Stryker/C-130 Pics

[robert arndt]

http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/stryker_C130.htm

Rob

[Tony Williams]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/stryker_C130.htm

I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Paul Austin]

"Tony Williams" wrote

> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?

By buying A400Ms?

Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130
compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech
remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
"electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA
kind of solutions.

[Nick Pedley]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tony Williams" wrote
>
> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
> By buying A400Ms?
>
> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)

The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor recipients
(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml

Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Nick

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Tony Williams" wrote
>
> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
> By buying A400Ms?
>
> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)

Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
Stryker?

sacrifices too much for C-130
> compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.

How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if
required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit
better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the
kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.

The MagicTech
> remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> army viable.

Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found
their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama,
Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous of
the LAV in Panama.

If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA
> kind of solutions.

That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I believe
you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor
deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide
additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of either
light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more*
survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large
void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that the
ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the
LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for.

Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked to
provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF raid
(sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you
prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from Strykers?
Kind of a no-brainer.

Brooks

[Tony Williams]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Tony Williams" wrote
>
> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
> By buying A400Ms?
>
> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130
> compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech
> remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA
> kind of solutions.


You surprise me. Somewhere I have an article providing detailed
comparisons between the C-130J, A400M and C-17, and IIRC the A400 is
about midway between the other two in both the dimensions and weights
of the loads which could be carried; in other words, substantially
better than the C130.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[JT]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Tony Williams" wrote
>
> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
> By buying A400Ms?
>
> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130
> compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech
> remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA
> kind of solutions.

They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
at its role.

-----JT-----

[Greg Hennessy]

On 18 Sep 2003 08:48:53 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

>
>You surprise me. Somewhere I have an article providing detailed
>comparisons between the C-130J, A400M and C-17, and IIRC the A400 is
>about midway between the other two in both the dimensions and weights
>of the loads which could be carried; in other words, substantially
>better than the C130.
>

The AN-70 is substantially better than the A400 and a lot cheaper.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Kevin Brooks]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Sep 2003 08:48:53 -0700, (Tony
> Williams) wrote:
>
> >
> >You surprise me. Somewhere I have an article providing detailed
> >comparisons between the C-130J, A400M and C-17, and IIRC the A400 is
> >about midway between the other two in both the dimensions and weights
> >of the loads which could be carried; in other words, substantially
> >better than the C130.
> >
>
> The AN-70 is substantially better than the A400 and a lot cheaper.

Yeah, it's so good the Russians are even backing out of that program
as fast as they can (if you had not heard, the Russian AF chief plans
to dump the AN-70). ISTR that it might be a decent aircraft if it had
reliable engines.

Brooks

>
>
> greg

[Kevin Brooks]

(JT) wrote in message >...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> > "Tony Williams" wrote
> >
> > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> >
> > By buying A400Ms?
> >
> > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130
> > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech
> > remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> > "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> > army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> > airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> > larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA
> > kind of solutions.
>
> They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
> further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
> lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
> armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
> With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
> areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
> active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
> at its role.

And what do you propose to send the troops into combat in until 2010
or later (realistic estimate of widespread fielding is more in the
2012-2015 timeframe last I heard), when FCS becomes operational?
Stryker is an *interim* solution--it has always been identified as
such (even the Stryker Brigade Combat Team was initially designated
the "Interim Brigade Combat Team"). The Army needs a deployable light
armored capability *now* to carry the load until FCS becomes
available.

Brooks

>
> -----JT-----

[Paul Austin]

"Nick Pedley" wrote
>
> "Paul Austin" wrote
> >
> > "Tony Williams" wrote
> >
> > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
carrying
> > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> >
> > By buying A400Ms?
> >
> > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
>
> The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor
recipients
> (one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
> https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml
>
> Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Yes it is when the obvious intent is a comic book/dick extender name
for an LAV.

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tony Williams" wrote
> >
> > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
carrying
> > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> >
> > By buying A400Ms?
> >
> > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
>
> Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
> Stryker?
>
> sacrifices too much for C-130
> > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.
>
> How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
> dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
> operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if
> required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit
> better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the
> kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.
>
> The MagicTech
> > remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> > "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
mounted
> > army viable.
>
> Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found
> their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama,
> Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous
of
> the LAV in Panama.

And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a
heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot more
than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems for
lack of water cooling on the hull).

>
> If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> > airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> > larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or
LTA
> > kind of solutions.
>
> That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I
believe
> you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor
> deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide
> additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of
either
> light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more*
> survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large
> void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that
the
> ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the
> LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for.
>
> Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked
to
> provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF
raid
> (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you
> prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from
Strykers?
> Kind of a no-brainer.

The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces augmented
by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in
advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech opponents.
What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces did
OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to
recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if the
opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that
defeating the US forces was pretty easy.

As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget
logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint
than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but the
remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the case,
then send the heavy mech units the same way

[Jonathan Stone]

In article >,
Nick Pedley > wrote:
[...]

>> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
>
>The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor recipients
>(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
>https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml
>
>Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Ay, mebbe so, but do they have an Ed Stryker to command 'em?
(shades of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson...)

[John Keeney]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tony Williams" wrote
> >
> > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> >
> > By buying A400Ms?
> >
> > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
>
> Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
> Stryker?
>
> sacrifices too much for C-130
> > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.
>
> How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
> dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
> operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if
> required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit
> better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the
> kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.

Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker
their opinion: "It tolls real nice."

[Greg Hennessy]

On 18 Sep 2003 15:59:48 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:


>Yeah, it's so good the Russians are even backing out of that program
>as fast as they can (if you had not heard, the Russian AF chief plans
>to dump the AN-70). ISTR that it might be a decent aircraft if it had
>reliable engines.
>

Compared to a eurozone camel designed to keep french aerospace workers in
subsidised employment at everyone elses expense, building something which
hasnt even left the drawing board yet, The an-70 is decidedly better.

It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[JT]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...

> >
> > They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
> > further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
> > lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
> > armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
> > With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
> > areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
> > active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
> > at its role.
>
> And what do you propose to send the troops into combat in until 2010
> or later (realistic estimate of widespread fielding is more in the
> 2012-2015 timeframe last I heard), when FCS becomes operational?
> Stryker is an *interim* solution--it has always been identified as
> such (even the Stryker Brigade Combat Team was initially designated
> the "Interim Brigade Combat Team"). The Army needs a deployable light
> armored capability *now* to carry the load until FCS becomes
> available.
>
> Brooks

I understand that this is an interim force...more of a reason why we
should stop pouring all this money for equipment that will only be
used for 8-10 years at most. If more funding went to the FCS the 2010
timeline may be more realistic. I have read reports that some
technologies are still a few years away but the FCS is intended to be
modular so as soon as those technologies are developed they will be
added to the system. Anyways, a baseline FCS will probably surpass the
Stryker/Piranha III design. I know warfare is rapidly changing (the
main reason why the US is going through these major changes with all
it's branches of the armed forces) but we could probably keep the
forces we currently have for a few more years until the FCS comes out.
To make matters worse there is still controversy as to just how
portable the Stryker is inside a C-130 and the level of required
protection has so far been dissapointing.

Basically my thought is why not save resources and instead of having
the small upgrade, just hold on for a few short years and upgrade our
current forces while concentrating more on the true leap that the FCS
will provide.

-----JT-----

[L'acrobat]

"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> (robert arndt) wrote in message
>...
> >
http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/stryker_C130.htm
>
> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?

IIRC they were talking about smaller tyres and remote controlled turrets (to
get it under the height requirement).

[L'acrobat]

"Jonathan Stone" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Nick Pedley > wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
> >
> >The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor
recipients
> >(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
> >https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml
> >
> >Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.
>
> Ay, mebbe so, but do they have an Ed Stryker to command 'em?
> (shades of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson...)

Thank god they didn't name it after Ted Stryker.

"You're wanted in the cockpit"

"The cockpit, what is it?"

"it's the little room up the front where the pilots sit, but thats not
important right now..."

[Kevin Brooks]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Sep 2003 15:59:48 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, it's so good the Russians are even backing out of that program
> >as fast as they can (if you had not heard, the Russian AF chief plans
> >to dump the AN-70). ISTR that it might be a decent aircraft if it had
> >reliable engines.
> >
>
> Compared to a eurozone camel designed to keep french aerospace workers in
> subsidised employment at everyone elses expense, building something which
> hasnt even left the drawing board yet, The an-70 is decidedly better.
>
> It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster.

No, it *was* flying last I knew, but then again it crashed, right? Is
it again flying?

Brooks

>
>
>
> greg

[Kevin Brooks]

(JT) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
>
> > >
> > > They should have cancelled the Stryker program and invest the money on
> > > further developing the FCS. With the right mix of technology, a viable
> > > lighweight option can be made. It will never offer the same level of
> > > armor protection as an M1A2 but that is not it's intended purpose.
> > > With new lightweight metals, composites and ceramics used in critical
> > > areas, combined with speed, manuverability, stealth features and
> > > active counter measures the FCS seems like it will be very effective
> > > at its role.
> >
> > And what do you propose to send the troops into combat in until 2010
> > or later (realistic estimate of widespread fielding is more in the
> > 2012-2015 timeframe last I heard), when FCS becomes operational?
> > Stryker is an *interim* solution--it has always been identified as
> > such (even the Stryker Brigade Combat Team was initially designated
> > the "Interim Brigade Combat Team"). The Army needs a deployable light
> > armored capability *now* to carry the load until FCS becomes
> > available.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> I understand that this is an interim force...more of a reason why we
> should stop pouring all this money for equipment that will only be
> used for 8-10 years at most.

I doubt that. When the AC is fully fielded with FCS (what, the 2017
timeframe?), those Strykers will then more than likely still be
serving with RC units.

If more funding went to the FCS the 2010
> timeline may be more realistic.

Not according to what I have read the past year or so in Defense News
and other outlets. The fact is that the Army has accelerated funding
for FCS; tossing more money at it now, while neglecting to provide a
*near term* system for the troops, would not apparently gain very much
(except to make Boeing and friends a bit more wealthy in that near
term).

I have read reports that some
> technologies are still a few years away but the FCS is intended to be
> modular so as soon as those technologies are developed they will be
> added to the system. Anyways, a baseline FCS will probably surpass the
> Stryker/Piranha III design. I know warfare is rapidly changing (the
> main reason why the US is going through these major changes with all
> it's branches of the armed forces) but we could probably keep the
> forces we currently have for a few more years until the FCS comes out.
> To make matters worse there is still controversy as to just how
> portable the Stryker is inside a C-130 and the level of required
> protection has so far been dissapointing.

Disappointing compared to *what*? The keval vest and helmet our
current early entry forces are generally limited to?! I doubt that.

>
> Basically my thought is why not save resources and instead of having
> the small upgrade, just hold on for a few short years and upgrade our
> current forces while concentrating more on the true leap that the FCS
> will provide.

Because wars don't follow the FCS delivery schedule, for one. And
second--there are a fair number of folks out there who are rather
dubious of FCS *ever* acheiving all of these capabilities you seem to
think they will have. I find it odd that you think that the engineers
who are designing Stryker (and yes, it has involved a *lot* of design
work, even though it is *based* upon LAV-3) were incapable of
developing a worthwhile system, but those that are working with FCS,
which is currently nothing more than ideas and paper, will hit a home
run.

Brooks

>
> -----JT-----

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tony Williams" wrote
> > >
> > > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> carrying
> > > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > >
> > > By buying A400Ms?
> > >
> > > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
> >
> > Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
> > Stryker?
> >
> > sacrifices too much for C-130
> > > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.
> >
> > How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
> > dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
> > operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if
> > required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit
> > better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the
> > kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.
> >
> > The MagicTech
> > > remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> > > "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
> mounted
> > > army viable.
> >
> > Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has found
> > their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama,
> > Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite jealous
> of
> > the LAV in Panama.
>
> And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a
> heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot more
> than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems for
> lack of water cooling on the hull).

Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are
considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV
affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and ground
mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy;
therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces.

>
> >
> > If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > > effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> > > airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> > > larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or
> LTA
> > > kind of solutions.
> >
> > That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I
> believe
> > you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne armor
> > deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide
> > additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of
> either
> > light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy *more*
> > survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that large
> > void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention that
> the
> > ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the
> > LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for.
> >
> > Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is tasked
> to
> > provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a SOF
> raid
> > (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you
> > prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from
> Strykers?
> > Kind of a no-brainer.
>
> The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces augmented
> by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in
> advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech opponents.
> What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces did
> OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to
> recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if the
> opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that
> defeating the US forces was pretty easy.

Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it
be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the real
question is, how would those same games have played out if it was our
*current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to
deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how.

And you never answered the question--do you want those air deployable
LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a
few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you want
to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you
want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by
the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be
no-brainers to me.


>
> As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget
> logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint
> than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but the
> remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the case,
> then send the heavy mech units the same way

No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early stages,
which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable. The
Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in Afghan
land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that
country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even
when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they
will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open
that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it
can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend
upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the early
entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded to
no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds
like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces,
which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to
survive in higher intensity scenarios.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tony Williams" wrote
> > >
> > > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > >
> > > By buying A400Ms?
> > >
> > > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
> >
> > Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
> > Stryker?
> >
> > sacrifices too much for C-130
> > > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.
> >
> > How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
> > dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
> > operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an option if
> > required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a bit
> > better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to the
> > kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.
>
> Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker
> their opinion: "It tolls real nice."

Tolls?

Brooks

[Walt BJ]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> "Tony Williams" > wrote in message
> m...
> > (robert arndt) wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/stryker_C130.htm
> >
> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
SNIP:
Here is where Rumsfeld (not that I have much faith or praise for him)
needs to take the opportunity to can the guys responsible for not
integrating the "Stryker" (sic) with the C130 from the get-go. Makes
one wonder if the master plan was to buy lots of Strykers and then say
"oh, by the way, the 103's too small; now we need a lot more (fill in
the blank) to replace those old obsolete C130s." What an opportunity
to fumigate the Pentagon, brass and civvy alike.
Walt BJ

[Greg Hennessy]

On 19 Sep 2003 22:38:57 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:


>>
>> It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster.
>
>No, it *was* flying last I knew, but then again it crashed, right?

The 1st prototype did.

> Is
>it again flying?

Yes, they took the next one built which was intended for static testing
IIRC and made it airworthy.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Tony Williams" wrote
> > > >
> > > > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> > carrying
> > > > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with
the
> > > > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > > >
> > > > By buying A400Ms?
> > > >
> > > > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
> > >
> > > Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
> > > Stryker?
> > >
> > > sacrifices too much for C-130
> > > > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.
> > >
> > > How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
> > > dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
> > > operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an
option if
> > > required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a
bit
> > > better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to
the
> > > kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.
> > >
> > > The MagicTech
> > > > remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> > > > "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
> > mounted
> > > > army viable.
> > >
> > > Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has
found
> > > their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama,
> > > Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite
jealous
> > of
> > > the LAV in Panama.
> >
> > And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a
> > heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot
more
> > than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems
for
> > lack of water cooling on the hull).
>
> Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are
> considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV
> affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and
ground
> mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy;
> therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces.

