US Air Force has no real plan to procure a light attack aircraft.

A pair of AT-6 Wolverines. The Drive/Textron.

The US Air Force's plan to procure a light attack aircraft is not going well. The Drive/Warzone. The Air Force hasn't even defined what requirements they will have for the attack plane, let alone procured a large number of planes for evaluation. Right now the competition is between Textron's AT-6 Wolverine and Embraer's A-26 Super Tucano. It is possible that the Air Force will buy small order of planes and then replace them shortly after. 

My Comment:

Weapons procurement continues to be a giant mess and the OA-X program is yet another example. You would think it would be pretty easy to just pick one of these planes and deploy them but it never seems to work out that way. There are so many things that go wrong in these cases.

Part of it is lobbying and pork. This contract would bring hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars to whoever gets it. You better believe that Textron and Embraer are doing everything they can to secure the contract. 

All that being said I am excited by the OA-X program. Though the planes aren't sexy or cool, they are an important cog in the military machine that will help our troops on the ground. Much like the venerable A-10's these planes are meant to partially replace, they get the job of close air support done. 

I also think that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not have these planes deployed already. The vast majority of air support missions seem to be overkill. Having F-15's and F-16's drop guided bombs when a turboprop aircraft could accomplish the same thing most of the time for much cheaper is a waste of money. 

The only problem I have with using these small planes is survivability. The threat of air defenses hasn't been a big deal until recently. The global proliferation of MANPADS has changed the calculus a bit. 

Unlike our high flying attack jets, like the F-15 and F-16 or the tough as nails A-10 Warthogs, these small aircraft seem especially vulnerable to air to ground missiles. Countermeasures can help against that but the Islamic militants that we so often fight aren't helpless against light attack aircraft.   

How messed up is our policy in Syria? US made TOW missile used against US made Humvee. Washington Post.

Free Syrian Army troops fire a TOW missile. 

US made weapons are being used to destroy other US made weapons. Washington Post. The above video was recorded outside of the city of Aleppo where the Free Syrian Army is engaged with both ISIS and the Syrian regime. The video shows the militants operating a BGM-71 TOW missile and firing it at a US made Humvee. The missiles were provided by the United States but have also found there way into the hands of other groups, including the al-Qadea affiliate, al-Nusra Front. It's unclear which faction the Humvee belonged to. Both ISIS and the Syrian regime have Humvees. ISIS captured their Humvees primarily during the battle of Mosul, but have captured others throughout the war in Iraq. The Syrian regime received theirs from Iraqi militia units that crossed the border to assist the Assad regime. The video claims that one soldier was killed during the attack. 

My Comment:

I don't know about you, but this video made me rather angry. What is the point of supplying people with weapons if they are just going to be captured by the enemy? Both our Humvees and our TOW missiles are being used by groups that are enemies of the United States. ISIS has captured hundreds of Humvees and have been using them since they captured Mosul. Indeed, they make the perfect platform for car bombs. Their heavy armor makes them much more resistant to enemy fire which makes them very hard to stop. 

The most disgusting thing is the fact that these TOW missiles have made their way into the hands of al-Nusra. We have been at war with al-Qaeda for almost 15 years now, and there is no reason whatsoever that they should have access to these weapons. Our president knows that the Free Syrian Army often works with al-Nusra. He also knows that al-Nusra has taken weapons from militia units we have supplied in the past. Both of those things form a very strong argument against supplying weapons to the Free Syrian Army. We should not have given such powerful weapons to a group of people that works so closely with al-Nusra. But our president did so anyways. 

The fact that we have lost millions of dollars of military equipment in Iraq because the Iraqi Army collapsed is a national shame. The fact that we sent weapons to people so we could blow up all that military equipment is a joke. The fact that the second wave of weapons to destroy the first wave has ended up in the hands of a 2nd group of enemy terrorists just becomes a parody of itself. 

So what happens now? Well, ISIS will continue to use the captured Humvees and al-Nusra will continue to use these TOW missiles. I think there is also a very good chance of ISIS capturing TOW missiles as well. Either from defections from the FSA or because they managed to wipe out a unit that had them. 

That could be a major problem for the United States if we ever do end up deploying major forces to Syria or Iraq. That's a real possibility in the next couple of years. If there is a major terrorist attack that hits the US directly, Obama will be pressured to act, and our next president may be much more interested in attacking ISIS then Obama is. Though our armor is more resistant to missile strikes then the equipment that Assad has, there is still a strong possibility that these weapons could cause casualties if we go back to Iraq or Syria. Obviously, TOW missiles are enough to destroy a Humvee, and I am guessing most of our trucks and light armor would be vulnerable as well. Even our main battle tanks could at least be disabled by a missile strike like the one in the video. 

Of course, the whole thing is a colossal waste of money. We spent millions, if not billions of dollars, equipping the Iraqi Army with these weapons, only for them to throw down their arms and flee. We are also spending millions on training and equipping Syrian rebels. Many of those groups were either destroyed during the war, leaving their weapons to be captured, or gave their weapons to other groups like al-Nusra. Now that these weapons have spread, we are spending millions more to direct airstrikes to destroy them. What a total and complete waste. Just goes to show that our policy in the Middle East makes zero sense...     

France selling two Mistral class carriers to Egypt instead of Russia. CNN

A Mistral class helicopter carrier. CNN/AFP/Getty.

