Seek Cover

New ARK with Retention Sheath

2016-06-23T06:56:00.000-07:00

The ARK is a knife that Sam Owens and I designed in early 2012 during my last deployment. Spyderco liked the overall design, but made a few tweaks for mass production or to enhance wear, like making the sheath wider. The ARK, I can proudly say, is perhaps the best neck knife I have ever seen, being large enough for its designed task (emergency self defense), while being a true neck knife, not a "combat knife" hung on a chain. Its shape also lends itself to doing many common tasks for those who just want a small, lightweight, completely rustproof fixed blade.

The one issue a few users had was sheath retention. The sheath is well designed, but because it's usually hung inverted, it's vital to have a very secure fit, and at least one user lost his ARK. Spyderco got to work on a sheath with additional retention, deciding to add a physical block to the knife coming out of its sheath. The first ARKs with the new sheaths have just begun shipping.

The ARK with the new sheath seems to be a well-thought out solution.

Instead of just a friction fit, the sheath now has a tab that locks under the blade.

Closed.

Partially open.

Retention is very secure- I exerted at least three times the force withdrawing the ARK from the old sheath would have taken without the knife moving. I think the only way to draw the knife without pressing the retention tab would be to break the sheath.

The tab will probably be released by most people with their first finger. It should allow a quick draw after a little practice.

There are tradeoffs with almost everything. A left-handed owner will now have to experiment to see if they can also quickly disengage the retention tab. The tab also means that owners with the new sheath can't begin the draw with the grip they'll keep throughout the movement, since moving at least a finger will be required. For most people, though, the new retention sheath should provide an even more secure way to carry the ARK, even in physically vigorous situations.

John Shirley

Dazzle U

2013-07-13T18:26:00.002-07:00

Spurred by the widespread use of digital footage in public areas and facial recognition software, a camouflage idea a hundred years old is seeing a renewal of interest. "CV Dazzle" is the what this movement has been named. Here's a link to a video showing it in action against Facebook's facial recognition program.

Image from CVDazzle.com

In 1914, John Graham Kerr had suggested a scheme using natural principles to make ships harder to spot. The early 20th Century found the British and the Germans in a naval arms race, but the British stayed ahead.

SMS Kaiser from http://www.bundesarchiv.de/index.html.de

Due to the might of the British navy, the German fleet returned to unrestricted submarine warfare around the British Isles in 1917. (WW1 U-boat history can be found at Uboat.net. Sharkhunters has detailed information about WWII U-boats, but unfortunately not WWI models). Between February and April of that year, over 500 merchant vessels were sunken. In 1917, Norman Wilkinson, a marine painter and British sailor, suggested using patterns painted on ships in a way that would confuse range-finding and targeting from U-boats.

After the war, Wilkinson went to court to claim the development of dazzle paint. He was able to win the case and earn compensation based on his contention that Kerr's patterns were an attempt to hide the ships, while his dazzle paint was meant only to confuse U-boats stalking the ships.

A very interesting article about the development of dazzle paint can be found here. Ohio State University has an entire section devoted to influential camouflage artists and theorists as part of The Camouflage Project.

A gallery of dazzle camouflaged ships can be found here.

USS West Mahomet (1918) from Wikimedia

Though dazzle paint was primarily used in WWI, and to a much lesser extend in WWII, here's a picture of a US prototype littoral warfare vessel with a modified dazzle paint scheme from 2006.

That's the story behind dazzle paint. Created to make ships harder to hit by the enemy, it has now been adopted as a way to confuse our machine overlords and their human puppets. If you want to use it on yourself, you can, or you can do what I do: I switch back and forth between a Guy Fawkes mask and an old-school Zorro black silk classic. With a cape. Recognize that, SkyNet!

CamelBak Better Bottle: Hydration on the Move

2013-02-28T19:36:00.001-08:00

So-called survivalists may have gotten a bad rap. The word conveys up images of burned-out 'Nam vets stockpiling vast quantities of MREs, crates of ammunition, Playboys, and hexamine tabs in the basement. While some people may indeed just store up for the zombie apocalypse- seeing as how the nuclear holocaust has been postponed, and all- I take a a different tack.

I think the practical way to prepare for bad times is to keep yourself in good shape all of the time. ( I know, call me crazy. It's been said.) With this in mind, I like keeping food, clothing, defensive items, and especially water available as much of the time as possible. A couple of months before I left on my last deployment, I bought a Camelback Better Bottle from the Clothing and Sales store on Fort Mead. I think it was about $13.

There is a lot to be said for keeping a small bottle of water with you at all times. A 16 ounce bottle of liquid makes a terrific improvised defensive tool if you're jumped while on the way to the library. Unfortunately, buying bottled water is expensive. I keep a large Pur pitcher filled so I'll have tasty, lead-free water available. Refilling a disposable bottle unfortunately has some health risks, so a dedicated water bottle is the way to go.

CamelBak Better Bottle

The Better Bottle version I have carries .75 liter (25 oz) of water. The Better Bottle is a sturdy plastic bottle with a built-in plastic hook that a carabiner can be snapped onto. The bottom part of the hook protects a rubber nozzle when it's in the closed position. With the lid on, the Better Bottle has proven spill-proof. The Better Bottle has been unbreakable under practical conditions, fits into most car cup holders, and is easy to clean.