Read a little closer. The Marine combat teams had M1A1s to provide the
heavy armor I was refereing to. With that backup (which will be
missing with the Stryker units), the Marines could manuever
aggressively when faced with enemy armor. Without that backup, doing
so would be suicide.

I mentioned the LVTP 7 only as a comparison to the Marines' LAVs. The
LAVs showed much higher reliability than the LVTPs especially in
reliability areas. LVTPs have much of their electronics in the bilge,
in direct contact with the belly, assuming (most of the time) water
cooling of the skin. Because of the prolonged operation away from
water, the LVTPs suffered a lot of reliability failures in their
mission electronics. The GDLS factory in Tallahassee is full of boxen
back in the shop for repair.

Your enthusiasm for Strykers is misplaced. While usually, I'll take
good enough and now over better in the indefinite future, I can't in
this case. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are too heavy to deploy and
too light to fight.

According to a RAND study, the limiting factor in deploying a SBCT is
ramp space at the entry airport. Assuming the ability to process,
unload and turn around 4 C-17s an hour (which RAND considered
heroically optimistic), the 96 hour deployment range for a SBCT using
a fleet of 60 C-17s is 1325 miles. That puts a SBCT in place with 3
count them 3 days of beans and bullets but no POL. Time to Kandahar
with 3 days of beans and bullets is 21 days, by which time the lead
elements have long ago shot out their basic loads and have run out of
gas.

What do you get with your rapid deployment force? You get very little
organic anti-armor, good mobility and vehicles proof against 14.5mm
fire. I'm as in favor of improved strategic mobility as anyone but
Stryker brigades sacrifice too much to that end. You get a force that
isn't tolerant of the misfortunes of war and which is unable to
sustain a momentary reverse.




>
> >
> > >
> > > If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > > > effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more
capable
> > > > airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only
marginally
> > > > larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican
or
> > LTA
> > > > kind of solutions.
> > >
> > > That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I
> > believe
> > > you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne
armor
> > > deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide
> > > additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of
> > either
> > > light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy
*more*
> > > survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that
large
> > > void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention
that
> > the
> > > ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the
> > > LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for.
> > >
> > > Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is
tasked
> > to
> > > provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a
SOF
> > raid
> > > (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you
> > > prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from
> > Strykers?
> > > Kind of a no-brainer.
> >
> > The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces
augmented
> > by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in
> > advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech
opponents.
> > What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces
did
> > OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to
> > recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if
the
> > opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that
> > defeating the US forces was pretty easy.
>
> Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it
> be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the
real
> question is, how would those same games have played out if it was
our
> *current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to
> deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how.

Light infantry is just about useless today and Stryker units not a lot
better. How many rounds are available for the HIMARS? As far as
targeting those assets, the Red force managed as the real enemy will,
given the incentives. How would I do it today? With a MEU or if
necessary, a MEB. What's needed if the ability to move_much_greater
tonnage by air to give the equivalent capability for land locked
locations.

>
> And you never answered the question--do you want those air
deployable
> LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a
> few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you
want
> to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you
> want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by
> the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be
> no-brainers to me.
>
>
> >
> > As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget
> > logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint
> > than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but
the
> > remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the
case,
> > then send the heavy mech units the same way
>
> No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early
stages,
> which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable.
The
> Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in
Afghan
> land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that
> country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even
> when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they
> will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open
> that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it
> can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend
> upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the
early
> entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded
to
> no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds
> like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces,
> which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to
> survive in higher intensity scenarios.

Take a look at the logistical requirements for a single SBCT, just to
get it in place. The lift doesn't exist to get the consumables there
for intense combat. You should be unwilling to insert troops that we
can't support unless we end up being limited to constabulary
operations.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Tony Williams" wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> carrying
> > > > > > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with
> the
> > > > > > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > > > >
> > > > > By buying A400Ms?
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
> > > >
> > > > Maybe because it was named for a fellow (MoH winner IIRC) named
> > > > Stryker?
> > > >
> > > > sacrifices too much for C-130
> > > > > compatibility, particularly in the area of protection.
> > > >
> > > > How can you support that? The amount of protection required is
> > > > dependent upon a number of factors, including specific threat,
> > > > operational terrain, etc. And applique/bolt-on armor is an
> option if
> > > > required. Not to mention that *some* deployable protection is a
> bit
> > > > better than what we have now, which is pretty much limited to
> the
> > > > kevlar vest and helmet mounted on the crunchies.
> > > >
> > > > The MagicTech
> > > > > remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> > > > > "electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
> mounted
> > > > > army viable.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Why is this required to make it "viable"? The USMC has
> found
> > > > their LAV's to be very much "viable" in places like Panama,
> > > > Afghanistan, and Iraq--ISTR that the Army folks were quite
> jealous
> of
> > > > the LAV in Panama.
> > >
> > > And the Marines augmented their LAVs with what? As an adjunct to a
> > > heavy armor core, LAVs have great mobility and reliability (a lot
> more
> > > than the LVTP7s which had serious electronics reliability problems
> for
> > > lack of water cooling on the hull).
> >
> > Calling the LVTP 7 "heavy armor" is quite a stretch if you are
> > considering the survivability/protection issue. Fact is that the LAV
> > affords Army early entry forces with a level of protection and
> ground
> > mobility, not to mention firepower, that they do not now enjoy;
> > therefore its use on an interim basis is of benefit to those forces.
>
> Read a little closer. The Marine combat teams had M1A1s to provide the
> heavy armor I was refereing to.

I was discussing the use in Panama; care to guess how many M1A1's the
USMC had there?

With that backup (which will be
> missing with the Stryker units), the Marines could manuever
> aggressively when faced with enemy armor. Without that backup, doing
> so would be suicide.

They maneuvered rather aggressively in Panama, and in Afghanistan,
without them. How many M1A1's were deployed into Afghanistan?
Again--zero. As to facing enemy armor, which would you rather have in
hand during the early entry phase if facing an enemy armored threat--a
bunch of crunchies with no protected mobility, as we now have, or a
SBCT with its (albeit limited) armor protection for the crunchies,
some TOW launchers mounted, and those 105mm versions?

>
> I mentioned the LVTP 7 only as a comparison to the Marines' LAVs. The
> LAVs showed much higher reliability than the LVTPs especially in
> reliability areas.

???

LVTPs have much of their electronics in the bilge,
> in direct contact with the belly, assuming (most of the time) water
> cooling of the skin. Because of the prolonged operation away from
> water, the LVTPs suffered a lot of reliability failures in their
> mission electronics. The GDLS factory in Tallahassee is full of boxen
> back in the shop for repair.
>
> Your enthusiasm for Strykers is misplaced. While usually, I'll take
> good enough and now over better in the indefinite future, I can't in
> this case. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are too heavy to deploy and
> too light to fight.

They are much easier to deploy than their counterpart heavy force
assets by air--there is no way you can argue otherwise. How much heavy
armor was CENTCOM able to get into northern Iraq during OIF by air? As
to being too light to fight, one can only imagine that you prefer the
status quo for the early entry forces, which is even lighter--seems a
bit illogical to me.

>
> According to a RAND study, the limiting factor in deploying a SBCT is
> ramp space at the entry airport. Assuming the ability to process,
> unload and turn around 4 C-17s an hour (which RAND considered
> heroically optimistic), the 96 hour deployment range for a SBCT using
> a fleet of 60 C-17s is 1325 miles. That puts a SBCT in place with 3
> count them 3 days of beans and bullets but no POL. Time to Kandahar
> with 3 days of beans and bullets is 21 days, by which time the lead
> elements have long ago shot out their basic loads and have run out of
> gas.

Gee, I guess Rand discounted the possibility of resupply, huh? Let's
see, 60 C-17's leaves what, some 140 plus unused? Not to mention all
of those C-130's, which do a fine job of hauling beans, bullets, and
even POL. And they can even use other airstrips (like many highways in
the world, not to mention the minimum FLS's constructed by 20th EN BDE
assets on a routine basis), which means no challenge to ramp space at
the principal APOD, right? All those extra C-17's hauling cargo to an
aerial staging base outside the insertion area, with C-130's doing the
short hauls (they could even LAPES the resupply packages, meaning an
airstrip is not even required).

>
> What do you get with your rapid deployment force? You get very little
> organic anti-armor,

But much better than what we have now, which is a few HMMWV's with
TOW.

good mobility and vehicles proof against 14.5mm
> fire.

Let's see, how does that compare to the current alternative?
Footmobility and proof against 7.62x39mm (as long as it hits one of
those kevlar plates)? Looks like the SBCT is significantly better in
both regards.

I'm as in favor of improved strategic mobility as anyone but
> Stryker brigades sacrifice too much to that end. You get a force that
> isn't tolerant of the misfortunes of war and which is unable to
> sustain a momentary reverse.

You seem to be focused on this as a force that is designed to
aggressively strike into the heart of enemy heavy forces and win, but
in reality it is an effort to provide early entry forces with more
capability than they now have (no way you can argue that it does not
do that), and to fill that "middle" niche that we currently don't
cover between the light and heavy spectrum.


> > > > If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > > > > effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more
> capable
> > > > > airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only
> marginally
> > > > > larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican
> or
> LTA
> > > > > kind of solutions.
> > > >
> > > > That would presumably be "A400" which you are referring to. I
> believe
> > > > you are ignoring the fact that we currently have *no* airborne
> armor
> > > > deployment capability to speak of, and the Stryker will provide
> > > > additional versatility to an Army that is currently capable of
> either
> > > > light or heavy operations, but lacks the ability to deploy
> *more*
> > > > survivable, and lethal, assets into an AO by air to fill that
> large
> > > > void that exists between "light" and "heavy". Not to mention
> that
> the
> > > > ever improved ISR and attendant targeting capabilities make the
> > > > LAV-based force more lethal than you give them credit for.
> > > >
> > > > Take a simple scenario where an early entry ground force is
> tasked
> to
> > > > provide an urban cordon/containment/evac element to support a
> SOF
> raid
> > > > (sounds a bit like Mogadishu, huh?). What method would you
> > > > prefer--travel by HMMWV or foot, or travel and support from
> Strykers?
> > > > Kind of a no-brainer.
> > >
> > > The Army and the Marines have gamed light and medium forces
> augmented
> > > by sophisticated communications and fire support significantly in
> > > advance of the Stryker brigades fought conventional mech
> opponents.
> > > What got found was that if _everything_went right, the US forces
> did
> > > OK. If_anything_went wrong, the US forces lacked the resilience to
> > > recover and prevail. In particular, the Marine games found that if
> the
> > > opponents targeted communications and fire support nodes that
> > > defeating the US forces was pretty easy.
> >
> > Kind of hard to target mobile fire support assets. How easy would it
> > be for an enemy lacking even air parity to target HIMARS? But the
> real
> > question is, how would those same games have played out if it was
> our
> > *current* early entry force (i.e, light infantry only) that had to
> > deal with that same threat? Much worse, that's how.
>
> Light infantry is just about useless today and Stryker units not a lot
> better.

Sounds like you are dodging the question. Which would you prefer, an
all light early entry force, or one that also includes the SBCT? Not a
hard choice to make IMO.

>How many rounds are available for the HIMARS?

Probably the same UBL as what they would carry when accompanying the
XVIII ABN Corps light assets into the theater. So what is the drawback
to their support of the SBCT...?

As far as
> targeting those assets, the Red force managed as the real enemy will,
> given the incentives. How would I do it today? With a MEU or if
> necessary, a MEB. What's needed if the ability to move_much_greater
> tonnage by air to give the equivalent capability for land locked
> locations.

So, you seem to think that the answer lies solely in drastically
increasing air transport capability? And this would take how long??
Not to mention that you, or more accurately Rand, has claimed that
ramp space is the limiting factor--how are you making that problem go
away, or are you now saying that it was never the severe problem that
your earlier quote was based upon?

>
> >
> > And you never answered the question--do you want those air
> deployable
> > LAV's in this scenario, or do you want depend upon bootleather and a
> > few HMMWV's? How about during the urban fight in general--do you
> want
> > to be solely dependent upon helos and unarmored vehicles, or do you
> > want that added capability that the moderate protection afforded by
> > the LAV gives your assaulting infantry force? These appear to be
> > no-brainers to me.

Your failure to answer this one again leaves me wondering if you have
thought this all the way through.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > As far as deployability is concerned, as usual people forget
> > > logistics. The Stryker brigades have a smaller logistics footprint
> > > than a heavy mech brigade because of reduced POL requirements but
> the
> > > remaining beans and bullets have to come by boat. If that's the
> case,
> > > then send the heavy mech units the same way
> >
> > No, they don't *have* to come by boat, especially in the early
> stages,
> > which is after all when the SBCT's are going to be most valuable.
> The
> > Marines deployed LAV's into Afghanistan--how many boat docks in
> Afghan
> > land? Just how would you have sent those heavy mech units into that
> > country? Roll through Pakistan first? I don't think so... And even
> > when port facilities can be seized, there is no assurance that they
> > will be usable in the short term--witness the time required to open
> > that Iraqi port to friendly shipping? The SBCT fills a niche; no, it
> > can't do everything, but by golly it is better than having to depend
> > upon the poor bloody light infantry for *everything* during the
> early
> > entry phase, too. The Stryker is an interim vehicle, to be fielded
> to
> > no more than what, three to five brigades in the total force? Sounds
> > like it has a lot to offer to the current mix of available forces,
> > which are either too heavy for rapid deployment, or too light to
> > survive in higher intensity scenarios.
>
> Take a look at the logistical requirements for a single SBCT, just to
> get it in place. The lift doesn't exist to get the consumables there
> for intense combat.

Yes it does. We have a heck of a lot more than 60 C-17's making up our
air transport capability.

You should be unwilling to insert troops that we
> can't support unless we end up being limited to constabulary
> operations.

So your answer is, "sorry, Mr. president, but we can't go"? I don't
think that alternative is acceptable to *either* side in this debate.

FYI, I published an article a couple of years ago decrying the lack of
emphasis on keeping our heavy force viable until the FCS does (if it
ever does) enter full scale service, so I am no screaming Stryker
fanatic. But it does indeed fill a niche that is completely unfilled
without it, and all of the money you care to drop into airmobility is
not going to change that in the near term--and the near-term is what
Stryker is all about. Add in the fact that these "interim" vehicles
will have a very long life serving with RC units even after they have
been supplanted by FCS, and I see Stryker as a rather smart move on
the part of the Army.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Sep 2003 22:38:57 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> It flies today, carrying a 3rd more farther and faster.
> >
> >No, it *was* flying last I knew, but then again it crashed, right?
>
> The 1st prototype did.
>
> > Is
> >it again flying?
>
> Yes, they took the next one built which was intended for static testing
> IIRC and made it airworthy.