France is going to sell the two Mistral class helicopter carriers, originally contracted to Russia, to Egypt instead. CNN. The former contract with Russia, worth $1.3 billion, fell apart after Russia's actions in Ukraine. The Mistrals are powerful helicopter carriers with room for up to six landing pads, 24 helicopters and up to 500 troops. Egypt is getting a better deal then the Russians would have and are only being charged $1 billion. France will also provide training for the Egyptian sailors who will crew the vessels. Egypt doesn't really have a pressing need for the carriers but they will be useful in the fight against ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula. They will also strengthen ties between the two countries. Russia will be fully reimbursed for any costs and any Russian equipment left on the ship will be returned. 

My Comment:

I always wondered who would end up with these ships. I was not suspecting Egypt to be the one that would buy them. I figured it would be Canada, the UK or maybe that France would just keep them. I am sure France could have found some way to get use out of them. Still, selling them is understandable. Selling to Egypt? I guess it makes sense. After all, they are still getting $1 billion for them. I can't think of any reason for France not to sell these ships to Egypt. 

As for Egypt, I am not so sure this was a wise idea. After all, they don't exactly have a lot of money right now. Their economy is going to take a hit as far as tourism is concerned, both due to the fact that ISIS is very active in the country and the fact that the Egyptian government screwed up and killed a bunch of innocent Mexican tourists recently. My question is how are they going to pay for these ships? My guess is that they will just use foreign military aid to pay for it...

So what will they use these ships for? The article mentioned that they could use them as a mobile base against ISIS in the Sinai. I think that is a real possibility. After all, ISIS has a recent history in Egypt of attacking bases and checkpoints. It would be useful to have one that should be immune to ISIS terrorist attacks. Even if ISIS had boats they would have a very hard time attacking this ship due to its helicopters and what I am assuming will be strong naval support. That's an obvious advantage for Egypt in a war that seems to be heating up.

But there is another possibility that I think CNN missed. Egypt is involved in the war in Yemen. Obviously, Saudi Arabia is the senior partner in the conflict, but Egypt is playing a role as well. Though the war could conceivably be over by the time these ships are up and running, in all likelihood it will still be going on. Their use would be obvious, especially since the Houthi's don't have much in the way of anti-air capability. 

These ships will also serve as a deterrent to Iran, who does not have any carrier capability at all. Sure it won't be a huge deterrent as these ships are less aircraft carriers and more helicopter and troop ships but it is better then nothing. Iran is positioning itself to be the leader of the Muslim world and the Sunni countries in the Gulf are understandably upset at the prospect. This is part of a larger military buildup to counter Iranian ambitions. Egypt isn't the only country in the region that is buying weapons, and it would not have been surprising if Saudi Arabia, or one of the smaller Arab nations had bought these ships instead.

As for Russia I never really understood the argument for not letting them have this ships. After all they were willing to pay for it. Sure they were involved in the war in Ukraine but I never thought they should be punished for it. At least not this way. These carriers would not have played a role in the war there so there isn't much of a reason to end this sale other then pure spite. But that seems to be the West's policy towards Russia right now anyways. Pure spite... 

The new Army pistol may use hollow point ammunition. Washington Post.

A soldier fires a M9 pistol at a firing range. Lealan Butler/Washington Post

The newest requirement for the Army's replacement for the venerable M9 pistol is the ability to use hollow point rounds. Washington Post. The pistol, tentatively named the XM-17 will have several upgrades to the old M9 pistol including the ability to add accessories and adjust to different hand sizes. But the change to hollow point and fragmenting rounds is a major departure since in the past most military firearms have used full metal jacketed or ball rounds. Both hollow points and fragmentation rounds are considered more deadly and effective then ball ammo because they break apart on impact, which causes significantly more damage. However, the Hague convention of 1899 bans hollow point rounds in war, though the U.S. never signed it, and the Hague convention of 1907, which the U.S. did sign, bans any weapon that tends to cause undue suffering. Until now, the Untied States has abided by the 1907 convention, only using hollow point rounds in anti-terror missions. 

My Comment:

This is fairly old news, the article was from last month, but I wanted to talk about it anyways. The Army's new pistol has been on my radar for quite some time and I meant to write something up when I first saw the article... but I forgot. Oh well, better late then never.

I'm not too surprised that the Army is moving in this direction. I have heard a lot of stories out of both Afghanistan and Iraq of soldiers having to rely on their M9's for close combat and most of what I heard is not good. The problem is that the gun just does not have the stopping power needed in a combat situation. And the cause is the 9x19mm parabellum round. The ball ammo for that gun just isn't powerful enough to put someone down right away. Though 9mm is used by millions of cops and civilians for self defense, none of them use the ball rounds. They all use hollow points because if you don't you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Add in the fact that the M9 can't add accessories and you can understand why they want to upgrade their pistols. 

Hollow points have other advantages as well. Hollow points tend to not over penetrate the way ball ammo does. That's not a huge concern with a round as small as a 9mm but even then, ball ammo can over penetrate and hit something you don't want to hit. For example, if you are in a close combat situation you can shoot through your target and hit an innocent civilian or have a bullet go through a wall. Those situations are rare and soldiers, police and civilians are trained to watch out for over penetration, but even so, it could save lives. And given how much of our engagements have been in close range combat during the Iraq war, I can see why over pentration could be a concern.

There is one huge disadvantage to using hollow points though. They are defeated by body armor the much greater extent then ball ammo is. Which is a major factor in why you don't see the military using them in rifles. For a 9mm round even a typical Kevlar vest will protect you from a hollow point while military spec plate armor will laugh off the round. Not that 9mm should be used against body armor in all but the most desperate cases, but a desperation attack with ball ammo would have a better chance of penetrating (almost zero) then hollow points would (zero). I don't know how many of our current enemies use body armor regularly but I am guessing that it is easily available. Still, the situation seems so unlikely that it probably wouldn't come up that often. 