I took the Better Bottle to Afghanistan. I used it at CRC and on the trip out, but rarely used it in theater due to the bottled water that's everywhere for US troops. It suffered no damage being shuffled around the country with me during the better part of a year. I keep the Better Bottle with me virtually everywhere. Having it close by reminds me to drink water, even when I'm not thirsty. Staying hydrated is just one of the ways to be ready for that next big emergency we don't really want to happen- and be more comfortable, in the meantime.

The V-22 Osprey: Innovative, Expensive, and Dangerous

2012-07-22T09:43:00.000-07:00

The airplane enabled people or cargo to be moved quickly and without dependence on roads. The major downside from a military standpoint is the necessity of a runway to take off and land airplanes. With the creation of the first practical helicopter, the FW 61 in 1937, militaries had an option that could take off and land at remote outposts with minimal landing area required.

Nothing in life is really free, and the helicopter's vertical take off and landing (VTOL) ability was offset by disadvantages. Traditional airplanes work by forcing air across a wing, which creates lift. Helicopters work by moving the "wing" itself, which then creates lift. Less energy is required for an airplane to produce forward momentum to create lift than for a helicopter to spin its wings. The helicopter cannot travel as far, fly as fast, or usually carry as much as an airplane of similar size.

The V-22 Osprey is an attempt to combine the speed and range of the airplane with the VTOL ability of a helicopter. The Osprey has stubby airplane-like wings ending in huge rotor/propellors. The project was begun in 1983, and the first entered service in 1999. Along the way, costs skyrocketed, and the Marine Corps was left as the sole customer.

The Osprey in plane mode is about twice as fast as a helicopter, and does have much greater range. What the Osprey does NOT have is sufficient armament. Current V-22s only carry a rear-facing M240 7.62mm machine gun. Plans to add a swiveling multi-barrel .50 machine gun to the nose of the aircraft have been tabled for the moment due to the additional cost and weight of the system.The Osprey also does not have auto-rotation.

Traditional military helicopters have the option of autorotating if they suffer a power loss in flight. The unpowered rotors can provide enough lift to allow a controlled crash instead of the aircraft just falling from the sky. The V-22, airplane-like, can glide down if flying in airplane mode, but pilots on V-22s are not allowed to even attempt autorotation except in simulators. This is a serious concern for a purported combat assault aircraft which will invariably be flying in helicopter mode every time it enters or exits a small combat outpost.

The lack of sufficient defensive armament and the critical lacking autorotating ability would be damning enough without the incredible costs over-runs which have led to everyone but the Marines backing out of the project. What remains is a very expensive aircraft that seems to perform well when operating in the current environment without significant enemy anti-aircraft threats.

The CH-53 currently in US inventory is not as fast, but actually carries more, is well armed, and can come in fast compared to the V-22, which has a very slow allowable rate of descent. The V-22 seems more like an exploration of abilities than a mature war-fighting machine, and it is disturbing that Marine leaders have been willing to pursue their VTOL goals at the cost of an authentic weapons system.

1st Article

2011-12-14T20:30:00.000-08:00

Shooting Reviews is finally up and running after several platform changes. My first article, on one of my favorite subjects, the personal light, has been posted.

In this age of bright and compact lights, I have often suggested carrying 2 or 3 lights. It's just too easy to carry a Photon microlight on a keychain, and I have frequently also carried a lower-powered task light and a higher-powered tactical/emergency one.

Redundancy is a good thing, when it comes to personal protective devices, and lights certainly fall into the category of frequently-used PPD. I still suggest carrying the Photon, or a similar small backup light, but I think you'll agree after reading the review that the ElZetta M60 is the most light you'll need for the rest of your life. It's not the most expensive light I've ever owned, but it's certainly the toughest, and I think the most useful.

Source Code

2011-12-12T04:06:00.000-08:00

I have added a little "Easter Egg" to the blog title picture. If interested, here is more information about the ill-fated ship in the photograph. The final, violent end is here.

Suddenly, I want to knock out Billy Mitchell. Since he's not available currently, please accept this gratuitious painting of the USS Arkansas instead (click to see entire piece).

MRAP

2011-12-03T11:04:00.000-08:00

The United States is currently fighting against opponents who are weaker militarily. When one group of combatants has significantly fewer resources (perhaps it would be more accurate to say fewer resources in kind) than another, asymmetric warfare is the natural result. Simply put, if one team can't play on the same court, that team will find another game to play. If you have fewer disciplined and equipped military forces with shorter-ranged and less accurate systems, hampered by communications challenges and facing a highly mobile enemy who has complete arial domination, how do you compete? With explosives.

Improvised explosive devices are nothing new. They were used to great effect by the Confederacy, another combatant nation considerably out-resourced by its foe. Some of the techniques used by the Confederate IED planters, most especially command-detonating buried artillery shells by wire, are essentially the same as some current threats US and Allied forces face. The HMMWV standard small vehicle that replaced the Jeep was designed for transport, not resisting blasts.

South Africa faced years of asymmetric warfare, during which mines were frequently used by anti-government forces. In response, they developed several mine-resistant vehicles, such as the Casspir.