OK, but if it is so great, why again are the Russians dumping this
program that they are a partner in? And how about those engine
problems...?

Brooks

>
>
> greg

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>"Tony Williams" wrote
>
>> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
>> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
>> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
>By buying A400Ms?
>
>Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130
>compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech
>remote sensing/remote fires stuff

What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head
about?

> isn't ready yet, never mind
>"electric armor"

And this?

> that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
>army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
>effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
>airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small

ITYM A400M.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[John Keeney]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
>...
> > Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker
> > their opinion: "It tolls real nice."
>
> Tolls?

<snicker> Excuse me, "It [tows] real nice."

The bad thing is, I knew something was wrong when I wrote it; I just
couldn't figure out what it was.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 20 Sep 2003 20:29:31 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:

>
>OK, but if it is so great, why again are the Russians dumping this
>program that they are a partner in?

FWICS most of w.r.t noise w.r.t dumping it comes from single member of the
russian brass who doesn't like antonov. Given its Russia we are talking
about, one could speculate w.r.t his motivation.

> And how about those engine
>problems...?

Compared to something whose power plants and propeller designs haven't left
the drawing board yet. Engines which will have to deliver twice the horse
power of any turbo prop ever put into service in the west, methinks it wont
be the 1st or last time problems have been seen with a new engine design.


greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Most common reply when asking folks working up the Stryker
> > > their opinion: "It tolls real nice."
> >
> > Tolls?
>
> <snicker> Excuse me, "It [tows] real nice."
>
> The bad thing is, I knew something was wrong when I wrote it; I just
> couldn't figure out what it was.

That was my guess as to the meaning, but I was not sure, having once
observed the results when a Cat 621B scraper humming along at 30-35
MPH clipped a toll/security booth in Honduras...it most definitely did
*not* "toll real nice"! <g> Looked like a bomb had hit that concrete
structure (luckily it was empty at the time). But hey, if the Stryker
tows well, that is just another advantage over the M1A1 in the early
entry role--'cause the M1A1 is a bitch to tow, straining the
capabilities of even the M88 series recovery vehicles.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 20 Sep 2003 20:29:31 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
>
> >
> >OK, but if it is so great, why again are the Russians dumping this
> >program that they are a partner in?
>
> FWICS most of w.r.t noise w.r.t dumping it comes from single member of the
> russian brass who doesn't like antonov. Given its Russia we are talking
> about, one could speculate w.r.t his motivation.

But regardless, it does sound as if it is likely to become a dumpee in
the case of the Russian Air Force.

>
> > And how about those engine
> >problems...?
>
> Compared to something whose power plants and propeller designs haven't left
> the drawing board yet. Engines which will have to deliver twice the horse
> power of any turbo prop ever put into service in the west, methinks it wont
> be the 1st or last time problems have been seen with a new engine design.

Actually, I was not comparing it to the A400 (of which I am no
tremendous fan), just noting that the An-70 has to date been a rather
troublesome project, and not a very realistic option for the Europeans
(despite the past rhetoric out of Germany). Having the prototype go
crunch was bad, continued engine reliability problems are just icing
on the cake. IMO the Euros would have been better off going with a
joint force (similar to the NATO AWACS fleet) of a combination of a
few leased C-17's for oversize hauling, complemented by C-130's/C-130J
stretches, along with a few Airbus passenger/freighter convertables
tossed into the mix. That would have given them a credible short term
capability while the A400 is developed; or alternatively, keep that
force and dump A400 development. Use of proven aircraft (and the An-70
most definitely does not meet that description) for the near-term
would be smart.

Brooks

>
>
> greg

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, "Paul Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"Tony Williams" wrote
>
>> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
>> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
>> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>
>By buying A400Ms?
>
>Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for C-130
>compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The MagicTech
>remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
>"electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
>army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
>effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
>airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
>larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or LTA
>kind of solutions.
>
It is called the C-17

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 20 Sep 2003 09:15:57 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:

>"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
>> "Tony Williams" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > (robert arndt) wrote in message
>> >...
>> > >
>> http://www.lewis.army.mil/arrowheadlightning/stryker_c130/stryker_C130.htm
>> >
>> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
>> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
>> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>>
>SNIP:
>Here is where Rumsfeld (not that I have much faith or praise for him)
>needs to take the opportunity to can the guys responsible for not
>integrating the "Stryker" (sic) with the C130 from the get-go. Makes
>one wonder if the master plan was to buy lots of Strykers and then say
>"oh, by the way, the 103's too small; now we need a lot more (fill in
>the blank) to replace those old obsolete C130s." What an opportunity
>to fumigate the Pentagon, brass and civvy alike.
>Walt BJ

C-130Js are still in production.

Al Minyard

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
>...
>
> >
> > According to a RAND study, the limiting factor in deploying a SBCT
is
> > ramp space at the entry airport. Assuming the ability to process,
> > unload and turn around 4 C-17s an hour (which RAND considered
> > heroically optimistic), the 96 hour deployment range for a SBCT
using
> > a fleet of 60 C-17s is 1325 miles. That puts a SBCT in place with
3
> > count them 3 days of beans and bullets but no POL. Time to
Kandahar
> > with 3 days of beans and bullets is 21 days, by which time the
lead
> > elements have long ago shot out their basic loads and have run out
of
> > gas.
>
> Gee, I guess Rand discounted the possibility of resupply, huh? Let's
> see, 60 C-17's leaves what, some 140 plus unused? Not to mention all
> of those C-130's, which do a fine job of hauling beans, bullets, and
> even POL. And they can even use other airstrips (like many highways
in
> the world, not to mention the minimum FLS's constructed by 20th EN
BDE
> assets on a routine basis), which means no challenge to ramp space
at
> the principal APOD, right? All those extra C-17's hauling cargo to
an
> aerial staging base outside the insertion area, with C-130's doing
the
> short hauls (they could even LAPES the resupply packages, meaning an
> airstrip is not even required).

You might want to read what RAND had to say
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1606/. They are after all
professional analysts.

Staging and transhipping material from C17s to C130s was analysed and
rejected since the time consumed in off-loading, breaking down and
reloading payloads made the C130s. RAND analysed the entire chain of
deployment and determined that established airport with supporting
road networks would move more material than could ad hoc airfields.
Can you prove different?

As for the size of the force, RAND selected 60 C17s because the USAF
(remember them?) consumes a large number of transport sortees itself.
In addition, there are and will be other commitments besides this one.



....

> I'm as in favor of improved strategic mobility as anyone but
> > Stryker brigades sacrifice too much to that end. You get a force
that
> > isn't tolerant of the misfortunes of war and which is unable to
> > sustain a momentary reverse.
>
> You seem to be focused on this as a force that is designed to
> aggressively strike into the heart of enemy heavy forces and win,
but
> in reality it is an effort to provide early entry forces with more
> capability than they now have (no way you can argue that it does not
> do that), and to fill that "middle" niche that we currently don't
> cover between the light and heavy spectrum.

And you seem to say that if it's an improvement over current light
forces deployments then it's worth having. My position is that the
spectrum of opponents that a SBCT can face that e.g. the 82nd Airborne
cannot is too small to be worth while. It doesn't take much in the way
of armor and artillery to defeat a SBCT. Panama and Afghanistan could
not but there are_lots_of places that could.

I believe that concentrating on an "interim" SBCT which under a more
dovish administration could easily become permanent displaces programs
to develop enough lift so that forces with real puissance can be
inserted. That said, the logistics challenge of battle at the end of
such a slender thread hasn't been addressed. Traditionally, the
tonnage of POL, ammunition and other kit dwarfs the TOE tonnage. Given
that SBCT's only chance of success in more than constabulary
operations is to substitute fires for force size, that's unlikely to
change.

You've waived away logistics loads in using SBCTs far from litterals.
Can you support that?

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin
> wrote:
> >
> >"Tony Williams" wrote
> >
> >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
carrying
> >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> >
> >By buying A400Ms?
> >
> >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
C-130
> >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
MagicTech
> >remote sensing/remote fires stuff
>
> What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head
> about?

FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC completed
a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
forces and are often defeated.

As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

>
> > isn't ready yet, never mind
> >"electric armor"
>
> And this?

Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
penetrators.

>
> > that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small
>
> ITYM A400M.

Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
replace the G.222

[Paul Austin]

"Alan Minyard" wrote
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, "Paul Austin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tony Williams" wrote
> >
> >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
carrying
> >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> >
> >By buying A400Ms?
> >
> >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
C-130
> >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
MagicTech
> >remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> >"electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
mounted
> >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> >larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or
LTA
> >kind of solutions.
> >
> It is called the C-17

Think bigger. Much bigger. The real problem with insertion of a combat
force by air is in supplying it. Logistical loads dwarf TOE loads.
Right now, the only way to meet logistical tonnage requirements is
with ships.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 21 Sep 2003 10:04:42 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote:


>But regardless, it does sound as if it is likely to become a dumpee in
>the case of the Russian Air Force.

Quite possibly, however Putin is said to be in favour of it.

>Actually, I was not comparing it to the A400 (of which I am no
>tremendous fan), just noting that the An-70 has to date been a rather
>troublesome project, and not a very realistic option for the Europeans
>(despite the past rhetoric out of Germany).


AFAIK the germans were *very* close to ordering it, but french blackmail
about so called euro 'solidarity' shamed them out of doing so, that's the
reason why the A400 changed from an all jet paper plane to a prop fan one.

> Having the prototype go
>crunch was bad, continued engine reliability problems are just icing
>on the cake. IMO the Euros would have been better off going with a
>joint force (similar to the NATO AWACS fleet) of a combination of a
>few leased C-17's for oversize hauling, complemented by C-130's/C-130J
>stretches,

You'll get no arguments from me on that score, if the A400 is like any
other project to keep french workers in welfare, it'll end up costing as
much as a C17, be a decade late and be completely unsuited for the role.

This wouldn't be the 1st time, IIRC someone in this forum described The
Transall C160 as carrying 2/3rds the payload of a C130, 3/4s the distance
while burning all the fuel for the same unit cost.


> That would have given them a credible short term
>capability while the A400 is developed; or alternatively, keep that
>force and dump A400 development.

See that would make sense, however common sense never ever enters into the
equation for european aircraft procurement. Instead european forces wont
have any form of strategic airlift for at least another decade. If at all.


> Use of proven aircraft (and the An-70
>most definitely does not meet that description) for the near-term
>would be smart.

FWICS given a relatively small amount of more much needed development cash,
the An70 is everything the A400 could be and more.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > >
> > > According to a RAND study, the limiting factor in deploying a SBCT
> is
> > > ramp space at the entry airport. Assuming the ability to process,
> > > unload and turn around 4 C-17s an hour (which RAND considered
> > > heroically optimistic), the 96 hour deployment range for a SBCT
> using
> > > a fleet of 60 C-17s is 1325 miles. That puts a SBCT in place with
> 3
> > > count them 3 days of beans and bullets but no POL. Time to
> Kandahar
> > > with 3 days of beans and bullets is 21 days, by which time the
> lead
> > > elements have long ago shot out their basic loads and have run out
> of
> > > gas.
> >
> > Gee, I guess Rand discounted the possibility of resupply, huh? Let's
> > see, 60 C-17's leaves what, some 140 plus unused? Not to mention all
> > of those C-130's, which do a fine job of hauling beans, bullets, and
> > even POL. And they can even use other airstrips (like many highways
> in
> > the world, not to mention the minimum FLS's constructed by 20th EN
> BDE
> > assets on a routine basis), which means no challenge to ramp space
> at
> > the principal APOD, right? All those extra C-17's hauling cargo to
> an
> > aerial staging base outside the insertion area, with C-130's doing
> the
> > short hauls (they could even LAPES the resupply packages, meaning an
> > airstrip is not even required).
>
> You might want to read what RAND had to say
> http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1606/. They are after all
> professional analysts.

And frequently on-target; but sometimes not.

>
> Staging and transhipping material from C17s to C130s was analysed and
> rejected since the time consumed in off-loading, breaking down and
> reloading payloads made the C130s.

"made the C-130's" what?

RAND analysed the entire chain of
> deployment and determined that established airport with supporting
> road networks would move more material than could ad hoc airfields.
> Can you prove different?

Whoah. You just told me that the ramp space was the limiting factor,
and when presented with an option that overcomes that problem, all of
a sudden the "ad hoc airfields" are worthless? While cross loading the
cargo to the C-130's would be less efficient than direct throughput,
if the limiting factor really *is* ramp space, then the loss of
efficiency involved in the crossload would be more than made up for by
the increased in total tonnage delivered to the destination. And BTW,
crossloading might not even be required--note that the C-17 is also
capable of using austere FLS's (neat picture out there somewhere of
one landing on Bicycle Lake at Ft Irwin.

>
> As for the size of the force, RAND selected 60 C17s because the USAF
> (remember them?) consumes a large number of transport sortees itself.
> In addition, there are and will be other commitments besides this one.

Sorry, but when a contingency operation that requires major airlift of
this nature arises, the airframes are diverted from lower priority
missions. Take that as gospel from a guy who saw his milk-run C-141
flight from Charleston to Honduras cancelled when Golden Pheasant went
down in '88. And yes, I remember the USAF; they are the guys fielding
the 210 or so C-17's, of which you and Rand apparently think only
about 20% of which would be tasked to support a high priority
contingency op (not to mention that there are also quite a few
C-5A/B's still out there...). I just see that as another manner of
weighting the data to suit a desired outcome--it does not make it
accurate.


>
> > I'm as in favor of improved strategic mobility as anyone but
> > > Stryker brigades sacrifice too much to that end. You get a force
> that
> > > isn't tolerant of the misfortunes of war and which is unable to
> > > sustain a momentary reverse.
> >
> > You seem to be focused on this as a force that is designed to
> > aggressively strike into the heart of enemy heavy forces and win,
> but
> > in reality it is an effort to provide early entry forces with more
> > capability than they now have (no way you can argue that it does not
> > do that), and to fill that "middle" niche that we currently don't
> > cover between the light and heavy spectrum.
>
> And you seem to say that if it's an improvement over current light
> forces deployments then it's worth having. My position is that the
> spectrum of opponents that a SBCT can face that e.g. the 82nd Airborne
> cannot is too small to be worth while. It doesn't take much in the way
> of armor and artillery to defeat a SBCT. Panama and Afghanistan could
> not but there are_lots_of places that could.

And if it is a theater that the SBCT is outguned in, then other TTP,
forces, etc., will have to be used, granted. But yes, I do think that
it would be darned nice of us to give our early entry forces another
tool for their bag. Rapidly deployable light armor can greatly enhance
the joint force commander's options, and can mean the difference
between sustaining higher casualties to accomplish the mission. I
think those are *good* things.

>
> I believe that concentrating on an "interim" SBCT which under a more
> dovish administration could easily become permanent displaces programs
> to develop enough lift so that forces with real puissance can be
> inserted. That said, the logistics challenge of battle at the end of
> such a slender thread hasn't been addressed.