As for the legality of the round, it seems insane to me that a round that is regularly used for self defense and police work could ever  be illegal for war. If the situation calls for hollow point or frag rounds, then that is what should be used. And if some 100 year old agreement says that it's unethical then who cares? I don't see hollow points being any more cruel then any other round. Who knows if the international community will think though.

The whole argument reminds me of the debates over weapons like cluster bombs, napalm, white phosphorous and land mines. People think all of those weapons are either cruel or cause secondary problems. But if they end the war quicker, then why not use them? It's better to kill 10,000 people in cruel ways if it ends the war and you don't have to end up killing 1,000,000 with "humane" weapons. I don't think hollow points reach quite that level of usefulness but the advantages are obvious and they could save lives. At the very least if the XM-17 does end up using hollow points then our soldiers will have a weapon with stopping power. 

Of course they could bypass the whole argument and go back to .45 like the old Colt had, but I don't see that happening due to NATO treaty regulations... 

Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking say that military AI could be a huge threat. The Independent.

A South Korean sentry bot. The Independent/Getty.

Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and one thousand other robotics researchers have called for ban on military artificial intelligence. The Independent. The open letter criticizes the development of autonomous weapons that can kill without human input. An example would be the "next step" of drone technology, a drone that can kill targets on its own based on its programming without the need of an operator. Such advancements in technology could be developed in as few as ten years. The use of such technology would reduce the risks of warfare and could make war more common. South Korea has already developed sentry drones that are sophisticated enough to track and target humans, but still need a human to fire their weapons. There is also concern that AI based weapons could tarnish the image of more legitimate AI research. It is suspected that AI development could lead to a global arms race and the technology could even spread to terrorists and third world dictators. 

My Comment:

The open letter can be found here. 

What's my take on it? I'm reminded of an H.P Lovecraft story, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. It's about an evil sorcerer that likes to resurrect dead people. The sorcerer gets some really good advice that has always stuck with me. "Never call up what you can't put down". The sorcerer, being an evil jerk, doesn't listen to that advice and dies after summoning someone or something he really should not have... twice. Needless to say there are some pretty obvious parallels with robotic arms. It's never a good idea to give weapons to something you don't fully control.

I think the objections to AI weapons are fairly sound. The military applications are obvious and any breakthrough in AI tech is unlikely to stay in one country. The idea of something like ISIS having access to drones that can kill anyone who they don't like is pretty terrifying.  Not that the U.S. government having the same tech is all that more reassuring, but the potential for abuse is there. Even if nothing ever goes wrong with this technology, it's still scary that a robot can decide who lives and who dies. 

But what happens if it doesn't go right? The idea of an autonomous drone that goes off on its own mission is not a reassuring one. And there will always be problems with this kind of technology. Glitches and malfunctions happen all the time with our current technology, so there is no reason to not suspect it with military AI tech as well. A rouge AI could do some serious damage and could even provoke a war that nobody wanted to start. 

Let's have a little hypothetical scenario. 10 years after this technology is created, the United States sends an automatons drone over whatever hot spot we are involved in at that point. Perhaps an anti-piracy mission near sea lanes that the Chinese happen to have a ship in? And, for whatever reason, the AI drone decides that instead of hunting pirates, it wants to hunt a Chinese destroyer. It fires a missile, destroying the ship and killing 50 sailors. China is pissed and sends a retaliatory strike against U.S. vessels operating in the area. Keep going like that and you get World War III, just because a robot made a mistake. It begins with a glitch in a drone and ends in a mushroom cloud. 

But that is pretty much the best case scenario. As bad as an accidental nuclear war would be, humanity would probably survive in some fashion. But unfriendly AI could be an existential threat to humanity itself. Basic drones and sentry bots aren't much of a global threat, except for the above scenario where they start a massive war. However, it is possible that much more sophisticated AI could be developed that could take over these drones or just play havoc on human civilization. If AI researchers develop an AI that is smarter then any human, and has some way to interact with the environment, then we could be out-competed as a species. In theory this could be the end of all of us.

Sounds like a sci fi scenario, right? We have heard this story before in countless stories, movies and video games, so why should we take it seriously? Well a lot of people a lot smarter then me think the threat is real and it is at least worth talking about. Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking aren't exactly idiots. Nipping the problem in the bud and leaving AI research in the hands of civilian researchers might be a good idea. Either way, letting human level or better AI have access to weaponry just seems like a terrible idea. I'm not even a fan of letting them have access to the internet. There is just so much risk involved.

Such a threat is quite a ways off but I'm in favor of keeping the human element in warfare for quite some time. The last thing earth needs is a robot rebellion, or an unfriendly AI scenario. Unfortunately, the temptation is huge to develop this technology.    

I haven't talked about why anyone would want AI weapons like this. For one, it should greatly limit casualties on your side. In theory, it could reduce civilian casualties as well, as the AI should be smart enough to determine if something is a threat or not. A robotic drone could operate for days, weeks, months or even years without needing to rest, assuming it could stay fueled, giving 24/7/365 coverage. And AI could react quicker to any threat then even the most gifted or talented human ever could. 

Of course those obvious benefits are also the most obvious threat. What do you do if your drone fleet suddenly decides you are the threat? Could you even stop them? And what if a terrorist hacks the drones to change its targeting parameters? These are the questions that need bulletproof answers before we should even consider using these kinds of weapons... 

Russia has cleared their new anti-aircraft missiles for export, but isn't saying who is buying them. Business Insider.

A 9K38 Verba MANPADS. Business Insider. 