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles have at least a couple features in common. Each has higher ground clearance to reduce transmitted shock to crew members, and a v-hull to direct most of the blast away. The US started testing MRAPs in 2004, and received the first large order in 2007. The decision that MRAPs were vital to protect US service members was quickly made, and the need was deemed urgent, so multiple companies were used to procure vehicles. These include Force Protection, who make the Cougar in 4

and 6 wheel versions, as well as the Buffalo route clearance vehicle; Navistar MaxxPro (the highest number of US MRAPs, according to Defense Industry Daily),

and others.

Each potential solution brings its own set of problems. With the MRAP, the additional protection brings a resultant size and weight penalty. This is less an issue in areas with well-developed, wide roads. Afghanistan's very poor road system, which traces its way over many mountains, limits the utility of larger vehicles. The Oshkosh M-ATV was created to conquer this challenge by providing a lighter, more mobile vehicle with the protection of the larger, heavier, MRAPs.

I had the opportunity to ride in a 4x4 Cougar and the M-ATV Thursday. Fortunately, I had no opportunity to see how either respond to detonations. They are considerably more comfortable than the HMMWV, though. It remains to be seen how well they will meet the competing demands of agility and protection for our troops.

Gunsite!

2011-10-20T10:58:00.000-07:00

I went with three other members of the soon-to-be debuted webzine Shooting Reviews to Gunsite at the end of last month. Gunsite is one of the premier shooting schools in the U.S. Gunsite was founded by the late Colonel Jeff Cooper, who is known as one of the most influential voices of the acolytes of the single-action .45 automatic. 250 Handgun is described by Gunsite as their flagship course, and in honor of the centennial anniversary of the Model 1911 handgun, Gunsite offered a 1911-focused version of the class. It seemed like a good time to go for 1911 instruction!

I did learn a couple new techniques, but probably the most useful part of the course was just the experience of firing over 1000 rounds through 1911s in less than a week, often under pressure, and sometimes in unconventional firing positions. I finally learned the real importance of thing like large sights- and it's not accuracy! I also learned to really appreciate the difference between a $550 1911, and an $1100 one.

Gunsite focuses on what they (perhaps anachronistically now) call "The Modern Technique of the Pistol". Gunsite instructors say they're a fighting school, not a shooting school, and as a fighting school, I'd say they succeed quite well. Focus on combat awareness, proper reloads, and cover is excellent. One of my companions claimed that there are newer, better, (more evolved?) handgun techniques available now. Perhaps he's right, but I believe the "Gunsite Experience" will be a positive one for anyone who can afford the time and cost to attend.

The Little Soviet

2011-10-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

I am not a huge fan of the M16 family, and its civilian AR-15 counterparts. I think that it's a dirty system, and the locking lugs (the infamous "star chamber") are annoyingly hard to clean. On the positive side, ergonomics are superb, accuracy is usually very good to excellent, and perhaps best of all, the system is modular. Modular usually means it's easy to exchange one part for a somewhat different part- say, a longer barrel for a shorter one- but in the case of the AR-15, this goes even further. These rifles are separated into upper and lower receiver assemblies.

This becomes especially useful when changing calibers. If you want to switch to another caliber (which has the correct dimensions to fit inside your existing receiver, obviously), it's as simple as purchasing the upper receiver of your choice, pushing out a couple of pins with your finger or a writing pen, dropping the new receiver on, and (if necessary) using a different magazine. A literal minute of time is required to change. Once the lower receiver or receiver is purchased (the piece that the ATF defines as the firearm), the upper receiver assembly can be purchased directly, in person, or through an online retailer. So, if you have an AR-15-type rifle, to switch calibers, you just need the purchase another upper receiver, and possibly, a different caliber magazine.

The price of metals has gone up dramatically in the past few years. This, along with U.S. inflation in general, has led to substantial increases in the cost of ammunition. The least expensive centerfire ammunition now available is surplus imported ammunition, and the least expensive rifle ammunition is 5.45x39mm, available from companies such as Aim Surplus, JG Sales, and Ammoman at no more than $.15/rd, delivered. The 5.45x39mm was the Soviet attempt to duplicate the U.S. 5.56x45mm, and the Soviet round is just slightly less powerful than the .223, with the 7N6 cartridge firing a 53-grain bullet at about 3000 feet per second.

5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm

I have long been of the opinion that any centerfire cartridge more powerful than .22 Magnum is sufficient for military use. Smaller rounds mean more ammunition can be carried. More ammunition equals more potential threats addressed. Putting a hole through a hostile target is more important than the size of the hole. If the threat is at closer ranges, put more holes in the target. Simple. In any case, I personally believe that 5.45x39mm is just fine for defending your home or your homeland. (Though if you're defending your home, I believe in using good expanding rounds.)

Smith and Wesson now make AR-15s. They made a 5.45x39mm AR-15 upper receiver and rifle, for a while, to capitalize on the cheap ammunition available for the cartridge. CDNN has the upper receiver assemblies available for $500,

with one magazine included. Additional 5.45mm-specific magazines from CDNN are $15, though standard AR-15/M16 magazines seem to work fine for folks who've tried them. This is an extremely good deal on a complete upper receiver assembly, with cartridge ballistics very close to standard 5.56mm rifles, and the cheapest rifle ammunition you can find. I suggest you get one while you can.

Stay in the Fight!

2011-05-29T17:54:00.000-07:00

The Ultimate Fighting Championship began as a single tournament of various fighters in late 1993. It was inspired by video showing the Gracie family beating other martial artists using Brazilian Jujitsu (BJJ). BJJ differs from traditional (Japanese) Jujitsu in that its chief focus is on groundfighting. BJJ, and martial artists who had at least a strong BJJ or wrestling component, dominated UFC fighting.