And just how the hell do you think FCS is going to magically address
that logistics concern? Snap your fingers and have FCS fielded
*today*, and it faces the same logistical challenges. Not to mention
that our *current* early entry force faces the same challenegs--in the
ansence of Stryker, the only way you are going to acheive decent
ground mobility for those guys is to either bring in a bunch of trucks
(which use about the same fuel as Stryker, take up a goodly portion of
the haul assets that Stryker would, and don't offer 8any* degree of
protection or enhanced firepower), or haul helos in to allow air
assault operations--do you *really* think that either of those options
results in a significantly reduced log chain in comparison to the
SBCT?


Traditionally, the
> tonnage of POL, ammunition and other kit dwarfs the TOE tonnage.

See above.

Given
> that SBCT's only chance of success in more than constabulary
> operations is to substitute fires for force size, that's unlikely to
> change.

Never heard of substituting greater mobility for fires *and* force
size? Stryker can, in comparison to current capabilities, do that for
the grunts in the early entry force.

>
> You've waived away logistics loads in using SBCTs far from litterals.
> Can you support that?

No, I have not. But, unlike you, I realize that the SBCT is not the
*only* force structure design that requires log support. In order for
the current LI force to acheive the same mobility on/over the ground
that Stryker offers, you have to either send in a boatload of soft,
less useful trucks to haul them around in, or helos--care to guess how
much POL those helos will burn? The difference between the two forces,
if you force both to acheive significant ground mobility, will be
insignificant in terms of log requirements. The *only* way the current
force wins in this regard is if you send them in with *no* transport
capability--in which case congrats, you just forced us back to the
same rate of movement that we enjoyed during the Civil War (if that
much, since those poor grunts are going to be carrying about five
times the load that their 1860's counterparts were burdened with).

Now, one more time--given that urban combat scenario that you snipped,
do you want to go in as a naked grunt, or with light armor support?
You *really* don't want to answer that question, do you???

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Alan Minyard" wrote
> > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, "Paul Austin"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Tony Williams" wrote
> > >
> > >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> carrying
> > >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > >
> > >By buying A400Ms?
> > >
> > >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
> C-130
> > >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
> MagicTech
> > >remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
> > >"electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
> mounted
> > >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> > >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
> > >larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or
> LTA
> > >kind of solutions.
> > >
> > It is called the C-17
>
> Think bigger. Much bigger. The real problem with insertion of a combat
> force by air is in supplying it. Logistical loads dwarf TOE loads.
> Right now, the only way to meet logistical tonnage requirements is
> with ships.

Bullcrap. We sustained a significant force in Afghanistan with air
only, if you had not noticed. We (and the Brits) supplied West Berling
by air. We supplied about a two-brigade equivalent force in Grenada by
air (for the most part). We supplied a two-brigade plus force in
Honduras by air in 88. Where on earth do you get this notion that the
SBCT is unsupportable, and just *how* do you think we run support now?
Did the 173rd ABN BDE and the few *heavy* assets from 1st ID(M) that
were air deployed into northern Iraq receive any sea support??

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Tony Williams" wrote
> > >
> > >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> carrying
> > >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
> > >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > >
> > >By buying A400Ms?
> > >
> > >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
> C-130
> > >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
> MagicTech
> > >remote sensing/remote fires stuff
> >
> > What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've head
> > about?
>
> FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
> platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
> incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
> vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

Where does this term "MagicTech" come from? First I have ever heard of
it...

>
> In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
> of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
> fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC completed
> a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
> Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
> They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
> advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
> communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
> then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
> forces and are often defeated.

No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR, targeting, and C3
developments that we have already instituted. And be careful of citing
these battle simulations as "evidence"; as we saw last year during
that JFC simulation, these exercises are designed and managed to
acheive very specific goals, and even then are subject to anomalies;
having seen a mechanized engineer battalion (minus) (one still mounted
in the M113 battle taxis to boot) destroy the better part of an OPFOR
mechanized brigade during a combined division/corps WFX (and this
occured while the engineer unit was fleeing an overrun situation, for
gosh sakes), I can tell you that trying to draw finite tactical
conclusions is risky at best. Add in the fact that the usual process
is to weight things a bit towards the OPFOR, since the objective is
usually to stress the Bluefor, and you can see where this is anything
but a clean and neat process.

>
> As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
> trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
ground fights is strongly suspect.

>
> >
> > > isn't ready yet, never mind
> > >"electric armor"
> >
> > And this?
>
> Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
> large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
> melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
> scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
> penetrators.

"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
Effect) work.

>
> >
> > > that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> > >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
> > >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
> > >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small
> >
> > ITYM A400M.
>
> Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
> replace the G.222

Mehopes that was offered tongue in cheek, as the G.222 is being
replaced by the C-27J, and IIRC the A300 was a commercial design
development...

Brooks

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:09:00 -0400, "Paul Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" wrote
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, "Paul Austin"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Tony Williams" wrote
>> >
>> >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
>carrying
>> >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
>> >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>> >
>> >By buying A400Ms?
>> >
>> >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
>C-130
>> >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
>MagicTech
>> >remote sensing/remote fires stuff isn't ready yet, never mind
>> >"electric armor" that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV
>mounted
>> >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and as
>> >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more capable
>> >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small (only marginally
>> >larger box or payload than a C-130). What's needed is Pelican or
>LTA
>> >kind of solutions.
>> >
>> It is called the C-17
>
>Think bigger. Much bigger. The real problem with insertion of a combat
>force by air is in supplying it. Logistical loads dwarf TOE loads.
>Right now, the only way to meet logistical tonnage requirements is
>with ships.
>
I thought you were discussing initial assault, sorry. I whole
heartedly agree that, at least for the foreseeable future, an all
aircraft logistics train for a large conventional force is not
practicable.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
>...
>> Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
>> large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
>> melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
>> scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
>> penetrators.
>
>"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
>temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
>"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
>nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
>attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
>Effect) work.

It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
physics says it ought to work.

Works quite nicely in a carefully-controlled experiment. Might even be
useful in a fielded vehicle eventually. Won't arrive tomorrow, though.

http://www.dstl.gov.uk/pr/press/pr2002/01-07-02.htm


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:06:30 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>FCS

Ah, "Future Combat System".

>if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
>platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
>incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
>vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire combat.

So what data rate will FCS run at? Consider a unit such as a Brigade
- will the data links be radio, or something else (laser beams?
fiber optic? ethernet?) or a mixture?

If the data links are radio, how will routing within the brigade
happen? Will every vehicle be presumed to be in radio contact with
every other, or will the system work as a smart swarm and
automatically reconfigure routing between nodes by itself, or will
routing be manually configured?

>In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide distribution
>of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and precision
>fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot.

My understanding is 4th Infantry Division use the interim system -
is this correct?

How will FCS be better than the interim system - my understanding is
the interim system's bandwidth is quite low, about 4.5 kbit/s.

BTW, is there a good introductory document about VMF (Variable
Message Format) messages?

>The USMC completed
>a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
>Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
>They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
>advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
>communications and fire support elements.

Comms equipment is giving out radio signals; if these can be
pinpointed and targeted, the unit is ****ed. Imagine a swarm of
cheap cruise missiles[1] homing in on radio signals from the nodes
on the tactical internet.

[1]: http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

>If they can be degraded,
>then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
>forces and are often defeated.

If your comms are degraded badly enough, you'll lose whether you
have light forces or tanks; even the best MBTs don't have perfect
protection against ATGMs, etc.

>As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
>trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.

Indeed.

>> > isn't ready yet, never mind
>> >"electric armor"
>>
>> And this?
>
>Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
>large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
>melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
>scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
>penetrators.

Does this work? It sounds nice, but I'm not sure if it's practical.
What if the capacitors short out? That would release large amounts
of enery, if it's enough to melt a solid piece of metal.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
>interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
>a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
>completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,

What's ISR?

>> As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
>> trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.
>
>And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
>ground fights is strongly suspect.

Garbage in, garbage out.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:30:29 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>
>It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
>jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
>field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
>physics says it ought to work.
>
>Works quite nicely in a carefully-controlled experiment. Might even be
>useful in a fielded vehicle eventually.

Maybe.

I can't help but feel it'd be a lot simpler just to put a 1 mm metal
plate a foot or so away from the main armour (and mayby use the
resulting cavity as storage space).


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
m...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Tony Williams" wrote
> > > >
> > > >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> > carrying
> > > >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with
the
> > > >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > > >
> > > >By buying A400Ms?
> > > >
> > > >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
> > C-130
> > > >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
> > MagicTech
> > > >remote sensing/remote fires stuff
> > >
> > > What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've
head
> > > about?
> >
> > FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne
recon
> > platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
> > incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
> > vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire
combat.
>
> Where does this term "MagicTech" come from? First I have ever heard
of
> it...

It's a term science fiction readers use to describe overwhelming
technological advantages that make the plot come out the way the
author intents. US forces combine superb training (often overlooked by
people who focus on equipment too much), doctrine and systems that
seem like MagicTech to our opponents.

>
> >
> > In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide
distribution
> > of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and
precision
> > fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC
completed
> > a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
> > Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
> > They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
> > advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
> > communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
> > then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
> > forces and are often defeated.
>
> No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
> interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
merely
> a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
> completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR, targeting, and C3
> developments that we have already instituted. And be careful of
citing
> these battle simulations as "evidence"; as we saw last year during
> that JFC simulation, these exercises are designed and managed to
> acheive very specific goals, and even then are subject to anomalies;
> having seen a mechanized engineer battalion (minus) (one still
mounted
> in the M113 battle taxis to boot) destroy the better part of an
OPFOR
> mechanized brigade during a combined division/corps WFX (and this
> occured while the engineer unit was fleeing an overrun situation,
for
> gosh sakes), I can tell you that trying to draw finite tactical
> conclusions is risky at best. Add in the fact that the usual process
> is to weight things a bit towards the OPFOR, since the objective is
> usually to stress the Bluefor, and you can see where this is
anything
> but a clean and neat process.

Perhaps I expressed myself badly. The "Digital Battlefield" systems
are in no way temporary and stopgap but_are_here and now. FCS is
intended to fully exploit the advantages of enhanced battlefield
digitization by making recon ubiquitous and every present and by
extending the logic of automated systems to all levels of the
battlefield. The remarkable thing about FCS is what a small part the
replacements for current Bradley, Abrams and artillery system are
within the complete FCS.

I agree with you about the perils of simulations but there are lessons
to be learned from them. In the case I cited, the Marines demonstrated
an obvious counter to the FCS approach.
>
> >
> > As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy
you're
> > trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your
advantages.
>
> And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
> ground fights is strongly suspect.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > isn't ready yet, never mind
> > > >"electric armor"
> > >
> > > And this?
> >
> > Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass
very
> > large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored
vehicle,
> > melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say
that
> > scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
> > penetrators.
>
> "Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
> temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into
a
> "jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
> nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass
and
> attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
> Effect) work.

Read more closely about the physics of shaped charges. The jet in a
shaped charge is actually composed of a stream of solid particles. The
article in IDR describing the "electric armor" didn't go into details
about mechanism but a shaped charge's jet doesn't have anything like
the penetrating power if the jet is turned into a liquid. In this
case, liquid copper. The "electric armor" notion, still unproven in
the field is that a jet shorts out two plates of a very high value
capacitor and the resulting current melts the jet before it can travel
into the armor array proper. Actually building such a vehicle
encompassing capacitor in such a way that it 1. doesn't electrocute
the crew or the attending infantry and 2. can be recharged reasonably
quickly is left as an exercise for the development engineers.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> > > >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and
as
> > > >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more
capable
> > > >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small
> > >
> > > ITYM A400M.
> >
> > Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
> > replace the G.222
>
> Mehopes that was offered tongue in cheek, as the G.222 is being
> replaced by the C-27J, and IIRC the A300 was a commercial design
> development...

Yup.

> Brooks

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" > wrote
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >
> >No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT
an
> >interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
merely
> >a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
> >completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,
>
> What's ISR?

Yet another TLA. Information, Surveillance and Reconaissance, I
believe.

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:06:30 -0400, Paul Austin
> wrote:
> >
> >FCS
>
> Ah, "Future Combat System".
>
> >if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne recon
> >platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
> >incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
> >vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire
combat.
>
> So what data rate will FCS run at? Consider a unit such as a Brigade
> - will the data links be radio, or something else (laser beams?
> fiber optic? ethernet?) or a mixture?

The first Brigade XXI exercises were run using 64Kbps links over HF
radios. Not suprisingly, trials proved that slow a data fabric
completely inadequate. There are advantages to HF links but VHF, UHF
and higher frequencies will be used. The Navy is planning EHF links.

>
> If the data links are radio, how will routing within the brigade
> happen? Will every vehicle be presumed to be in radio contact with
> every other, or will the system work as a smart swarm and
> automatically reconfigure routing between nodes by itself, or will
> routing be manually configured?
>
> >In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide
distribution
> >of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and
precision
> >fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot.
>
> My understanding is 4th Infantry Division use the interim system -
> is this correct?
>
> How will FCS be better than the interim system - my understanding is
> the interim system's bandwidth is quite low, about 4.5 kbit/s.

It's not so much interim as the first spiral of fielded systems with
more and better to follow.

> >The USMC completed
> >a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
> >Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
> >They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
> >advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
> >communications and fire support elements.
>
> Comms equipment is giving out radio signals; if these can be
> pinpointed and targeted, the unit is ****ed. Imagine a swarm of
> cheap cruise missiles[1] homing in on radio signals from the nodes
> on the tactical internet.

Not nearly as easy as it seems, since everything is spread spectrum,
fast hopping and anti-jam.

>
> [1]: http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
>
> >If they can be degraded,
> >then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
> >forces and are often defeated.
>
> If your comms are degraded badly enough, you'll lose whether you
> have light forces or tanks; even the best MBTs don't have perfect
> protection against ATGMs, etc.

MBTs are nearly immune to ATGMs now. About the best that can be hoped
for by man-portable systems is a mobility kill. Heavier ATGMs have
some hope of doing more than blowing a track but not along the frontal
arc. Everyone has a story but damn few examples of success. Makes you
wonder if the Chechens used the three man anti-tank team: first man
waits until the tank noses out past the edge of the building, then
shoves a section of rail road track into the drive sprocket. Number
two throws a blanket over the vision blocks and number three crashes a
gallon jug of gasoline onto the blanket. Number one then lights the
blanket and the team skips off for a pint.

>
> >As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy
you're
> >trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your
advantages.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> > isn't ready yet, never mind
> >> >"electric armor"
> >>
> >> And this?
> >
> >Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass
very
> >large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored
vehicle,
> >melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
> >scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
> >penetrators.
>
> Does this work? It sounds nice, but I'm not sure if it's practical.
> What if the capacitors short out? That would release large amounts
> of enery, if it's enough to melt a solid piece of metal.
>
Success is a matter of sufficient development :) I find the notion of
melting a 10-20mm thick rod of refractory metal in microseconds
literally incredible.