Russia has cleared their latest surface to air missile for export, but they are not revealing who the customers are. Business Insider. The 9K38 Verba is a man portable a defense system (MANPADS) designed to shoot down airplanes. The Verba may very well be the most advanced and deadly MANPADS ever developed. The targeting for the warhead has three different optical seekers on the ultraviolet, infrared and near infrared spectrum, which greatly increases the missiles targeting and accuracy. The system constantly switches between the three modes which makes countermeasures much less effective. With such an effective weapon system their is concern about who the Russians are selling to. If the weapons would fall into the wrong hands they would make an excellent terrorist weapon, and would effectively counter low flying aircraft and drones, with little in the way of training. 

My Comment:

It's important not to understate how dangerous these weapons are. MANPADS are the terrorists dream weapon to take down commercial airplanes. They are fairly idiot proof as well. I'm confident that I could probably use one of these weapons with very little in the way of training. All you need to do is figure out how to activate it, aim at your target and figure out to shoot. That's true for most less complicated weapons systems, but most weapon systems don't let you shoot down a plane.

And the threat is huge. All you need is a launcher and a good location to target and someone willing to shoot and you can take out an airliner. Though a large airplane might be able to survive a hit from a shoulder launched missile, I wouldn't want to be on that plane if it happened. A smaller plane would probably stand no chance, especially considering a civilian pilot would not be expecting an attack. 

The Verba could be a game changer in warfare as well. These missiles can't reach high flying jets and drones, and probably can't defeat stealth, but any ground support craft, attack or transport helicopters or low flying drones could be vulnerable. That's true for any MANPADS system, but the fact that the 9K38's are resistant to countermeasures might be a game changer. We depend on flares and chaff to protect our planes, and it seems like this system can cut through that. This is a huge threat to U.S. military doctrine because we are dependent on close air support and helicopter support for our combat operations. These missiles aren't a "hard counter" by any means, but they are a major threat to U.S. forces. 

Which is why it is important to know where these MANPADS are going. Russia isn't saying, but someone has to be buying these missiles. My hope is that they are selling them to stable countries with little terrorist activity. Then there is almost no chance of proliferation.  

But what if they decide to sell to Iran? And then Iran gives these missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen? Or what if they decide to give them to the Syrian regime? Or what if one of the more stable countries they sell too suddenly becomes unstable? Then you have the perfect terrorist weapon just waiting for someone bad to pick them up.

Of course MANPADS are nothing new, this is just the new and improved version. How come we haven't seen a terrorist attack using them recently? For one thing, controlling MANPADS is a major goal for the various intelligence agencies. Indeed, there has been more then a little speculation that the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi had a CIA outpost there which had the mission of tracking down these weapons. That operation was probably disrupted by the attack there, but I doubt the efforts to clamp down on these weapons has ended. 

It's clear that MANPADS have fallen into the wrong hands already. Al-Nusra and ISIS have both been spotted firing the weapons. Why haven't they used them for terrorism? Because they need them for air defense. Air power is devastating and the psychological impact of being able to fight back alone makes them worthwhile. As devastating as a MANPADS terrorist attack would be, it doesn't outweigh the morale boost you get from shooting down an enemy helicopter. 

Still, I'd feel a bit better about things if I knew where these Verbas were heading too. I'm hoping that Russia is smart enough to only sell it to people who aren't likely to lose them to terrorist organizations. If they aren't then the threat MANPADS present will be even larger. 

The Untied States has given Lebanon 25 million dollars worth of weapons to fight Islamic extremists. Yahoo/AP

Artillery being delivered from the ship holding $25 million worth of weapons. Yahoo/AP

$25 million worth of weapons and ammunition have arrived in Lebanon from the United States, for use in the fight against Islamic militants. Yahoo/AP. 70 M198 howitzers along with over 26 million shells were among the weapons delivered. The American assistance comes after several incursions from the Syrian border from both the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front and forces from the Islamic State. In August, fighters from both groups captured a couple dozen Lebanese soldiers, and still hold around 20. Lebanon is now the fifth largest recipient of American aid with over $100 million worth of weapons in the past year and $1 billion in the past 8 years. Saudi Arabia is also pledging to provide $3 billion worth of weapons, bought from the French, as well. Lebanon's military is seen as an unifying force and is made up of Christians, Druze and both Sunni and Shia Muslims. 

My Comment:

Lebanon has long been a country that has been surrounded by threats. They pulled themselves out of a long civil war, and several minor wars with Israel, only to be threatened by the utter chaos that is Syria right now. It is not surprising that they are looking for new weapons, and America is only too happy to provide. ISIS and the Al-Nusra front have been content to conduct small scale raids and attacks but have not had a major campaign in Lebanon. Given the success both groups are having in Syria and the relative weakness of both the Syrian government and the Free Syrian Army, it is possible that this will change. If and when that happens Lebanon needs to be prepared, and these weapons will go a long way to help them. 

Given how chaotic the region is, it is no surprise that there are tons of weapons flowing into the Middle East right now. America is a major player in the arms trade, and in many cases they are just giving these weapons away. That is of course a double edged sword. ISIS managed to capture huge amounts of tanks, humvees, artillery, guns and ammunition from the Iraqi army. This could happen again in Lebanon or any of the other states in the region, should ISIS, or any other Islamic extremist group, manage to have success in the region. 

Still, if Lebanon can use these weapons effectively none of that should happen. Lebanon's army is much better then Iraq's and the country is much less divided then Iraq's was and is. Overall, giving these weapons to Lebanon is probably a good thing, but I would much rather have them actually pay for these weapons then have them just get them for free. Still, as far as tax dollars go, it could be spent on worse things. Fighting Islamic extremism is a just cause, but if we have to do it, why do it for free? 

Obama mulls sending arms to Ukraine as rebels try and raise troops. Yahoo/AFP

Rebels patrol the streets of Makiivka. Yahoo/AFP. 