A couple of years later, the Rangers began searching for a new system of hand-to-hand combat. Because of its success in the ring, BJJ was chosen as the basis. The new fighting system, now called Army Combatives, was introduced Army-wide in 2002, when the Field Manual (Combatives: FM 3-25.150) was published. I entered the Army in late 2001, and received the new training as I went through my Infantry Basic course.

When teamed with striking techniques, BJJ is a good fighting system, but only if two conditions are met:
opponents must be unarmed, and opponents must be alone. Going to the ground with a partner outside the ring is a good way to find yourself holding onto a man with a knife, and putting yourself deliberately in range of a sharp is a Very Bad Thing. I have unfortunately actually heard Army instructors advise deliberately going to the ground with an adversary, which is just silly. In real life, the way to win a fight without a working firearm, is to hit the adversary with something. You never go to the ground if you can help it- knocking your enemy down and then hitting him with objects or kicking him is fine.

I was dreading our several-week course of Army Combatives at BOLC. The first day, when the captain teaching the course showed up apparently still drunk, and gave us a heaping helping of his ego- also giving unsolicited advice about our training in general, even though our own training officer was present- didn't help. I can't say I loved getting up before 0430 every morning, either.

After the first day, things got a little better. The captain did (correctly) point out some very important things.
o if you can shoot the enemy, shoot him
o if you can't shoot the enemy, hit him with something
o Army Combatives was partially created so Soldiers could practice getting "close and personal" to an adversary with less risk of being injured than other types of martial arts
o if you are wrestling with an adversary on the ground, the one whose buddies show up first, wins!

Over the course of a couple of weeks, working with the variety of body sizes and types in the class reinforced some other truths.

1. Technique matters. Even when there was substantial size difference, the more skilled partner usually won.

2. Size matters. All other factors being equal, the larger partner won.

3. Strength matters. I am not much of a groundfighter, but when I took on class females, I moved almost effortlessly from position to position on them. One of these officers is a very tough, intelligent, extremely fit personal trainer. The strength gap is so great between most females and males, that a woman is going to have to put in a lot of extra training time to have enough technique to just hold her own against many men.

4. Fitness matters. Even some of the most skilled groundfighters present got worn down rapidly when "rolling" with multiple partners in relatively short order, to the point where they lost to less skilled partners.

5. Don't discount a wrestler on the ground. To the chagrin of many, not everyone in the class got to participate in our final rumble royale. Of those who did, both the heavy and light categories were won by people with wrestling backgrounds. BJJ and "mixed martial arts" are the faddish thing on the martial arts circuit now, but wrestling and boxing are still very effective methods of unarmed self-defense.

Hot Fuel

2011-04-19T09:35:00.000-07:00

I am in the fuel and water portion of my BOLC course. After 4 agonizingly boring days in the classroom, we were pumping fuel Friday. We were working on the Forward Area Refueling Equipment, designed to rapidly refuel two choppers at remote locations. Protocol is for a fire man to cover the service member hooking up the aircraft. The system being used was a "wet" system, actually pumping JP-8 fuel to decommissioned choppers with intact fuel tanks.

I had already cycled through each of the three team positions and volunteered to be the fire man for one of the last two class members. She hooked up to her chopper- a crumbling Cobra- and began pumping fuel. And, suddenly, she was shrieking, clawing at her face.

"She's got fuel in her eyes!" the trainer yelled. Oh, god. I frantically motioned for the pump man to cut the fuel, instantly ran through my options, then dropped my extinguisher and sprinted for her. I grabbed the LT by the shoulder fabric and the arm, and began hustling her towards the emergency shower. Oh, god. Oh, god. This girl's eyes may be riding on my ability to rapidly flush them. How long would figuring out the shower mechanism take? Would that delay cause permanent damage?

Now, I know how people whose eyes are on fire behave. They are very cooperative to those trying to help. The LT wasn't being very helpful. I also noticed that our trainer, who looks like he spends most of his free time in the gym, had not covered the 70 meters to us yet. Okay, I thought. But if she wants to keep playing, I'll wet her down. I looked for the shower controls.

"Stop!" the trainer commanded. He was laughing. Bastard.

My LT was told to simulate her emergency. It certainly shook me up for a few minutes. And then I thought about what I could profitably take away.

Every Army activity is supposed to start with a risk assessment. The facilitating officer or NCO identifies potential risks, and then, measures to reduce those risks. If you are in a hot environment, dehydration may be identified as a risk. A control measure may be water points nearby, and the instruction to drink water during breaks.

While risk assessments may be an Army thing, they are useful for anyone. In my case, taking just a few extra minutes to point out where the emergency showers were, and to give basic instructions on operating them would have ensured that I was as ready as possible if my emergency had been genuine. For your work or play activities, reminding everyone present of potential hazards, and how to deal with them won't take long. And it could save a life, or someone's eyes. Maybe yours.

La Police Gear 3-Day Backpack

2011-03-13T12:41:00.000-07:00

As a former light infantryman, good load-bearing gear is a subject I am enthusiastic about. There are few things worse than trying to carry a large amount of heavy equipment without a good pack.