[Thomas Schoene]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message

> On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks >
> wrote:
> >
> > No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
> > interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
> > merely a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
> > completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,
>
> What's ISR?

Intelligence, Surveillence, and Reconaissance. Often seen as C4ISR
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillence,
and reconaissance).


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "Paul Austin" > wrote

> > You've waived away logistics loads in using SBCTs far from
litterals.
> > Can you support that?
>
> No, I have not. But, unlike you, I realize that the SBCT is not the
> *only* force structure design that requires log support. In order
for
> the current LI force to acheive the same mobility on/over the ground
> that Stryker offers, you have to either send in a boatload of soft,
> less useful trucks to haul them around in, or helos--care to guess
how
> much POL those helos will burn? The difference between the two
forces,
> if you force both to acheive significant ground mobility, will be
> insignificant in terms of log requirements. The *only* way the
current
> force wins in this regard is if you send them in with *no* transport
> capability--in which case congrats, you just forced us back to the
> same rate of movement that we enjoyed during the Civil War (if that
> much, since those poor grunts are going to be carrying about five
> times the load that their 1860's counterparts were burdened with).
>
> Now, one more time--given that urban combat scenario that you
snipped,
> do you want to go in as a naked grunt, or with light armor support?
> You *really* don't want to answer that question, do you???

I agree that light infantry needs heavier support. My dislike of the
Stryker concept comes from the concept's origins: Clintonian notions
that the primary use for US arms in the future would be constabulary
operations and peace keeping. The only force that combines strategic
manueverability and enough weight to operate against enemy mech
formations right now is the Marines and if you get too far from the
water's edge, they have to leave a lot of equipment on the boat. We
need strategic airlift that can insert and support forces with
something like the tonnage of a MEU a thousand miles for water and we
have no count them none under development to do that. The SBCT is in
fact better than nothing but does not serve our needs. We need
something heavier than SFOR. We_know_what happens when you use forces
too light for the mission. Just look at (former) Yugoslavia.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Kevin
> Brooks > writes
> >"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
> >> large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
> >> melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
> >> scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
> >> penetrators.
> >
> >"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
> >temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
> >"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
> >nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
> >attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
> >Effect) work.
>
> It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
> jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
> field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
> physics says it ought to work.
>
> Works quite nicely in a carefully-controlled experiment. Might even be
> useful in a fielded vehicle eventually. Won't arrive tomorrow, though.
>
> http://www.dstl.gov.uk/pr/press/pr2002/01-07-02.htm

Using an EM field to distort/dissipate the jet I can buy; I was taking
exception to the idea of "melting" it (it is pretty much "melted" at
the point the liner is inverted by the explosive filler, and in fact
behaves as a liquid at this point). God only knows what the effect of
that kind of EM field will have on the crew, much less all of that
nifty solid-state equipment, not to mention the difficulty in
discharging the capacitors at *exactly* the right instant (I'd guess
the tolerence would be measured in much less than a millisecond, as
that jet will cover what, at least 5 or so meters in that MS?).

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >
> >No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
> >interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is merely
> >a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
> >completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,
>
> What's ISR?

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.

>
> >> As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy you're
> >> trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your advantages.
> >
> >And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
> >ground fights is strongly suspect.
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.

No, not so much GIGO as it is a matter of the goals of the simulation,
which is usually to stress the side being exercised. That retired USMC
GO who ran the JFC exercise last year was whining about how he could
not conduct true "free play", and that certain actions of his were
rescinded by the exercise controllers, but that ignored the fact that
the game had for one of its primary goals, for example, the validation
of the IBCT/SBCT as a tool for the JTF commander--sliming the APOD
that was to serve that unit might be a "real world" thing to consider,
but it is stupid to spend beaucoup millions of bucks on a massive
exercise like that and then see one of your exercise objectives
disappear before it can even get into the game and be evaluated at
*any* level (likewise, had he sent a nuke at the JTF command post on
day one and wiped it out, it would have been rather stupid to say,
"hey, I guess the exercise is over; sorry we wasted all of those unds
and resources..."). We saw the same thing at NTC during force-on-force
exercises; when I was with the OPFOR we got away with things that the
Bluefor could not hope to do, but the objective was to stress the
Bluefor, so some leniency in our direction was allowed as long as it
served that goal. The key is to remember that these large scale sims
are great at taking on the "big picture", just not-so-great at
modeling the action at the lower levels (we once ran a corps level WFX
that was classified at the time because we were using the actual "into
Iraq" CONPLAN then under development--we basicly got our clocks
cleaned by the OPFOR, which was unrealistic, but served the purpose of
stressing the staff and the plan).

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:07:59 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:06:30 -0400, Paul Austin
>>
>> So what data rate will FCS run at? Consider a unit such as a Brigade
>> - will the data links be radio, or something else (laser beams?
>> fiber optic? ethernet?) or a mixture?
>
>The first Brigade XXI exercises were run using 64Kbps links over HF
>radios. Not suprisingly, trials proved that slow a data fabric
>completely inadequate.

Presumably because all the nodes were trying to talk at the same
time. What if there were fewer nodes on the network, say 200 instead
of 1000?

>There are advantages to HF links but VHF, UHF
>and higher frequencies will be used. The Navy is planning EHF links.

Higher frequencies mean more banfdwidth, I assume. What are the
advantages of lower frequencies - range?

Iv wonder if there are any plans to civilianise this technology; it
might complement WiFi quite well.

>> Comms equipment is giving out radio signals; if these can be
>> pinpointed and targeted, the unit is ****ed. Imagine a swarm of
>> cheap cruise missiles[1] homing in on radio signals from the nodes
>> on the tactical internet.
>
>Not nearly as easy as it seems, since everything is spread spectrum,
>fast hopping and anti-jam.

The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.

>> If your comms are degraded badly enough, you'll lose whether you
>> have light forces or tanks; even the best MBTs don't have perfect
>> protection against ATGMs, etc.
>
>MBTs are nearly immune to ATGMs now. About the best that can be hoped
>for by man-portable systems is a mobility kill.

Oh? I was under the impression the Russian Kornet was pretty good.

>Heavier ATGMs have
>some hope of doing more than blowing a track but not along the frontal
>arc.

ATGMs don't have to hit the front; they could be designed to hit the
top, for example. And making the warhead bigger is not a problem to
do, if the missile vis carried by a vehicle.

>> Does this work? It sounds nice, but I'm not sure if it's practical.
>> What if the capacitors short out? That would release large amounts
>> of enery, if it's enough to melt a solid piece of metal.
>>
>Success is a matter of sufficient development :) I find the notion of
>melting a 10-20mm thick rod of refractory metal in microseconds
>literally incredible.

I'm a bit dubious too.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Paul Austin]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
>
> > On 22 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0700, Kevin Brooks >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is
NOT an
> > > interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
> > > merely a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will
more
> > > completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR,
> >
> > What's ISR?
>
> Intelligence, Surveillence, and Reconaissance. Often seen as C4ISR
> (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillence,
> and reconaissance).

Want to speculate how long before someone thinks up a fifth "C"? C3
was bad enough. Adding "Computers" was pretty stupid.

[John Keeney]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin
> Brooks > writes
> >"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass very
> >> large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored vehicle,
> >> melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say that
> >> scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
> >> penetrators.
> >
> >"Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
> >temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into a
> >"jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
> >nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass and
> >attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
> >Effect) work.

Well, the last I heard there were still people disputing the state of
matter the copper was at: something about etched patterns still existing
in the mass recovered after the blast...

> It's an electrical effect. Dump a lot of electricity into the copper
> jet, and you have current and motion: which produces a powerful magnetic
> field, so the jet repels itself and flies apart. Or that's the way my
> physics says it ought to work.

Heck, throw that kind of charge into the thing and electro-static
repulsion might be enough.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:44:11 -0400, Paul Austin
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"Tony Williams" wrote
> > > > >
> > > > >> I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight
> carrying
> > > > >> limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with
> the
> > > > >> bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
> > > > >
> > > > >By buying A400Ms?
> > > > >
> > > > >Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling) sacrifices too much for
> C-130
> > > > >compatibility, particularly in the area of protection. The
> MagicTech
> > > > >remote sensing/remote fires stuff
> > > >
> > > > What's this? Is it related to the "battlefield Internet" I've
> head
> > > > about?
> > >
> > > FCS if the ultimate MagicTech, consisting of ground and airborne
> recon
> > > platforms, data networks, robotic fire and logistics vehicles and
> > > incidentally, replacements for the current generation mechanized
> > > vehicles for troop carriers, fire support, C&C and direct fire
> combat.
> >
> > Where does this term "MagicTech" come from? First I have ever heard
> of
> > it...
>
> It's a term science fiction readers use to describe overwhelming
> technological advantages that make the plot come out the way the
> author intents. US forces combine superb training (often overlooked by
> people who focus on equipment too much), doctrine and systems that
> seem like MagicTech to our opponents.
>
> >
> > >
> > > In the interim, "digital battlefield" electronics, wide
> distribution
> > > of ubiquitous and persistent recon imagery and analysis and
> precision
> > > fires from airborne and ground systems help a lot. The USMC
> completed
> > > a wargame about 6 months ago using all of this stuff and a light
> > > Marine Blue Force did very well against a conventional mech OPFOR.
> > > They also discovered that the Red Force could compensate for the
> > > advantages these technologies give US forces by targeting
> > > communications and fire support elements. If they can be degraded,
> > > then light forces lose the means to stand up to enemy mechanized
> > > forces and are often defeated.
> >
> > No, the "digital battlefield electronics", as you call it, is NOT an
> > interim solution awaiting the fielding of FCS. Instead, FCS is
> merely
> > a concept of an entire family of new equipment that will more
> > completely integrate the evolving digital, ISR, targeting, and C3
> > developments that we have already instituted. And be careful of
> citing
> > these battle simulations as "evidence"; as we saw last year during
> > that JFC simulation, these exercises are designed and managed to
> > acheive very specific goals, and even then are subject to anomalies;
> > having seen a mechanized engineer battalion (minus) (one still
> mounted
> > in the M113 battle taxis to boot) destroy the better part of an
> OPFOR
> > mechanized brigade during a combined division/corps WFX (and this
> > occured while the engineer unit was fleeing an overrun situation,
> for
> > gosh sakes), I can tell you that trying to draw finite tactical
> > conclusions is risky at best. Add in the fact that the usual process
> > is to weight things a bit towards the OPFOR, since the objective is
> > usually to stress the Bluefor, and you can see where this is
> anything
> > but a clean and neat process.
>
> Perhaps I expressed myself badly. The "Digital Battlefield" systems
> are in no way temporary and stopgap but_are_here and now. FCS is
> intended to fully exploit the advantages of enhanced battlefield
> digitization by making recon ubiquitous and every present and by
> extending the logic of automated systems to all levels of the
> battlefield. The remarkable thing about FCS is what a small part the
> replacements for current Bradley, Abrams and artillery system are
> within the complete FCS.
>
> I agree with you about the perils of simulations but there are lessons
> to be learned from them. In the case I cited, the Marines demonstrated
> an obvious counter to the FCS approach.
> >
> > >
> > > As usual with military affairs, there's no panacea and the guy
> you're
> > > trying to kill has powerful incentives to circumvent your
> advantages.
> >
> > And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
> > ground fights is strongly suspect.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > isn't ready yet, never mind
> > > > >"electric armor"
> > > >
> > > > And this?
> > >
> > > Britain has done development on large capacitor banks that pass
> very
> > > large currents through shaped charge jets hitting an armored
> vehicle,
> > > melting the jet before it can hit the inner armo(u)r. They say
> that
> > > scaled up versions might be able to do the same to long-rod
> > > penetrators.
> >
> > "Melt the jet"? OFCS, that jet is already at extremely high
> > temperature, courtesy of its being shoved inside out and pushed into
> a
> > "jet" moving at thousands of meters per second. "Melting" it does
> > nothing to change its mass, and it is the combination of that mass
> and
> > attendant velocity that makes a shaped charge (read up on the Munroe
> > Effect) work.
>
> Read more closely about the physics of shaped charges. The jet in a
> shaped charge is actually composed of a stream of solid particles. The
> article in IDR describing the "electric armor" didn't go into details
> about mechanism but a shaped charge's jet doesn't have anything like
> the penetrating power if the jet is turned into a liquid. In this
> case, liquid copper.

Some references go so far as to label it a "plasma jet", and yes, it
really is, for all intents and purposes, a fluid (it even behaves IAW
the rules governing fluid dynamics, IIRC). The detonation of the
filler behind the cone inverts it under extremes of both temperature
and pressure (mostly the latter), forming the jet. As another poster
has noted, you seem to have the defeat mechanism a bit off; it
involves distorting the jet through the use of strong EM fields, *not*
"melting" it (if the latter were the case, what would it do to the
surrounding armor...?). Think of it as another system using the same
concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which also
hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.

The "electric armor" notion, still unproven in
> the field is that a jet shorts out two plates of a very high value
> capacitor and the resulting current melts the jet before it can travel
> into the armor array proper. Actually building such a vehicle
> encompassing capacitor in such a way that it 1. doesn't electrocute
> the crew or the attending infantry and 2. can be recharged reasonably
> quickly is left as an exercise for the development engineers.

Again, you seem to have the defeat mechanism wrong, from the way I
read it. And pray tell what this wonderful system does to a shaped
charge using a non-conducting liner (glass (which is a liquid in its
customary "solid" state, as we know it...) is a not uncommon alternate
liner in place of the usual copper)? As you said before, panaceas are
hard to come by...

Brooks

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > that's needed to make what amounts to a LAV mounted
> > > > >army viable. If the Army is to be both rapidly deployable and
> as
> > > > >effective on the ground as it currently is, then much more
> capable
> > > > >airlift is required. In fact, A300M is too small
> > > >
> > > > ITYM A400M.
> > >
> > > Yup. The A300M is obviously the two-engined version intented to
> > > replace the G.222
> >
> > Mehopes that was offered tongue in cheek, as the G.222 is being
> > replaced by the C-27J, and IIRC the A300 was a commercial design
> > development...
>
> Yup.
>
> > Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "Paul Austin" > wrote
>
> > > You've waived away logistics loads in using SBCTs far from
> litterals.
> > > Can you support that?
> >
> > No, I have not. But, unlike you, I realize that the SBCT is not the
> > *only* force structure design that requires log support. In order
> for
> > the current LI force to acheive the same mobility on/over the ground
> > that Stryker offers, you have to either send in a boatload of soft,
> > less useful trucks to haul them around in, or helos--care to guess
> how
> > much POL those helos will burn? The difference between the two
> forces,
> > if you force both to acheive significant ground mobility, will be
> > insignificant in terms of log requirements. The *only* way the
> current
> > force wins in this regard is if you send them in with *no* transport
> > capability--in which case congrats, you just forced us back to the
> > same rate of movement that we enjoyed during the Civil War (if that
> > much, since those poor grunts are going to be carrying about five
> > times the load that their 1860's counterparts were burdened with).
> >
> > Now, one more time--given that urban combat scenario that you
> snipped,
> > do you want to go in as a naked grunt, or with light armor support?
> > You *really* don't want to answer that question, do you???
>
> I agree that light infantry needs heavier support. My dislike of the
> Stryker concept comes from the concept's origins: Clintonian notions
> that the primary use for US arms in the future would be constabulary
> operations and peace keeping.

