.

Posted in proposals | 13 Comments »