I have been very happy with the packs I have from Camelbak. I bought a H.A.W.G. in 2003, and used it for carrying books weekly to class for two years, and then, took it to Afghanistan for over 10 months. (I also have a MULE that a service buddy gave to me.) I used it occasionally since then, and began carrying it again with me to work almost a year ago. Aside from a little wear on the bottom, and the name tape sewn to the back being faded, my H.A.W.G. could be a month old, instead of over seven years old.

The one area that the H.A.W.G. is sometimes not ideal, is the load-carrying capacity. It's a little over 1200 cubic inches, which is fine for a few books, or a compact change of clothes, but not big enough (for instance) for several extra-large books and a laptop. So, with winter approaching, I decided to get a larger pack.

I have frequently used LA Police Gear for buying outdoors and "tactical" products. Prices are usually very fair to great, and shipping almost always very timely. They sell a "3 Day Backpack" that they claim rivaled $100 to $250 packs. I was dubious that a pack that usually sells for $30 was that good, but since LAPG had always treated me well in the past, I decided to give it a try.

I bought the pack for an even lower than usual $25.99, along with a few other bags and containers. It shipped 17 December, 2010. My first impression was that the size was pretty good- maybe even a little larger than I needed.

I would have preferred a hydration bladder, but for $30, that was unrealistic. The zippers were large, but did not run as freely as I would like. The material felt a little thin and weak. The carry straps were reasonably well padded and wide, with an unpadded waist carry strap with a large fastex-type buckle.

The main storage compartment also holds a netted storage pouch with zipper.

There is a storage area on the upper rear of the pack, and a larger storage area beneath it.

The overall layout of the bag seemed pretty good. Aside from the zippers sticking somewhat, and the bag material not feeling strong enough, the only major problem I had with the bag was the lack of additional small pockets for pens, knives, flashlights, lighters, multi-tools, and other small pieces of equipment. I purchased an LAPG Gear Organizer for $9.99 to give me additional space for hygiene items like a toothbrush, travel deodorant, and hand sanitizer. (LAPG no longer seems to be offering this small bag, but it's similar to this Maxpedition.)

The 3-day pack was sent from LAPG on the 17th of December. I used it an average of 4 days a week for just under 3 months. With the addition of a Camelbak hydration bladder, and the organizer, the 3 Day worked well for carrying a lunch, miscellaneous small gear like cell phone and BlueTooth chargers, my gloves, balaclava, watch cap, and sometimes, a change of clothes. While being bigger than needed for most purposes, the 3 Day was almost perfect for carrying bulky but lightweight gear. I added an Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic ring from County Comm to hold the nozzle end of my Camelbak hose, which I funneled out through a velcroed opening. The ring worked- mostly. It was a little too large to always securely hold the nozzle. This was mostly just inconvenient, except when the protective "valve cover" nozzle cap was knocked aside, and the nozzle end of the drinking tube dragged on the bottom of some rarely-cleaned floor of a guard post. Considering the bladder and organizer, total cost was about $70- not too shabby for a pack this size with a hydration bladder.

And then...this happened.

This is an almost 3" rip that happened with nothing more strenous than carrying 20 pounds, and probably no more than 15 pounds worth of gear in this pack. Most of that time was spent sitting on the floor of a guard shack. Examining the rest of the pack showed this wear:

Considering the very short period before the damage, the LAPG 3 Day Pack was not a good value. You often hear "you get what you pay for". In this case, that definitely appears to be true.

In this case, I'd say...buy one of these:

We Own the Unmanned Skies

2011-02-09T16:53:00.000-08:00

A major advantage and force multiplier for the United States in the last few years has been our unmanned aerial platforms. UAVs like the Predator gave our intel guys "eyes in the sky" for significantly less than a manned vehicle would have cost, also while not exposing one or more US air crew to the hazards of flying over sometimes unfriendly airspace. When armed with munitions, UAV become a way of immediately projecting force. A "Predator pack" of 4 Predators, ground control station, and satellite link cost $20 million in 2009 dollars. When considering that a single F16D cost about the same amount in 1998 dollars, it can easily be seen that UAVs are a very cost-efficient way to watch the battlefield and attack high-value targets with little risk to mission personnel.

The Predator is larger than many battlefield UAVs designed to give battlefield intel to nearby commanders. The Reaper , at 4900 pounds, with over 3500 lbs of potential payload, and up to 1150 miles of range, is even larger. These UAVs are capable for projecting force from a low-observability, cost-effective platform, but they are still small and slow compared to strike aircraft like the F/A-18E. With the (J-)UCAS program, this may be changing.

The Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems has the goal of producing an unmanned strike fighter. There are two current contenders for the title, the Boeing X-45, and the Northrop Grumman X-47. The X-47B had its first flight 4 February 2011.

Practical Survival- skin wipes

2010-07-26T11:52:00.000-07:00

Some segment of the population could be described as survivalists. These folks tend to fall into two groups. One group is made up of hippie survivalist environmental types. They want to "go green", coexist with nature, and make as little negative impact on the world as possible. The other group is the gun owners. They want to control their environment. These are of course generalizations, and like all generalizations, will not always be true.

What some with a survivalist mentality forget is the importance of daily well-being. While it's great to be prepared when The Great Zombie Robot Bear Apocalypse happens, the things that help us live better on a daily basis also will help us survive better. Skin wipes are high on my "daily well-being" list.