I believe you are reading a bit too much into it. Yes, they will be
valuable in such roles. But the real reason the Army decided to shift
in the IBCT direction was recognition of the fact that we are usually
not going to be able to depend upon our old Cold War-era "forward
deployed" strategy that dovetailed quite nicely with a really heavy
force, nor could we always count on having tremendous port and support
facilities easily available as we had during ODS (note the 4th ID's
difficulty in getting into a port during this last conflict). So we
were moving from a forward deployed stance to a force projection mode,
where early-entry/forced-entry forces assume an even more important
role, and where deployability becomes critical. What force structure
did we have to address this new paradigm? Why, the old light infantry
on one end, and the heavy armor at the other end--with pretty much
nothing in-between. Even the old M551 was now history, since the last
Sheridan battalion deactivated during the early 90's. That the LAV
became the best interim choice for a new "medium" force is little
surprise; all of the Rand studies put together have less value than
the opinion of those armored troopers at FT Bragg who begged to get
LAV's back when the Sheridan went away (and especially after the XM-8
AGS went kaput) (little known is the fact that the 82nd evaluated the
LAV back in the 90's, using USMC vehicles IIRC).

The only force that combines strategic
> manueverability and enough weight to operate against enemy mech
> formations right now is the Marines and if you get too far from the
> water's edge, they have to leave a lot of equipment on the boat. We
> need strategic airlift that can insert and support forces with
> something like the tonnage of a MEU a thousand miles for water and we
> have no count them none under development to do that. The SBCT is in
> fact better than nothing but does not serve our needs.

Yes, it *does* serve our needs, those needs being the ability to get
*some* kind of armor protected/decently mobile/upgunned force into
those distant theaters while we are putzing around trying to get
permission to use ports (or clear those that the bad guys trash, like
they did in Iraq), the need for a force better equipped for urban
combat than the typical LI force (and which in reality will augment
that LI force in the urban fight), and the need to lighten up such an
early deploying force in terms of its teeth-to-tail ratio, accepting
some log risk in return for being able to get it into the fight
earlier.

We need
> something heavier than SFOR.

SFOR? For gosh sakes, IFOR/SFOR was originally structured around
predominantly mech/armored units! You want something heavier than
*that*?

We_know_what happens when you use forces
> too light for the mission. Just look at (former) Yugoslavia.

And we don't *want* to know what happens when we can't get anything
but LI rapidly into the A/O, which is why the SBCT does indeed fill a
critical niche in the Army. I believe the last I heard, the plan is to
field only five SBCT's, with one of them being an ARNG unit; given a
total of some 73 brigade combat teams in the total force (34 in the
AC, 39 in the RC), I can't see where anyone should have serious
heartburn over converting 5 of them to SBCT's. As an aside, some of us
engineer types tried to lobby for an even more widespread fielding of
the LAV, hoping to get them for some of our combat engineer units,
since the original system swims quite nicely, and we are losing our
M113's as time goes by; the LAV would not only provide us with an
ability to conduct armored assault river crossings (the M2 is a really
lousy swimmer, despite the nifty pictures you sometimes see of it in
that role), but would be a super vehicle for corps-level combat
engineers performing rear area security (route
sweep/clearance/maintenance) duty. Unfortunately, in a dumb move on
the Army's part (IMO), they decided to delete the swimming requirement
for the Stryker, and the Engineer School is committed to deploying
engineer versions of the Bradley (complete with 25mm chain gun, for
what reason I have no idea; though they have at last apparently
belatedly bought into developing a breaching round for the onboard
TOW, something they initially scoffed at when the concept was
presented to them a couple of years ago--Afghanistan seems to have
changed their mind...)

Brooks

[Thomas Schoene]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om
> Think of it as another system using the same
> concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which also
> hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
> extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.

As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the plasma jet
actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact. No timing
mechanism required.

> Again, you seem to have the defeat mechanism wrong, from the way I
> read it. And pray tell what this wonderful system does to a shaped
> charge using a non-conducting liner (glass (which is a liquid in its
> customary "solid" state, as we know it...) is a not uncommon alternate
> liner in place of the usual copper)?

In the very heated, very compressed sonditions of a shaped charge plasma
jet, I suspect you'll find that even glass is conductive.


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:07:59 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:06:30 -0400, Paul Austin
> >>
> >> So what data rate will FCS run at? Consider a unit such as a Brigade
> >> - will the data links be radio, or something else (laser beams?
> >> fiber optic? ethernet?) or a mixture?
> >
> >The first Brigade XXI exercises were run using 64Kbps links over HF
> >radios. Not suprisingly, trials proved that slow a data fabric
> >completely inadequate.
>
> Presumably because all the nodes were trying to talk at the same
> time. What if there were fewer nodes on the network, say 200 instead
> of 1000?
>
> >There are advantages to HF links but VHF, UHF
> >and higher frequencies will be used. The Navy is planning EHF links.
>
> Higher frequencies mean more banfdwidth, I assume. What are the
> advantages of lower frequencies - range?
>
> Iv wonder if there are any plans to civilianise this technology; it
> might complement WiFi quite well.
>
> >> Comms equipment is giving out radio signals; if these can be
> >> pinpointed and targeted, the unit is ****ed. Imagine a swarm of
> >> cheap cruise missiles[1] homing in on radio signals from the nodes
> >> on the tactical internet.
> >
> >Not nearly as easy as it seems, since everything is spread spectrum,
> >fast hopping and anti-jam.
>
> The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
> others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
> knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
> engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
> work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
> and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*, over a
pretty wide band of freq's (this is why synchronization of the radios
on a time basis is critical to succesful operation of the net). It is
hard enough for the average "rest of the world" intel unit to DF an
old fashioned non-hopping transmitter if the radio operator uses good
RTO procedures--trying to pluck enough of these random
fractional-second bursts out of the ether to determine a direction is
more difficult by a few orders of magnitude.

>
> >> If your comms are degraded badly enough, you'll lose whether you
> >> have light forces or tanks; even the best MBTs don't have perfect
> >> protection against ATGMs, etc.
> >
> >MBTs are nearly immune to ATGMs now. About the best that can be hoped
> >for by man-portable systems is a mobility kill.
>
> Oh? I was under the impression the Russian Kornet was pretty good.
>
> >Heavier ATGMs have
> >some hope of doing more than blowing a track but not along the frontal
> >arc.
>
> ATGMs don't have to hit the front; they could be designed to hit the
> top, for example. And making the warhead bigger is not a problem to
> do, if the missile vis carried by a vehicle.

The fact that most anti-armor development programs seem to be headed
in the kinetic penetrator direction seems to support the idea that the
chemical energy approach is waning.

Brooks

>
> >> Does this work? It sounds nice, but I'm not sure if it's practical.
> >> What if the capacitors short out? That would release large amounts
> >> of enery, if it's enough to melt a solid piece of metal.
> >>
> >Success is a matter of sufficient development :) I find the notion of
> >melting a 10-20mm thick rod of refractory metal in microseconds
> >literally incredible.
>
> I'm a bit dubious too.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om
> > Think of it as another system using the same
> > concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which also
> > hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
> > extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.
>
> As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the plasma jet
> actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact. No timing
> mechanism required.

OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now you
are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I am
understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a second
time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry, but
this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective against
a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?

>
> > Again, you seem to have the defeat mechanism wrong, from the way I
> > read it. And pray tell what this wonderful system does to a shaped
> > charge using a non-conducting liner (glass (which is a liquid in its
> > customary "solid" state, as we know it...) is a not uncommon alternate
> > liner in place of the usual copper)?
>
> In the very heated, very compressed sonditions of a shaped charge plasma
> jet, I suspect you'll find that even glass is conductive.

Mea culpa. You are right, Tom; I was a bit surprised to find that this
is true for glass, which apparently has some level of sodium in its
structure.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On 22 Sep 2003 18:23:29 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>> >And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
>> >ground fights is strongly suspect.
>>
>> Garbage in, garbage out.
>
>No, not so much GIGO as it is a matter of the goals of the simulation,
>which is usually to stress the side being exercised. That retired USMC
>GO who ran the JFC exercise last year was whining about how he could
>not conduct true "free play", and that certain actions of his were
>rescinded by the exercise controllers, but that ignored the fact that
>the game had for one of its primary goals, for example, the validation
>of the IBCT/SBCT as a tool for the JTF commander--sliming the APOD
>that was to serve that unit might be a "real world" thing to consider,

Care to "de-jargonize" that? I get the general gist, just not the
details.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

(I'm not an electronic engineer, so I've cross-posted this to some
newsgroups which might be able to give informed comment on a number
of points.)

On 23 Sep 2003 05:51:41 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> [regarding battlefield internet]
>> The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
>> others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
>> knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
>> engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
>> work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
>> and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.
>
>No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
>transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
>radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,

Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
quicker than 10 ms.

> over a
>pretty wide band of freq's (this is why synchronization of the radios
>on a time basis is critical to succesful operation of the net).

So the frequency changes are pre-determined on a time basis?

If there is a radio receiver, is it better able to detect/deceive a
signal whgen it knows the frequency in advance? Or can it "sniff"
for lots of frequencies at a time and pick out what looks
interesting?

If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

Alternately, would something like a pinhole camera work? What I mean
here is: imagine a cubic metal box, 1 m on its side, with a vertical
slit, about 1 cm wide down one of its vertical faces. On the
opposite face, there are detectors for detecting radio waves. If the
elevctromatnetic ratiation coming into the box can only go in
through the slit, and goes in a straight line, then knowing which
detectors are lit up would allow someone to tell where the
radiation was coming from. It may be that, depending on the
wavelength, the incoming radiation would be diffracted by the slit
and would get spread all over the detectors. If this is the case,
perehaps multiple slits could be used, and the diffraction pattern
would differ dependent on the angle with which the radiation strikes
the slitted face? (because the radation at each slit would be
out-of-phase with the radiation at other slits). Has anything like
this been tried?

> It is
>hard enough for the average "rest of the world" intel unit to DF an
>old fashioned non-hopping transmitter if the radio operator uses good
>RTO procedures--trying to pluck enough of these random
>fractional-second bursts out of the ether to determine a direction is
>more difficult by a few orders of magnitude.

What methods are used to do DF?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om
> > > Think of it as another system using the same
> > > concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which
also
> > > hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
> > > extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.
> >
> > As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the
plasma jet
> > actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact.
No timing
> > mechanism required.
>
> OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now you
> are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I am
> understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a second
> time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
> protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry, but
> this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
> the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective
against
> a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
> sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?

It seems far-fetched to me as well although for long rod rounds. I
went back and re-read the article and the jet "is virtually
instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields
generated by a pulsed power system carried by the vehicle". A Warrior
was used as the testbed and it was subjected to multiple attacks with
no major damage.

As far as holes in the capacitor are concerned, an enemy may have
difficulty hitting the same spot twice. I would have said "unlikely"
except last week's AwWeek mentioned that two JASSMs hit the same spot
in rapid succession without benefit of a LASER spot. If the optical
tracker used for precision targeting for JASSM can do that, a similar
seeker can do that for ATGMs. Which also means "let reactive armor
designers beware".

Power apparently isn't a problem. The IDR article says that the
electrical load is "no more arduous than starting the engine on a cold
morning"

If you're interested, the (brief) description is found in the current
IDR (September) on page 55.

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 22 Sep 2003 18:23:29 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >> >And just as usual, the accuracy of computer simulations of tactical
> >> >ground fights is strongly suspect.
> >>
> >> Garbage in, garbage out.
> >
> >No, not so much GIGO as it is a matter of the goals of the simulation,
> >which is usually to stress the side being exercised. That retired USMC
> >GO who ran the JFC exercise last year was whining about how he could
> >not conduct true "free play", and that certain actions of his were
> >rescinded by the exercise controllers, but that ignored the fact that
> >the game had for one of its primary goals, for example, the validation
> >of the IBCT/SBCT as a tool for the JTF commander--sliming the APOD
> >that was to serve that unit might be a "real world" thing to consider,
>
> Care to "de-jargonize" that? I get the general gist, just not the
> details.

JFC- Joint Forces Command
Free Play- No restrictions on player actions as long as they are IAW
his units' abilities
IBCT - Interim Brigade Combat Team (a brigade combat team being a
combined arms force built around a maneuver combat brigade, including
"slice" elements such artillery, engineers, field arty, service
support, etc.)
SBCT- Stryker Brigade Combat Team (what the IBCT became after the LAV
was selected and named "Stryker")
JTF- Joint Task Force; typical designation of the joint/unified
elements contributed by the seperate services for a contingency
operation, ensuring unity of command
APOD- Aerial Port of Debarkation, or the airfield where the forces are
arriving (APOE being the *E*mbarkation site)
Slime- slang for hitting a target with chems; against critical targets
such as the APOD, likely to be persistent chems.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> (I'm not an electronic engineer, so I've cross-posted this to some
> newsgroups which might be able to give informed comment on a number
> of points.)
>
> On 23 Sep 2003 05:51:41 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> >> [regarding battlefield internet]
> >> The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
> >> others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
> >> knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
> >> engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
> >> work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
> >> and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.
> >
> >No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
> >transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
> >radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,
>
> Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
> not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
> quicker than 10 ms.

So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
spectrum.

>
> > over a
> >pretty wide band of freq's (this is why synchronization of the radios
> >on a time basis is critical to succesful operation of the net).
>
> So the frequency changes are pre-determined on a time basis?

Yes.

>
> If there is a radio receiver, is it better able to detect/deceive a
> signal whgen it knows the frequency in advance? Or can it "sniff"
> for lots of frequencies at a time and pick out what looks
> interesting?

Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.

Yes, you can set up to scan various nets (we did so for command post
operations where we wanted to monitor multiple nets), but they all
have to be on that same time hack, and you have to have each net's FH
plan loaded; you can't just decide to operate it like a police scanner
and listen in on whoever you choose to.

>
> If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
> accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
> signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
> differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
> direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.

>
> Alternately, would something like a pinhole camera work? What I mean
> here is: imagine a cubic metal box, 1 m on its side, with a vertical
> slit, about 1 cm wide down one of its vertical faces. On the
> opposite face, there are detectors for detecting radio waves. If the
> elevctromatnetic ratiation coming into the box can only go in
> through the slit, and goes in a straight line, then knowing which
> detectors are lit up would allow someone to tell where the
> radiation was coming from. It may be that, depending on the
> wavelength, the incoming radiation would be diffracted by the slit
> and would get spread all over the detectors. If this is the case,
> perehaps multiple slits could be used, and the diffraction pattern
> would differ dependent on the angle with which the radiation strikes
> the slitted face? (because the radation at each slit would be
> out-of-phase with the radiation at other slits). Has anything like
> this been tried?