President Obama is considering sending lethal aid to Ukraine as peace talks fall apart and fighting intensifies. Yahoo/AFP. NATO already provides non-lethal aid, such as medical supplies and body armor, but giving arms to Ukraine would be a major escalation. Western arms would counter the troops and weapons that Russia is accused of sending to the region. Peace talks in Minsk failed largely because of stubbornness from pro-Russian rebels, who do not want to give up their weapons. The rebels blame Ukraine for failing to halt attacks. Meanwhile, the leader of the Donetsk republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, claimed that the rebels were going to raise 100,000 fresh troops to join the offensive against Ukraine. 

My Comment:

I am not in favor of sending lethal aid to Ukraine. Frankly Ukraine is not worth much of anything to the United States. Ukraine isn't worth much of anything to America. Sure the rest of NATO wants them in the organization but for America itself our interests do not include going to war with Russia. Of course war isn't inevitable if we do send weapons but I think that is a red line that Putin does not want us to cross. In short, having Russian soldiers (and let's face it, there are Russians fighting in this war) get killed by American provided arms would be a slap in the face to Russia. I don't mind giving Russia a good slap in the face once in awhile but not over Ukraine. 

This whole conflict is very frustrating because none of it was necessary and there aren't any good guys. After overthrowing the government Ukraine, the new government passed a lot of discriminatory laws against Russian speakers and that caused the conflict to flare up. Neither side has a monopoly on being jerks. Both sides have caused a huge amount of civilian casualties. This isn't a black and white conflict, it's grey vs gray. Neither side is entirely right but neither is completely wrong either. 

As for Zakharchenko's plan to raise 100,000 new troops, I say good luck with that. I am guessing that he has the raw manpower to do so but how many of them are trained and ready to fight? Will they be draftees or volunteers? Will it be old men and young boys? Don't get me wrong, I still think the rebels are probably going to win out, due to Ukraine's military and economic weakness. I just don't see how Donetsk is going to raise a 100,000 man strong army at this point in the war. 

Also, this article mentioned the battle for Debaltseve. Should the rebels pinch off Ukrainian forces in the city that could be a huge victory for the rebels and a disaster for Ukraine. Keep an eye on the battle and if the rebels pull it off, expect me to post something about it. 

The F-35 can not even fire its main gun. The Daily Beast.

The F-35 may look cool but looking cool isn't enough. The Daily Beast/Reuters

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not even be able to fire its gun until 2019, four years after it comes into service. The Daily Beast. The $400 billion dollar fighter is due to start service with the Marines this year and the Air Force next year. The issue is a software problem. Without an upgrade the 25mm cannon cannot fire. And even if it could it barely carries any ammunition. It has a capacity of only 180 rounds. The fighter will have to rely on only two AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles to defend itself and can carry only two bombs as well. The fighter is due to replace a huge number of airplanes, including the venerable Harrier jumpjets and A-10 Lighting II/Warthog as well as the more modern F-16 and F-18. The lack of an effective gun is a major criticism of the jet as a major role will be to support troops under fire. Guns are more effective in "danger close" situations where the enemy is right next to friendly troops. The F-35 will also be at a huge disadvantage in dogfights due to a lack of weapons. 

My Comment:

Unbelievable. The F-35 has come under righteous criticism for being a huge waste of taxpayer money before but this is just crazy. Not having a main gun is a huge issue for a fighter that may be expected to dogfight. The Air Force tried having a gunless fighter jet back in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom II had no gun and when it got into battles over North Vietnam pilots often found themselves in close range dogfights with no real way to hurt their enemies since their missiles were mostly useful at long range. Eventually they were modified to carry gunpods. If the F-4 Phantom II had problems with its nine hardpoints and large numbers of missiles, how will the F-35 fare with only two? 

Eventually the F-35 will get its gun. I hope. But the fighter is still a huge waste of money and is a classic case of trying to do too much. The F-22 is a better dogfighter. The A-10 is a better air support and tank killer. The F-16 and F-18 are probably better dogfighters too and can carry more bombs and missiles. The only real advantage the F-35 has is stealth, an advantage that the Chinese are working very hard to negate. Trying to be a jack of all trades is a very bad idea for a fighter jet. Specialist fighters, bombers and air support planes are the way to go.

Unfortunately that won't happen. The F-35 is a huge pork barrel project, one that even transcends international borders. The F-35 has equipment and components spread across hundreds of congressional districts and even in international areas as well. No congressperson in any of these districts is going to stand up and say "hey, the F-35 isn't really all that good". To do so would be political suicide since it would cost jobs. Hopefully, our troops don't suffer too much due to classic Washington politics. 

Kalashnikov Concern, producer of the famous AK-47 and other rifles, is having trouble dealing with U.S. sanctions. BBC

Kalashnikov Concern is having trouble finding buyers for its rifles. -BBC

The Russian company Kalashnikov Concern, maker of the famous AK-47 family of rifles, is having trouble finding buyers for its rifles due to U.S. sanctions. BBC. The company, which had secured a huge contract of 200,000 rifles for the United States, lost its chance to sell those rifles after President Obama imposed sanctions on it and seven other Russian companies. The sanctions are in response to the Russian governments actions in Ukraine. Losing the U.S. market was not the only problem as EU sanctions are harming efforts to modernize production at the Izhevsk plant. These problems are compounded as former Soviet Bloc nations are also producing AK weapons. Due to these concerns the firm is trying to secure a contract with the Russian government to supply the government with a new rifle, the AK-12. Still, the heads of the company are hoping that the sanctions are lifted soon. 