I first grew to appreciate skin wipes when I was working long hours securing remote sites years ago. I grew to appreciate them even more when I became an infantryman, and spent a lot of time in the field training. Field hygiene is VERY important. Under the stress of field or even worse, battlefield conditions, staying clean is even more important than usual. Our skin is our first layer of defense, and keeping it clean in the dirt of the field is vital to helping prevent the sicknesses that have usually killed more during wartime than enemy action.

Skin wipes are handy in the field because they take less space and weight than soap and washcloth and the water necessary to wash. They are also quicker than first soaping, then rinsing. Another advantage in colder environments is that skin dries more quickly from the wipes than when using water and soap (unless a towel is also packed, with the resultant additional space penalty). Infantry, especially light infantry, don't want to pack any extra gear. We have plenty to carry already!

Skin wipes come in larger tub containers and smaller travel packs. The travel packs are especially convenient to toss in day packs or slip in cargo pockets. One of my favorite travel packs is the CVS brand unscented Soft Cloths Supreme. These are sturdy, inexpensive (about $1) wipes with little scent.

For those of us not in the field, skin wipes are still very useful. Most of us spend a lot of our day at work. A quick swipe with a wipe can keep you feeling fresh (and feeling good is an important thing!), and keep your skin clean. Wipes are always in my carry-on bag when I travel, along with a watch cap or scarf, toothbrush and paste, and earplugs. If you are ever separated from the rest of your luggage, you will appreciate having these! Wipes are also important to use immediately after shooting, to remove lead and powder residue.

Skin wipes- inexpensive and useful kit. Keep them handy.

Lights of Being

2009-10-16T23:41:00.000-07:00

It is easy to mis-manage priorities, when it comes to preparing for emergencies. Certainly, if someone is kicking in your door, a firearm could come in handy, and if you're trapped in a car by your seat-belt, you might be very happy to have a pocket knife to cut yourself free. However, even during the course of normal life, lights are just handy. During emergencies, they often become vital. In this day of relatively inexpensive, high quality lights, there is no reason not to have a really good small light and a backup keychain light on your person every damn day.

SureFire has been probably the most recognized name in small "tactical" lights for years. SureFire lights are bright and sturdy. Unfortunately, they are also pricy and only use 123 cells. 123s are powerful and compact, but expensive. In the last few years, especially as LED technology has improved, many small, bright lights have been produced. Some of these use the less expensive, easily found AA batteries. One of my favorite of these is the Fenix line. Though they have expanded to include AAA and 123-sized lights, Fenix made its niche initially by making high quality lights that were less expensive than SureFire, but used AA cells. Couple a good 2 AA Fenix with some rechargeable AA lights, and you have a good daily carry light that's bright enough for emergencies, but inexpensive enough to buy for yourself and your loved ones.

Another option is rechargeable 123 cells. I have been carrying the LumaPower LM33 for some months now. This is a small single 123-battery light. Unlike some 123-powered lights (cough, SureFire, cough!), the LM33 can take rechargeable 123-sized batteries. Mine is currently running on 3.6V 880MAH Ultrafires that I charge with my tiny NanoCharger. For "tactical" use, a momentary press switch is preferred. The LM33 has a "reverse clicky" switch. The light comes on as the button pops back up. This is one of only two flaws I find with my LM33. The other is that its lower-powered mode is first. Fortunately, even the lower-powered mode is bright enough to use as a shooting light at close range.

At about twice the overall size of a tube of lip balm, the LM33 fits easily into a pocket. It has a luminescent ring at the top of the bezel, so after the light has been used, it can still be found for a while in the dark by the glowing ring. The LM33 also comes with an a luminescent clicky switch, if the user prefers that to the installed safety orange one. The LM33 comes with a small nylon holster and a lanyard that works for everyday use, but which will not stand up to truly hard duty.

At less than $30 shipped from Battery Junction, the LM33 is a small, useful light that can easily be accessorized with rechargeable batteries and a charger for about another $11. If you can live with the reverse clickly switch, I believe you will be very satisfied.

Botnet Threat

2009-07-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

Botnet

What:

The internet is a network of linked
computing systems. A botnet is a linked network of hijacked computers that can be used to attack networks or even entities as large as an entire country’s network, making it a type of mini-internet within the net.

How: The huge number of computers that comprise the botnet allow it to execute brute force attacks, overwhelming defenses through Directed Denial of Service (DDoS) or through massive spam flooding. Malicious code is spread through attachments sent in email: this code forces the subverted computer to perform automated tasks on command. Other infection methods have included a subverted Republican Party website and exploiting YouTube and Yahoo applications.

Where: Due to its distributed nature, there is no known primary location for the largest botnets.

Numbers: The Storm botnet has been variously
estimated at between 160,000 and 50 million slaved computers. Nugache is a more recently identified botnet.

Additional:

Some botnets have responded with apparently automated defensive attacks directed towards researchers and anti-spam software vendors. Recoding its viral code twice an hour has been one propagation technique that has allowed botnet code to infect despite antiviral/malware protections on some
systems.

http://kabru.eecs.umich.edu/bin/view/Main/Botnets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/5199704/What-is-a-botnet.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_botnet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1027179/brazilian-indicted-botnet

Pistol Match AAR

2009-07-21T15:15:00.000-07:00

Saturday I shot an IDPA-style pistol match with Johnny and Matt. Because of the Texas heat, the typical cover garment requirement was waived. Wanting to train as we (would) fight, the three of us all used cover garments, anyway.