Hey, I just *used* the critters and was fortunate enough to attend new
equipment training from the manufacturer when we got it; suffice it to
say that use of FH makes DF'ing a remote concern, pretty much
eliminates any concern over jamming (even broad band jamming can only
take down a small percentage of the available spectrum, making voice
transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

>
> > It is
> >hard enough for the average "rest of the world" intel unit to DF an
> >old fashioned non-hopping transmitter if the radio operator uses good
> >RTO procedures--trying to pluck enough of these random
> >fractional-second bursts out of the ether to determine a direction is
> >more difficult by a few orders of magnitude.
>
> What methods are used to do DF?

You'd have to find a signals intel puke to answer that one (but you
can rest assured that any really good methods/systems remain
classified).

Brooks

[John Keeney]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> So the frequency changes are pre-determined on a time basis?

Oh yea.

> If there is a radio receiver, is it better able to detect/deceive a
> signal whgen it knows the frequency in advance? Or can it "sniff"
> for lots of frequencies at a time and pick out what looks
> interesting?

Both.
To "sniff" takes the time needed for a bunch of transmitted
cycles to come through so the receiver can determine it's
not random noise.
The receiver for a hopper *assumes* there is a signal in the
expected slot and integrates it into a bigger signal for the
rest of the system.

> If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
> accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
> signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
> differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
> direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.

Measuring the time difference between reception by two antennas
yields a curve (all points such that the distance between the two
antennas and the point is a constant). Add another antenna and the
possible transmitter locations are the points where the curves cross;
by doing the A-B, B-C and A-C comparison you should have a single
point left.
If your antennas are too close together the curves stay in proximity
to each other so long you don't have the angular resolution to get a
good fix.

You can measure the angles quite accurately by using multiple
directional antennas and measuring the phase & amplitude differences.

> Alternately, would something like a pinhole camera work? What I mean
> here is: imagine a cubic metal box, 1 m on its side, with a vertical
> slit, about 1 cm wide down one of its vertical faces. On the
> opposite face, there are detectors for detecting radio waves. If the
> elevctromatnetic ratiation coming into the box can only go in
> through the slit, and goes in a straight line, then knowing which
> detectors are lit up would allow someone to tell where the
> radiation was coming from. It may be that, depending on the
> wavelength, the incoming radiation would be diffracted by the slit
> and would get spread all over the detectors. If this is the case,

It all most certainly will defract.

> perehaps multiple slits could be used, and the diffraction pattern
> would differ dependent on the angle with which the radiation strikes
> the slitted face? (because the radation at each slit would be
> out-of-phase with the radiation at other slits). Has anything like
> this been tried?

Sounds good, unfortunately your detectors hung on the wall still have
that problem with determining a short burst signal is really there and
not random noise. There's also the problem with which slice of the
spectrum they are listing too at any one time.
There are ways to do the listing with a really wide band but they require
boat loads of processing that's not done real time and none I'm aware
of preserve the phase information for DFing.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On 23 Sep 2003 11:22:50 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>>this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
>>the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective against
>>a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
>>sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?
>
>Sounds a bit like a waste of money to me. Perhaps the MoD should be
>more concerned with making sure British soldiers have rifles and
>radios that work.

*Still* waiting on Bowman, but PRR works really well at unit level.

As for L85/L86, after such a shrill whine the silence is suddenly
deafening. Where _are_ all those stories about British soldiers doomed
to death by their flawed faulty useless rifles?

Did the rifles actually *work*? How embarrassing! What will people
complain about now?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>> >
>> >No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
>> >transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
>> >radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,
>>
>> Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
>> not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
>> quicker than 10 ms.
>
>So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
>(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
>of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
>spectrum.

OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
frequency in advance.

BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
into how many bands, roughly?

>Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
>plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
>first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
>station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
>"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
>to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
>radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
>talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
>SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
>time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.

That would make sense.

>> If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
>> accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
>> signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
>> differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
>> direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.
>
>The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
>commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
>intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
>the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
>relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
>tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
>with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.

So transmissions of 5 seconds tend to be hard to DF? Of course, with
the battlefield internet, a text transmission will typically be a
lot less than 5 s (assuming the same bandwidth as for a voice
transmission, i.e. somewhere in the region of 20-60 kbit/s).

>transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
>crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
>it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:32:39 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On 23 Sep 2003 11:22:50 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>>>this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
>>>the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective against
>>>a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
>>>sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?
>>
>>Sounds a bit like a waste of money to me. Perhaps the MoD should be
>>more concerned with making sure British soldiers have rifles and
>>radios that work.
>
>*Still* waiting on Bowman, but PRR works really well at unit level.

I heared the army had radio problems in Kosovo -- don't know which
model of radio.

>As for L85/L86, after such a shrill whine the silence is suddenly
>deafening. Where _are_ all those stories about British soldiers doomed
>to death by their flawed faulty useless rifles?
>
>Did the rifles actually *work*?

Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
of the acceptance tests.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:43:45 +0100, Nick Pedley > wrote:
>
>"Paul Austin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tony Williams" wrote
>>
>> > I understand that basic Stryker is right on the size/weight carrying
>> > limits of the C-130. Any info on how the Herc will cope with the
>> > bigger versions, like the one carrying a 105mm gun?
>>
>> By buying A400Ms?
>>
>> Seriously, the Stryker (idiot spelling)
>
>The Stryker Armoured Vehicle is named after two US Medal of Honor recipients
>(one WW2, one Vietnam), as widely reported at the time.
>https://www.bctide.army.mil/newpages/medalofhonor.shtml
>
>Nowt stupid about that spelling, I think.

Though it is confusing that the name is similar to a British
armoured vehicle, the Striker.

I'd have called it the Piranha, as vthat was it's original name.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[L'acrobat]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..

> >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
> >it in any realistic timely manner.
>
> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> > >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
> > >it in any realistic timely manner.
> >
> > Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> > attacks.
>
> Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > om
> > > > Think of it as another system using the same
> > > > concept as current spaced armor and ceramic composites, which
> also
> > > > hinge upon diffusing the jet over a larger area, a;beit one with
> > > > extremely fine tolerances for successful initiation.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, the system actually self-initiates -- the
> plasma jet
> > > actually bridged the gap and shorts out the capacitor on impact.
> No timing
> > > mechanism required.
> >
> > OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now you
> > are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I am
> > understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a second
> > time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
> > protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry, but
> > this does not sound like the most promising of developments against
> > the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective
> against
> > a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project that
> > sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?
>
> It seems far-fetched to me as well although for long rod rounds. I
> went back and re-read the article and the jet "is virtually
> instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields
> generated by a pulsed power system carried by the vehicle". A Warrior
> was used as the testbed and it was subjected to multiple attacks with
> no major damage.

I would imagine a significant discharge is required; do we really want
that kind of discharge going off around our nifty battle command
computer, computerized weapons sight, radios, etc.? Not to mention the
effect on the now-ubiquitous Palm Pilot found in many, if not most,
platoon leaders shirt pockets...<g>

>
> As far as holes in the capacitor are concerned, an enemy may have
> difficulty hitting the same spot twice. I would have said "unlikely"
> except last week's AwWeek mentioned that two JASSMs hit the same spot
> in rapid succession without benefit of a LASER spot. If the optical
> tracker used for precision targeting for JASSM can do that, a similar
> seeker can do that for ATGMs. Which also means "let reactive armor
> designers beware".

Actually, I was thinking more along the line of degraded capacitor
performance due to a hole being in one of the two plates, not so much
the "in the same spot" issue.

>
> Power apparently isn't a problem. The IDR article says that the
> electrical load is "no more arduous than starting the engine on a cold
> morning"

OK, makes sense.

>
> If you're interested, the (brief) description is found in the current
> IDR (September) on page 55.

I stopped getting IDR many years ago; it was good, but it was also
rather pricey.

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.
And how do you bleed off the capacitors if they are not used? That
would be one heck of a nasty shock awaiting the troopie who shorts it
out with his rifle muzzle or wrench.

Brooks

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> > > >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> > > >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
> > > >it in any realistic timely manner.
> > >
> > > Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> > > attacks.
> >
> > Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
> ------------
> He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
> algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
> crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
> can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,
let alone 30.

"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.

Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't it?

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:35:56 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:


>Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
>not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
>specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
>of the acceptance tests.

Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Paul Austin]

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
> "Paul Austin" < wrote
> > "Kevin Brooks" wrote
> > >
> > > OK, I can see where that would complete the circuit, though now
you
> > > are left with a plate capacitor with a hole in one plate, if I
am
> > > understanding this properly--how well is it going to work a
second
> > > time? How much power is required? How are other systems to be
> > > protected from your own protective capacitance discharge? Sorry,
but
> > > this does not sound like the most promising of developments
against
> > > the HEAT round, and I can't see how it would be that effective
> > against
> > > a kinetic round, so is this another wonderful research project
that
> > > sees little opportunity of realistic fielding?
> >
> > It seems far-fetched to me as well although for long rod rounds. I
> > went back and re-read the article and the jet "is virtually
> > instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful
fields
> > generated by a pulsed power system carried by the vehicle". A
Warrior
> > was used as the testbed and it was subjected to multiple attacks
with
> > no major damage.
>
> I would imagine a significant discharge is required; do we really
want
> that kind of discharge going off around our nifty battle command
> computer, computerized weapons sight, radios, etc.? Not to mention
the
> effect on the now-ubiquitous Palm Pilot found in many, if not most,
> platoon leaders shirt pockets...<g>

Yes, I don't think anyone has done any EMI compatibility surveys yet.
>
> >
> > As far as holes in the capacitor are concerned, an enemy may have
> > difficulty hitting the same spot twice. I would have said
"unlikely"
> > except last week's AwWeek mentioned that two JASSMs hit the same
spot
> > in rapid succession without benefit of a LASER spot. If the
optical
> > tracker used for precision targeting for JASSM can do that, a
similar
> > seeker can do that for ATGMs. Which also means "let reactive armor
> > designers beware".
>
> Actually, I was thinking more along the line of degraded capacitor
> performance due to a hole being in one of the two plates, not so
much
> the "in the same spot" issue.

Since the external "capacitor" isn't where the energy is stored but
rather is a set of all-enveloping contacts, I don't think that's a
problem. The thing seems to work with a separate energy store like a
homopolar generator or internal capacitor bank.

>
> >
> > Power apparently isn't a problem. The IDR article says that the
> > electrical load is "no more arduous than starting the engine on a
cold
> > morning"
>
> OK, makes sense.
>
> >
> > If you're interested, the (brief) description is found in the
current
> > IDR (September) on page 55.
>
> I stopped getting IDR many years ago; it was good, but it was also
> rather pricey.

Every year when I'm faced with renewal, it's a struggle.

>
> I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
> that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.
> And how do you bleed off the capacitors if they are not used? That
> would be one heck of a nasty shock awaiting the troopie who shorts
it
> out with his rifle muzzle or wrench.

There are_lots_of problems with this and frankly, I doubt it will ever
be fielded. If it were perfected, it would confer immunity to shaped
charge attack, leaving KE projectiles to be delt with by other armor.
The system does seem to be light though.

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:47:07 +1000, L'acrobat > wrote:
>
>"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely no
>idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,

Ever heard of Moore's law?

I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
about 256 MB RAM.

Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
>that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
> >> >transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
> >> >radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,
> >>
> >> Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
> >> not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
> >> quicker than 10 ms.
> >
> >So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
> >(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
> >of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
> >spectrum.
>
> OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
> frequency in advance.
>
> BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
> into how many bands, roughly?

It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
use is 58,000.

>
> >Both radios have to be loaded with the same frequency hopping (FH)
> >plan, and then they have to be synchronized by time. When SINGCARS
> >first came out the time synch had to be done by having the net control
> >station (NCS) perform periodic radio checks (each time your radio
> >"talked" to the NCS, it resynchronized to the NCS time hack); failure
> >to do this could result in the net "splitting", with some of your
> >radios on one hack, and the rest on another, meaning the two could not
> >talk to each other. I believe that the newer versions (known as
> >SINCGARS EPLRS, for enhanced precision location system) may use GPS
> >time data, ensuring that everyone is always on the same time scale.
>
> That would make sense.
>
> >> If two receivers, placed say 10 m aparet, both pick up a signal, how
> >> accurately can the time difference between the repetion of both
> >> signals be calculated? Light moves 30 cm in 1 ns, so if time
> >> differences can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 ns, then
> >> direction could be resolved to an accuracy of 3 cm/10 m ~= 3 mrad.
> >
> >The fact is that the direction finding (DF'ing) of frequency agile
> >commo equipment is extremely difficult for the best of the world's
> >intel folks, and darned near impossible for the rest (which is most of
> >the rest of the world); that is why US radio procedures are a bit more
> >relaxed than they used to be before the advent of FH, back when we
> >tried to keep our transmissions to no more than five seconds at a time
> >with lots of "breaks" in long messages to make DF'ing more difficult.
>
> So transmissions of 5 seconds tend to be hard to DF? Of course, with
> the battlefield internet, a text transmission will typically be a
> lot less than 5 s (assuming the same bandwidth as for a voice
> transmission, i.e. somewhere in the region of 20-60 kbit/s).

ISTR the old guidance was to keep transmissions no longer than 5 to 7
seconds without a break (a break normally was announced as part of the
message, followed by release of the mic key, then rekeying and
continuing the message).

>
> >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to decypher
> >it in any realistic timely manner.
>
> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> attacks.

Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not. Otherwise we would
have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
generation" using input from that source) are not
unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them, but it will probably take
them a while, not to mention the time to get the data into their hands
in the first place.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:35:11 -0400, Paul Austin > wrote:
>
>There are_lots_of problems with this and frankly, I doubt it will ever
>be fielded. If it were perfected, it would confer immunity to shaped
>charge attack,

I doubt it, but it would give improved protection. Modern
shaped-charge weapons have two warheads, one at the front to break
through the shaped-charge defences, and one at the back to break
through the main armour.

One must also bear in mind that many shaped-charge weapons (I'm not
including lightweight ones such as the RPG series or 66) are
primarily designed to disable MBTs; a much lighter vehicle such as
the Stryker is always going to be easier to destroy.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:35:06 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:35:56 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
>>not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
>>specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
>>of the acceptance tests.
>
>Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
>range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
>ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.

Is that what they did?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:28:36 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:


>>Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
>>range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
>>ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.
>
>Is that what they did?

Yes.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Mike Andrews]

In > (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> attacks.

That's a great idea, and I suspect tthat you're right in the general
case. But a modern cryptosystem, badly implemented, will have all
manner of vulnerabilities -- most of which are not particularly
obvious.

Remember the competition for the successor to DES as the standard
crypto algorithm? That was *quite* interesting.

--
"Remember: every member of your 'target audience' also owns a broadcasting
station. These 'targets' can shoot back."
-- Michael Rathbun to advertisers, in nanae

[John Hairell]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Andrews) wrote:

>In > (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:
>
>> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
>> attacks.