My Comment:

I'm hoping that Kalashnikov can survive. If for no other reason then for the great historical importance of the AK-47 family of rifles. The have been involved in dozens of major wars and have proven themselves to be one of the most ubiquitous rifles of the 20th and 21st centuries. Like the Mosin-Nagant before it, it's fought on both sides of practically every war in recent history. It's also an acceptable home defense weapon as well. In the great AR-15 vs AK-47 debate my answer was always... BOTH! Too bad I can't really afford either... 

As for the sanctions, I don't see them doing much to convince Putin to stop his adventure in Ukraine. He has some fairly serious strategic and tactical concerns in the nation and I doubt he will give it up to save Kalashnikov. If the choice is between an arms manufacturer and Russia's historical interest in keeping Ukraine in its sphere of control, Ukraine is going to win every time. He may very well choose Kalashnikov Concern's AK-12 as a new rifle for the Russian military, but that seems somewhat unlikely. From what I understand Russia still has thousands of AK-74's and doesn't really need a new rifle. 

Of course I think that gun control was a major factor in passing these sanctions in the first place. I won't say it was the only reason but at the very least the Obama administration considered the ban a great way to stop a particularly hated rifle from being sold. Even if it was a fringe benefit, from their perspective, it still is terrible. Thousands of Americans own AK rifles and thousands more want new ones but due to the sanctions they can't get them. But as long as both Obama and Putin are in office I don't see these sanctions going away. Even if U.S./Russian relations start to thaw there is almost no chance of Obama lifting these sanctions, just because he hates guns. Hopefully things will change in 2016 when he is out of office...  

Japan is considering arms exports in defiance of their pacifist past. Yahoo/Reuters.

Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe. Yahoo/Reuters

Japan is considering creating a financing arm to support defense industries that want to export arms to other countries. Yahoo/Reuters. The new financing arm will facilitate and fund arms sales as well as collaborative efforts between Japan and other countries. Some of the weapons systems that could be sold include submarines to Australia, and patrol seaplanes to India. Japan's defense industry is highly fractured and does not take action on defense issues without permission from the government. 

My Comment:

Much like my last post about Germany, another supposedly pacifist country, Japan is getting involved in the arms trade. Of course the article points out that none of this is set in stone but my guess is that it is legit. Arms sales have some very obvious benefits for Japan. First they obviously help the economy. Second it strengthens Japan's defense industry which is useful if you are expecting war. Third, it strengthens international relationships with countries that may end up as allies.

So there are some obvious reasons for Japan to get involved in the international arms trade. But I doubt they would be doing this if China wasn't such a huge threat to Japan. China has been threatening all of its neighbors and Japan has a rather large maritime dispute with them over the Senkaku islands. Everyone in that part of the world is expecting war, which explains why Japan is moving away from their pacifist past. Of course any war between Japan and China would be a worldwide disaster so hopeful nothing comes from it. 

Germany had a secret arms deal with the Kurdish Peshmerga. War is Boring

A Milan anti-tank author. War is Boring/Till Rimmele

Germany has secretly, and without approval of their Parliament, given hundreds of rifles, machine guns and anti-tank weapons to the Iraqi Kurds. -War is Boring. The weapons include 8000 G36 rifles and 200 Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapons. In addition they are giving the Peshmerga 30 Milan anti-tank launcher systems, which are highly sophisticated and effective against enemy armor. Trainers traveled to Iraq to train the Kurds on the weapons. The arms deal is politically controversial because Germany has a policy against selling weapons to states involved in war. Germany got around this restriction by simply giving the arms to the Kurds. 

My Comment:

Yet another excellent report by War is Boring. They are a great website and I highly recommend reading them. They tend to cover issues that the mainstream media ignores and they do it with amazing pictures and great style. 

As for the article itself, it isn't too surprising that Germany is doing this. They have a huge motivation to fight ISIS and help the Kurds. All of Europe is under threat from ISIS so giving the Kurds some surplus arms is a good idea. The question is if the German people will accept it. I have to admit, I don't know enough about the domestic politics of Germany to know for sure if the public will go along with these sales. If I was in their position I would be in favor of these sales but I'd be upset that they were secret about it. Of course it isn't like my country hasn't done clandestine arms sales...

For the Kurds this will be a huge boon. Prior to this they did not really have any way to deal with heavy tanks that ISIS has captured. ISIS may still have some M1 Abrams tanks and they shrug off RPG's like they are nothing. I'm assuming that the Milan missiles could do more damage.

And just for fun here is a video of a Milan being fired. 

France postpones delivery of aircraft carrier to Russia. Reuters.

The Mistral class aircraft carrier Vladivostok. -Reuters

France has suspended delivery of the first Mistral class helicopter carrier to Russia. -Reuters. France cites Russia's involvement in the Ukraine civil war as the reason the delivery has been delayed. Russia is understandably upset at the decision and may file claims against France for non-delivery. Other European countries have put massive pressure on France to cancel the deal, which is worth more then $1.58 billion. The suspension of the contract may have an impact on other French arms exports.

My Comment:

Calling this ship an aircraft carrier is a bit of an exaggeration since it can't handle fixed wing jets. It is a helicopter carrier and command and control ship. It can not project power like an actual carrier and its role will be limited to support and humanitarian missions. Still France refusing to deliver this ship is a huge problem for Russia. It will also hurt France. $1.58 billion is a lot of money to lose over politics. 

As for the argument that it is unethical to sell to Russia when they are so involved in Ukraine, I don't buy it. It would be one thing if France was selling deadly weapons or larger warships, but this is just a helicopter carrier. Plus the whole Ukraine issue shouldn't trump a major arms contract. I know if I was going to buy weapons from France I'd be reconsidering it right now. 