I work to be honest, but let me be clear: I have fired handguns in the last year only when on my week-long hunting trip in late December. (I do practice presentation/drawing usually a few times a week.) In the previous year, I believe I also only went to the shooting range once. This is not something I suggest to anyone who is serious about his weaponcraft- who uses a firearm- but I want to describe the situation. I told Matt I would probably be the slowest shooter out there, but that I would be safe, and I would be accurate. I succeeded in one of those goals.

My rig for the match was a Glock 19, firing full power handloads with 124-grain Remington hollow points. I had a double magazine pouch on my left side. As the match began, I felt incredibly slow, like I was trapped in molasses. I also found that I was not hitting every target, at least to the standard required in the match (I DID hit every target, except for one "dropper" that briefly swung sideways as it fell). I also found I had an unfortunate tendency, due to the course layout, to slay virtually everything in front of me. Fortunately, in the real world, I'm unlikely to have to engage a line of hostiles evenly spaced with hostages, while shooting one-handed!

Towards the end of the match, one of the other shooters gave me some advice.
"Hey, slow down. You're fast- look at this." He showed me a very respectable time for my first split, or double shots on target. I had drawn and fired two shots onto my first target in 1.3 seconds. "That is FAST. Now, what you need to do, is just take an extra second, and you'll be a lot more accurate."

I thanked him sincerely. I repeated what I'd been told to Matt, and he showed me the video he'd taken of me. Holy cow. I'd had no idea. I'd felt like I was moving in slow motion.

Johnny was the man I wanted to be during the match. Shooting a 3" Model 10, he just...didn't miss.

Matt was extremely accurate and surprisingly fast with a Model 37 at close range, but had slow going reloading his 5 shooter, and had trouble hitting distant targets.

Lessons learned:

o Duty-sized guns are more accurate at distance, faster overall, and quicker to reload than smaller pieces.
o Fast is good, and accurate is better, but fast and accurate beats both.
o Practice, practice, practice.
o Don't be a hostage.

(S&W model number edited.)

Glock Rock

2009-06-24T16:24:00.000-07:00

If you have to use them, firearms with stocks are better than firearms without stocks. Two of the best reasons for this are accuracy and speed. Another reason is power, but the last is not true of Pistol Caliber Carbines. PCCs don't have much power advantage over handguns in the same caliber, but they are still more accurate and faster in use than handguns. PCCs can also reduce ammunition supply challenges, since shooters can use the same ammunition for their sidearms. When using a magazine-fed automatic pistol, some PCCs can be loaded using the same magazines.

A few handguns in the past have been convertible to carbines, usually by means of attaching a stock to the back of the handgun. The Mauser 96 is one of the best-known in this category.

Glock handguns have taken over the lion's share of law enforcement sales in the United States since establishment of an office in Georgia in 1985. Glock handguns were sturdy, lightweight, simple to maintain, had a very high ammunition capacity, and reasonably priced. As law enforcement bought the new handguns, citizens did, as well. Some consumers, impressed with the sturdy and simple Glock, wanted a carbine with the same advantages. Despite occasional rumors, no Glock carbine has been forthcoming, though firearms company Kel-Tec has offered their Sub-2000 folding carbine in versions that take Glock magazines. Company Mech-Tech has been offering a conversion from handgun to carbine for a while, but their version looks rather jury-rigged. But a new product is on the scene.

Hera Arms has built what is apparently a "drop in" Carbine Conversion unit for Glock 9x19mm, .40, and .357 Sig full and compact models.

It would appear that this was at least suggested by the Magpul FMG-9 prototype. The FMG-9 looks more elegant, but definitely more complicated. And, so far, it's vaporware.

The Hera GCC definitely has all kinds of eye appeal over the Mec-Tech, but U.S. owners also face the frivolous restrictions regarding Short Barreled Rifles. Rifles meant to be fired from the shoulder must be at least 26" long, and have a barrel at least 16" long. The GCC does not meet these standards, since the base model apparently just uses the barrel already in the Glock in question.

So: looks cool, but be prepared to pay another $200, on top of the $500 base price, plus the price of a Glock if you don't already own one. As long as you live in a state that allows ownership of SBRs.

Transportable SPATG

2009-06-06T22:05:00.000-07:00

Any military vehicle is some compromise of armor, firepower, and agility. On the one end of the military land vehicle spectrum are super fast and agile but unarmored vehicles like the fast attack vehicle. On the other end of the spectrum are extremely armored vehicles like the German Sturmtiger, which was usually only able to be stopped by bombing or heavy artillery attack. Or running out of fuel.

One attempt to give U.S. forces a rapidly transportable vehicle capable of disabling enemy tanks was the M56 Scorpion. This small tracked self-propelled gun was meant to be a tank destroyer. The M56 is 2.57 meters wide, and 4.55 meters long. Fully loaded, it weighs a little under 8 tons.

The first M56s were made in 1953. Production stopped in 1959. The Scorpion was used by the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and saw use in Vietnam. Because of the scarcity of tanks confronting U.S. forces, the Scorpion was most frequently used as an assault gun, using its 90mm M54 cannon to provide fire support. Like many tank destroyers, insufficient armor was mounted on the Scorpion to make it an effective fighter against close-range threats- in fact, the only armor was on the shield mounted towards the base of the 90mm gun.

A novel tank destroyer built using the running gear of the Scorpion, the M50 Ontos was at one point considered for purchase in extremely large quantities. The Ontos had a light turret on which six M40 "106mm" recoilless rifles were mounted. Four of the rifles were fitted with .50 caliber spotting rifles with ammunition that mimicked the recoilless rounds' flight performance. The M40 has a maximum effective range of about 7300 meters. A .30 caliber M1919A4 was also mounted for close-range antipersonnel use.

The Ontos was approximately the same dimensions as the Scorpion, except for height. Its limited-traverse turret and light armor made the Ontos about a ton heavier than the Scorpion. Tank destroyers are typically much cheaper than tanks, usually due to simpler turrets and lighter armor. The possibility of buying an Ontos for about $30,000 instead of an M47 tank for $240,000 was an enticing idea, but the unconventionality of the Ontos approach (the six recoilless rifles could only be loaded from outside the vehicle) ultimately led to the Army's decision not to purchase the system. The Marines needed anti-tank vehicles, though, and so bought 297 Ontos, which were built between 1955 and 1957.

As with the Scorpion, the Ontos would be used primarily in a fire support role instead of as the tank destroyer originally envisioned. It did have several drawbacks in use, including vulnerability to mines and RPGs. However, its 105mm (M40 ammunition was only called 106 to avoid confusion with earlier M27 105mm ammunition) guns proved very effective on both structures and when used against personnel. The Ontos' light weight also enabled it to go places heavier U.S. vehicles could not.

The Scorpions were replaced by the M551 Sheridan "Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle" (so called because the U.S. had gone to a "main battle tank" system and therefore could not admit to accepting a light tank). The Sheridan had a real turret and better armor, with a resulting weight increase, putting it slightly over 15 tons. This was still light enough to be airlifted by some platforms.

Well before the late 1960s, tank armor had increased to the point that mounting an effective main gun on a light tank was a frustrating exercise. Armor can be penetrated through one of two mechanisms: high velocity or explosive power. The Sheridan went with the latter, using a low velocity 152mm gun. To enable hits at longer ranges, an anti-tank missile was developed that launched from the gun bore. A 7.6x51mm coaxial and 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun was mounted.

Production of the Sheridan began in 1966, and continued until 1970. 1662 Sheridans were built, and Sheridans fought for about three years in Vietnam. Reviews were mixed.

Despite increased armor compared to the M50 and M56, the M551 still had light armor that was vulnerable to mines and RPGs. Recoil of the 152mm M81 gun in the light vehicle was vicious. Without tank targets, the expensive Shillelagh missiles were removed from Vietnam tanks. Eccentricities of the ammunition for the M81 made the Sheridan very vulnerable to fire, and gave it a very slow rate of fire compared to the M48 tank. Like the previous platforms, in Vietnam the Sheridan was mostly used to provide fire support.

Even without a real replacement, the Army began to phase out the Sheridan in 1978, though it was retained by the 82nd Airborne until 1996. The Sheridan played minor roles in Panama and Desert Storm, and was most recently used at the National Training Center to simulate Communist Block-built vehicles

Udaloy I Class

2009-04-28T19:12:00.000-07:00

A "mini task force" of a tanker, a salvage tugboat, and the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev sailed from Vladivostock in late March, according to the Russian News & Information Agency. The mission was anti-piracy around the Horn of Africa.

The Admiral Panteleyev is an Udaloy I class destroyer. Known as Project 1155 to the Russian Navy, Udaloys are equipped with a dual main 100mm gun, SS-N-14 antisub/antisurface missiles, SA-N-9 anti-air missiles, and 2 SA-N-11 AAM/30mm cannon close-in air defense systems. Udaloys also mount 8 21-inch torpedo tubes and 2 RBU-6000 anti-submarine systems.

On 29 April, the Admiral Panteleyev captured an apparent pirate vessel 15 miles from the Somali coast. 7 Kalashnikov automatic weapons, handguns, and a ladder were seized, along with 29 suspected pirates.

Alvis Saladin

2009-04-06T12:19:00.000-07:00

Armored land vehicles can be tracked or wheeled (or some combination, such as half-tracks or the convertible Christie tank). Wheeled armor is cheaper to make, lighter, and faster. Tracks have considerably more mobility over rough ground, and are less vulnerable to obstacles and enemy fire.

The Alvis Saladin FV 601 is a British armored car designed in the late 1950s. It has six wheels, a 76mm main gun, and two 7.62mm machine guns, one coaxial and one AA. The Saladin had a 72 kph top speed, and was powered by an eight-cylinder gasoline engine that produced 170 hp. It shared a chassis with other Alvis vehicles: the FV 603 Saracen personnel carrier, Salamander crash tender, and the FV 620 Stalwart amphibious truck. About 1200 Saladins were built, and they were used by a variety of nations, most especially in Africa and Asia.

The Saladin weighs a little over 11.5 tons, and is suitable for the armed reconnaissance mission the U.S. describes as Calvary Scout (and for which has recently used Bradley tracked vehicles, Stryker IAV, or HMMWVs). Army propaganda follows:

Welcome!

2009-04-06T10:59:00.000-07:00

Humanity's history is one of conflict. This blog will chronicle weapons, people, and tactics. Glad to have you. Pull up a chair.