The fight to save the A-10 continues. Yahoo/Reuters

Yahoo/Reuters.

Senator John McCain is leading the fight in congress to prevent the Pentagon from retiring the venerable A-10 Thunderbolt II, more commonly known as the Warthog. Yahoo/Reuters.  The Pentagon wants to cut the strike plane to save $3.7 billion in operating and maintenance costs as well as $500 million in upgrades. Several Senators, including McCain, want to save the aircraft due to how effective it is in combat. The A-10 is armed with a massive and effective 30mm cannon, missiles, and bombs and is capable of long flights on station. The aircraft is also extremely durable. The aircraft is extremely popular among ground troops due to the amount of firepower it can deliver. The Pentagon has offered to retire only some squadrons but this plan was also rejected by Republican senators. The budget shortfall that cutting the A-10 is supposed to fix is due to Sequestration.

My Comment:

I have to admit some bias here, I love the A-10. It's my second favorite American aircraft right after the F-86 Saber. I've had the pleasure of seeing them in flight a few times and up close at an airshow. As much as people think they are ugly, I think they are awesome. And they are a frighteningly effective aircraft as well. I recently read a book about the A-10 in the first Gulf War. It's called Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War, and it was a great look at how it was a key reason why we had such an easy time in that war. I recommend it if you are interested in military history or aviation. 

I'm obviously happy about this move. One of the good things about the Republicans gaining the senate is that they will most likely be able to save this airplane. They may be able to reverse the Sequester or force the Pentagon to cut something else. I know that other aircraft can take the A-10's roles. The F-15/16/35 can do air support, helicopter aviation can destroy tanks and drones can do everything, but none of them can do it as well as the A-10. 

 And the A-10 can have a huge effect on morale, both for our soldiers on the ground and for the enemy. Just look at this and tell me that it wouldn't scare you half to death if it was directed at you. And tell me our soldiers wouldn't be happy to see this coming down on our enemies. 

That's just what the main gun can do.

Half a billion dollars in waste. U.S. Government scraps fleet of aircraft. War is Boring

One of the scrapped G-222's. War is Boring

The United States is scrapping a fleet of 20 G-222 transport planes, worth almost $500 million, for a measly $32,000. -War is Boring. The fleet of transports was a gift to Afghanistan's Air Force, who prove incapable of operating the planes. Watchdog groups and internal investigators had watched the planes for years hoping that some good use would be made of them. Unfortunately, they only flew 234 hours over 4 years, much less then the projected 4500. The program was expensive as well, costing $200 million in maintenance per year. The planes had sat idle for years and it is unclear if they were even flight worthy before they were scrapped.   

My Comment:

It's things like this that make our defense budget balloon out of control. We gave a fleet of planes that the Afghans couldn't use, couldn't maintain and couldn't afford and when they sat for years we just scrapped them. They should have never been given to Afghanistan in the first place. Why would they need a fleet of heavy airlift craft? They barely have an air force! 

And the worst part is that they scrapped the planes for hardly any money. $32,000 is a rounding error for the U.S. government. Surely we could have used these planes for something? If not, could we have sold them to another government? Put them in the boneyard for spare parts? Even using them as targeting drones would have been more efficient. As it stands now that is $500 million dollars worth of tax payer money flushed down the toilet. I don't mind paying for the military to buy planes, but only if they actually use them!

Part of me thinks that there is more to this story then we are being told. If the government paid $500 million for these planes, then some plane manufacture was laughing all the way to the bank. I'd be willing to bet that this has way more to do with government corruption and the utter sleaze that is the defense procurement industry then any government incompetence. Still, the difference between incompetence and corruption doesn't matter when the outcome is the same. 

Obama orders review of military surplus being given to cops. Yahoo/Reuters

Riot police in Ferguson armed with some decent equipment. Yahoo/Reuters

Obama has ordered a review into the federal program that sends money to police departments to buy military hardware. Yahoo/Reuters. The response comes after widespread outrage at the equipment to cops in Ferguson Missouri during the riots. The review will involve several federal agencies and will be overseen by the White House. The so called 1033 program has requirements for police to use their equipment and does not mandate training in things like crowd control. 

My Comment:

Talk about some selective outrage by the Obama administration and the public in general. Back when the Boston bombing/manhunt happened only a few people, mostly libertarians and anarchists, complained about pictures of heavily armed and armored cops pointing their weapons at civilians. When the Cliven Bundy standoff happened, even fewer complained and some liberal commentators called for the Obama administration to bomb the whole protest, either tongue in check or legitimately. If the police using military style equipment was ok then, why is not ok in Ferguson? I hate to bring race into it but if you look at the demographics of the protesters, they are for the most part in the demographics that support the Democratic Party. The Cliven Bundy protesters were almost exclusively not in those demographics. Once again, it's not about who is wrong or right, but which team is getting screwed over. 

As for my take on the militarization of police, I'm against it. I have no problem with cops having military style weapons because I believe everyone should be able to have them. I do have a problem when the cops have better guns then the general public. If we can't have fully automatic weapons then the cops shouldn't either. As for the body armor and MRAPs, these should be reserved for big city swat teams and not backwater towns with 4 cops. I don't see this review going that far, or doing much of anything really. Obama doesn't want demilitarized police. 

Obama is now selling arms directly to the Kurds. Yahoo/AP

Kurdish and American flags fly in front of Yazidi refugees. Yahoo/AP

Obama has reversed previous policy and has begun selling weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq. Yahoo/AP. Previously the administration would only sell to the Iraqi government directly, who would then send some of those arms to the Kurds. However, the recent surge of ISIS victories against the previously untouched Kurdish Peshmerga fighters has changed the administrations mind. ISIS had captured many U.S. heavy weapons systems in their summer offensive and these new weapons should help the Kurds fight back. Peshmerga fighters have already taken back two towns from ISIS due to help from American airstrikes. The move comes as Prime Minster Nuri al-Maliki's government faces internal strife and a possible coup as the new President, Fouad Massoum, calls for his resignation. 

My Comment:

I first talked about this as a possibility here. I think it's clear that two out of the three original objections are off the table. Turkey and the Iraq government are way more scared off ISIS then they are of an independent Kurdistan. I still worry about these weapons falling into the hands of ISIS, but if we have to sell weapons to anyone in Iraq it probably should be the Peshmerga. They are the best fighting force in the country right now. I heard another article say that they have the bravery to fight but not the bullets. This should change things for them. 

As for Maliki, I predicted this would happen. His political career is already over, he just doesn't realize it. I've been hearing rumors that he has stationed troops in Bagdhad to protect himself. If he does want to go down fighting it would be the worst possible thing to do for himself, Iraq, and the world in general. The last thing Iraq needs is a second civil war while the first one is going on. The incompetence here is just amazing. When your country is burning because a horde of fundamentalist lunatics are killing everyone they see you don't argue about politics. You put that aside and weather the storm. Too bad nobody told Maliki this...  

Arm the Kurds? Peshmerga fighters want U.S. weapons. -AP

Peshmerga fighters in Iraq. -AP

Kurdish fighters are desperate for U.S. weapons. -AP. The United States has always been wary of selling weapons to the Kurds, but the rise of ISIS may change things. Already, the U.S. has provided advisers and some limited air strikes but the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters want arms to counter the massive stockpiles of U.S. provided Iraqi arms that ISIS captured over the summer. Some in the U.S. government are calling for arms to be sold directly to the Kurds.

My Comment:

There is a good argument for selling weapons to the Kurds. They are more competent then the Iraqi Security Forces (which isn't saying much) and they at least know how to fight. But there are three reasons this might not happen:

1. Iraq itself might not like it. They don't want a completely independent Kurdistan. Giving them tons of weapons gives them a chance to resit central authority which is not what Iraq wants. 

2. Turkey might have a problem with it as well. They have had problems with their own Kurdish minority so having a heavily armed army on their border might make them nervous. (I'm all for this, I have a very low opinion of the Turkish government).

3. The Peshmerga fighters might lose or abandon these weapons to ISIS. That is what happened to the Iraqi Security Forces and it helped to make ISIS into a formidable fighting force. The U.S. might want to avoid throwing good money after bad.

My take is sell some small arms, body armor and other small weapons systems but keep the heavy weapons at home. The fighters need ammo and guns to fight but I'm not comfortable with the prospect of ISIS capturing even more western weapons. 

5,000 Hellfire missiles for Iraq. -CNN

The United States has approved an order for $700 million in military supplies for Iraq, including 5,000 Hellfire missiles. -CNN The air to ground missiles can be fired from helicopters and are effective anti-tank and anti-personnel weapons. 780 of the missiles were delivered so far this year with 366 more due next month. The Iraqi government is desperate for these missiles for their fight against ISIS. Congress still has to approve the sale.

My Comment:
This seems like a bad idea for a lot of different reasons. The most obvious one is that I have zero confidence in the Iraqi Government and Military right now. Iraq has very limited air support capabilities. They have few helicopters and even fewer attack fighters that are even capable of using these weapons. Even if they did they would have a limited effect on the battlefield. Hellfires did not turn the tide in Afghanistan against a determined Taliban enemy, and that was with the full might of America's military. Iraq's Air Force is tiny, and will have even less of an impact.

Also, there is a very good chance that these weapons could end up in the hands of ISIS. The Iraqi government has a very good chance of losing Baghdad and perhaps the whole country to ISIS. If that happens these weapons will be captured. Now I don't think ISIS would be able to field them in any way but they could sell them to third parties for use/reverse engineering.

I just had another thought. Rumors are that Iranian (or Russian) pilots are currently flying the SU-25's Iraq ordered from Russia. Should that be true, we could have Iranian pilots flying Russian planes shooting American missiles at European Muslim extremists. What an interesting world we live in.

Washington sells $11 billion worth of weapons to Qatar. -War is Boring

The signing of the deal. Defense Dept/War is Boring

America has signed an $11 billion weapons deal with the tiny Middle East kingdom of Qatar. -War is Boring The deal includes 24 Apache attack helicopters, 358 Patriot air defense missiles and 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles. This purchase follows a purchase in 2012 of even more weapons including billions on air defense systems. Qatar has a small population of natives, most of the countries 2 million people are foreign workers. This purchase is seen as both a deterrent to Iran and an effort to boost Qatar's internal security.

My Comment:

I'm guessing those weapons are more about internal security then Iran, at least for the Qataris. Qatar is a very segregated and stratified society with most of the oil wealth concentrated in a small group of very wealthy people. That combined with the fact that the majority of Qatar's people are not from the nation could spell disaster, especially considering the fact that there have been abuses in the past directed at the majority. How importing so many people into your country until you are a minority in your own homeland makes any sense at all is beyond me but Qatar seems determined to pull it off, and to do that they need the ability to put down any rebellions. These weapons should be a huge deterrence. 

Of course Washington isn't really concerned about the internal politics of Qatar, as long as it is an ally against Iran, they will look the other way. Plus they are making money on this deal, which is always a bonus. Should a war break out against Iran, and at this point it seems less likely, Qatar will play a major role, so this can also be seen as an investment for America. Should Obama ever decide to do something about ISIS in Syria and Iraq it might play a role as well.