[stuff snipped]

I love it when people make blanket statements.

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

John Hairell )

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >
> >I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
> >that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.
>
> I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
> effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
> implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
> words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
>
> Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
> large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
> weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
> vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
> a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
> complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
> main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
> a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as, and TD's
have a rather lousy record in that regard. A TD has usually been seen
as a defensive weapon, and most armies realize that offensive action
is usually required, even in the defense (i.e., the counterattack), to
secure victory. The Bundeswehr was the last western user of the TD,
and they even finally gave them up.

Brooks

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:32:39 +0100, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwly
>nch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>*Still* waiting on Bowman, but PRR works really well at unit level.
>
>I heared the army had radio problems in Kosovo -- don't know which
>model of radio.

Clansman, which is okay at what it does (insecure VHF voice) but is
_old_ and unreliable and vulnerable to anyone with a Radio Shack
scanner. The much-delayed Bowman is to replace it Really Soon Sometime.

>>As for L85/L86, after such a shrill whine the silence is suddenly
>>deafening. Where _are_ all those stories about British soldiers doomed
>>to death by their flawed faulty useless rifles?
>>
>>Did the rifles actually *work*?
>
>Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
>not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
>specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
>of the acceptance tests.

They eventually did. Do-or-die competitive testing: sand trials in the
Middle East (including bury it, dig it up amd firing)

The rifles worked. In fact, the L85A2 worked better than any of the
competition...

When the Press start bad-mouthing a weapon I'm minded of a quote from
"Arms and Explosives": "The rifle was always bad, its defects always
notorious... and the propagation of badness will doubtless continue"
This was 1908 and they were describing that famously poor design, the
Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Greg Hennessy
> writes
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:28:36 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:
>>>Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
>>>range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
>>>ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.
>>
>>Is that what they did?
>
>Yes.

More recently...
+++++
INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW
NOVEMBER 01, 2002
British forces do battle with rifle maintenance mythology

....Another recommendation was that a follow-up confidence-building field
firing demonstration should be conducted with a larger tri-service
group, involving comparative evaluations with other infantry weapons.

This was staged by the commander of the Infantry Trials and Development
Unit (ITDU), British Army Lieutenant Colonel Tony Thornburn, in Oman
using a 39-strong team from all three services. He noted "during the
demonstration, a total of 24,750 rounds were fired by the Individual
Weapons (the SA80 A2 Light Support Weapon variant was also involved),
which encountered only 51 stoppages. This represents a Mean Rounds
Between Failure Rate of one every 2,719 rounds. Out of 165 BFMs, SA80 A2
passed 156: of the nine failures the stoppages were easily cleared and
not mission critical. SA80 A2 Individual Weapon (IW) therefore achieved
a 95% success rate, compared with the operational requirement, which
stipulates 90%. These results compare very favorably to its nearest
rival."

Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.
However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG. It is understood whichever
alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.

In his report Col Thornburn noted "We also dug SA80 A2 IW and other
weapons into the sand to demonstrate that even following this treatment,
the liberal use of oil will allow the weapons to function properly
thereafter, finally laying the myth about oil and sand."
+++++

Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories,
this one never made much headway in the news.

Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Greg Hennessy
>
>Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
>the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.

One wonders why.

>However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
>Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
>Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG.

Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80
available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired
there if at all.

>It is understood whichever
>alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
>the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.
>
>

Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.


THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
now honest' honest from them.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > >
> > > > >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> > > > >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
> decypher
> > > > >it in any realistic timely manner.
> > > >
> > > > Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> > > > attacks.
> > >
> > > Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
> > ------------
> > He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
> > algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
> > crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
> > can be lengthened to compensate.
>
> The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.
>
> "lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely no
> idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,
> let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


> "and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of course
> it is...
>
> Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


> Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[Thomas Schoene]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message


> Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
> never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
> in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
> and not in any technology of any kind.

That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. And there is at least some
reason to beleive that QC is achievable within a couple of decades.

OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). If they have the actual
keys, the eavesdroppers can decode RSA just as easily as the intended
recipients.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[L'acrobat]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:47:07 +1000, L'acrobat
> wrote:
> >
> >"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely
no
> >idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,
>
> Ever heard of Moore's law?
>
> I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
> about 256 MB RAM.
>
> Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
> so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.

Right. you are going to base national security matter on a rule of thumb
that relates to a typical PC.

Good move.

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > >
> > > > > >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> > > > > >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
> > decypher
> > > > > >it in any realistic timely manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> > > > > attacks.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
> > > ------------
> > > He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
> > > algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
> > > crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
> > > can be lengthened to compensate.
> >
> > The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.
> >
> > "lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely
no
> > idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
now,
> > let alone 30.
> -----------------
> Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
> never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
> in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
> and not in any technology of any kind.
>
>
> > "and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
course
> > it is...
> >
> > Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
> ----------------------
> Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
> have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
> technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.
>
> But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
> statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
> guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
> is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
> VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
> most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
> of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
> by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
> RSA Tech. for these revelations.
>
>
> > Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't
it?
> ------------------------
> You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.
>

See Mr Schoenes response.

It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe.

[R. Steve Walz]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
> > never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
> > in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
> > and not in any technology of any kind.
>
> That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
> computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
> factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
> computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
> encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds. And there is at least some
> reason to beleive that QC is achievable within a couple of decades.
-----------------------
Or DNA computing, sure.

Just an escalation, the power of operations easier one way than the
other persists and an increase in length results in the same safety.

For it to be otherwise you need to postulate that the govt will be
doing its own fundamental research, and it NEVER does, and that it
will develop QC to that level BEFORE the market sells it or the people
developing it steal it and spread it around to prevent a national
monopoly on power, and that's pretty unlikely.


> OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
> but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
> the both the mechanism and the keys themselves). If they have the actual
> keys, the eavesdroppers can decode RSA just as easily as the intended
> recipients.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
---------------------
Yes. Goes without saying.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > > . ..
> > > > >
> > > > > > >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
> > > > > > >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
> > > decypher
> > > > > > >it in any realistic timely manner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> > > > > > attacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
> > > > ------------
> > > > He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
> > > > algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
> > > > crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
> > > > can be lengthened to compensate.
> > >
> > > The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.
> > >
> > > "lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely
> no
> > > idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from
> now,
> > > let alone 30.
> > -----------------
> > Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
> > never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
> > in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
> > and not in any technology of any kind.
> >
> >
> > > "and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
> course
> > > it is...
> > >
> > > Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
> > ----------------------
> > Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
> > have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
> > technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.
> >
> > But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
> > statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
> > guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
> > is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
> > VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
> > most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
> > of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
> > by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
> > RSA Tech. for these revelations.
> >
> >
> > > Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't
> it?
> > ------------------------
> > You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.
> >
>
> See Mr Schoenes response.
>
> It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
-------------------
You're a lying **** and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
delaying the inevitable.


> Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was safe.
----------------
You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . ..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined
with
> > > > > > > >crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
> > > > decypher
> > > > > > > >it in any realistic timely manner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> > > > > > > attacks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
> > > > > ------------
> > > > > He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
> > > > > algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
> > > > > crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
> > > > > can be lengthened to compensate.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.
> > > >
> > > > "lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have
absolutely
> > no
> > > > idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years
from
> > now,
> > > > let alone 30.
> > > -----------------
> > > Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
> > > never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
> > > in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
> > > and not in any technology of any kind.
> > >
> > >
> > > > "and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
> > course
> > > > it is...
> > > >
> > > > Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was
secure.
> > > ----------------------
> > > Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician
could
> > > have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
> > > technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.
> > >
> > > But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
> > > statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
> > > guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of
guessing
> > > is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
> > > VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
> > > most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
> > > of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
> > > by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO
of
> > > RSA Tech. for these revelations.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well,
didn't
> > it?
> > > ------------------------
> > > You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.
> > >
> >
> > See Mr Schoenes response.
> >
> > It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
> -------------------
> You're a lying **** and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
> delaying the inevitable.
>

Not trying to argue your already discredited position anymore Stevie?

Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of
the serious user" ands so you did.


>
> > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was
safe.
> ----------------
> You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
> to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.

As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable, but you are.

What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own?
playing Doom?

Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems and I
assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was
no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > > > > Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
> > > > > > ------------
> > > > > > He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
> > > > > > algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
> > > > > > crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
> > > > > > can be lengthened to compensate.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > "lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have
> absolutely
> > > no
> > > > > idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years
> from
> > > now,
> > > > > let alone 30.
> > > > -----------------
> > > > Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
> > > > never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
> > > > in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
> > > > and not in any technology of any kind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of
> > > course
> > > > > it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was
> secure.
> > > > ----------------------
> > > > Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician
> could
> > > > have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
> > > > technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.
> > > >
> > > > But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
> > > > statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
> > > > guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of
> guessing
> > > > is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
> > > > VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
> > > > most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
> > > > of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
> > > > by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO
> of
> > > > RSA Tech. for these revelations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well,
> didn't
> > > it?
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.
> > > >
> > >
> > > See Mr Schoenes response.
> > >
> > > It seems that you sir, have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
> > -------------------
> > You're a lying **** and a bounder, and you're diddling yourself and
> > delaying the inevitable.
>
> Not trying to argue your already discredited position anymore Stevie?
-----------------------
Ain't any such.


> Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the lifetime of
> the serious user" ands so you did.
---------------------------
It *IS*!
If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
lengths that are do-able.


> > > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system was
> safe.
> > ----------------
> > You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
> > to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> > qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.
>
> As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
-------------------
Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
universe.


> but you are.
--------------------
More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering.


> What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they own?
> playing Doom?
---------------------
Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.

But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore.
They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
firewall properly installed.


> Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
> and I
> assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there was
> no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
---------------------------
That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[Tony Williams]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Greg Hennessy
> >
> >Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
> >the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.
>
> One wonders why.
>
> >However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
> >Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
> >Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG.
>
> Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80
> available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired
> there if at all.
>
> >It is understood whichever
> >alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
> >the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.
> >
> >
>
> Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
> inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.
>
>
> THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
> so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
> now honest' honest from them.

I have received some comments from British soldiers returing from
Iraq. They had no complaints about the L85A2 performance. You can be
certain that after the huge - and seriously over-hyped - press row
about alleged early 'failures' of this weapon (see:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0211/1002111301.asp for what
REALLY happened), we would certainly have heard of any problems. One
commment was that the compact bullpup layout was much handier than the
much longer M16 when travelling in vehicles such as Land Rovers, and
it also helped to have the magazine more inboard.

Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of
M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Paul Austin]

"L'acrobat" wrote
>
> "phil hunt" wrote
> > L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > >"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have
absolutely
> no
> > >idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10
years from
> now,
> >
> > Ever heard of Moore's law?
> >
> > I've got a pretty good idea. A typical PC now has a 2 GHz CPU, and
> > about 256 MB RAM.
> >
> > Assume these double every 18 months. 10 years is about 7 doublings
> > so in 2003 we'll see PCs with 250 GHz CPUs and 32 GB of RAM.
>
> Right. you are going to base national security matter on a rule of
thumb
> that relates to a typical PC.
>
> Good move.

Historically, each and every crypto shop has been sublimely convinced
that_its_cypher was unbreakable. As near as I can tell, each and every
one of them was wrong. What makes that conviction so remarkable is
that most crypto shops either were breaking or had allies who had
broken the opposition's codes.

After the Walker Ring compromised US Naval codes and KGs for years, I
read an article in USNI Proceedings by a communications specialist who
airily waved that damage away with "we've changed all the keys". There
are more ways than brute force to break COMSEC.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 25 Sep 2003 23:53:17 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


>> THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
>> so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
>> now honest' honest from them.
>
>I have received some comments from British soldiers returing from
>Iraq. They had no complaints about the L85A2 performance. You can be
>certain that after the huge - and seriously over-hyped - press row
>about alleged early 'failures' of this weapon (see:
>http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0211/1002111301.asp for what
>REALLY happened),


Pardon my cynicism, it reads like a sales brochure TBH.


>Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of
>M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2...
>

FWIH, specifically in the case of the minimi and M16 that was more to do
with the age of the weapons to the region combined with wholly unsuitable
lubrication for desert conditions.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=FTE%20Archive.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=21&rnd=375.1068348990445



Handing soldiers old and worn out weapons is always going to cause
problems.

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqlessonslearned/iraqwarlessonslearned.asp

" It was also noted that many of the 5.56mm M249 squad machine-guns, first
introduced in the early 1980s, were wearing out. The M249s got a work out
in Iraq and many literally fell apart, especially among the Marines"



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
> Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories,
> this one never made much headway in the news.
>
> Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?

I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Greg Hennessy
> writes
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
>>the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.
>
>One wonders why.

To avoid being sued?

>>However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
>>Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
>>Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG.
>
>Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80
>available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired
>there if at all.

Was it even entered? (I don't think the line is still open)

>>It is understood whichever
>>alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
>>the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.
>
>Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
>inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.

Talk to the troops. They're the ones using the weapon.

>THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
>so far.

What basis was that calculated on, pray tell? Alternatives usually end
up priced lowball per rifle... but then you find the cost for
(proprietory) magazines, cleaning kits, spares, armourer training etc.
(all of which you need for changeover) is not included.

>It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
>now honest' honest from them.

So, where's the "it's useless and it won't work" stories now?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Greg Hennessy
> writes
>On 25 Sep 2003 23:53:17 -0700, (Tony
>Williams) wrote:
>>Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of
>>M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2...
>
>FWIH, specifically in the case of the minimi and M16 that was more to do
>with the age of the weapons to the region combined with wholly unsuitable
>lubrication for desert conditions.

Oddly, nobody was willing to accept "unsuitable lubrication" when
discussing L85 problems - it had to be a rifle fault.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Andrew Chaplin
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> <snip>
>> Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories,
>> this one never made much headway in the news.
>>
>> Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?
>
>I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
>Trial held at Shilo in 1980.

In 1980 the proto-SA80 would still have been firing 4.85mm...

>They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
>proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
>According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
>(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)

Has the Diemaco proved to be a disaster?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
>> >> >transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
>> >> >radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,
>> >>
>> >> Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
>> >> not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
>> >> quicker than 10 ms.
>> >
>> >So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
>> >(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
>> >of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
>> >spectrum.
>>
>> OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
>> frequency in advance.
>>
>> BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
>> into how many bands, roughly?
>
>It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
>that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
>to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
>AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
>use is 58,000.

More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time,
since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about
1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time.

>> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
>> attacks.
>
>Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not.

Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael?

> Otherwise we would
>have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
>programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
>our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
>top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
>generation" using input from that source) are not
>unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
>reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
>of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
>crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them,

True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in
existance right now, or likely to exist.

Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1
billion keys/second.

Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about
10^60 years.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Mike Andrews > wrote:
>In > (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:
>
>> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
>> attacks.
>
>That's a great idea, and I suspect tthat you're right in the general
>case. But a modern cryptosystem, badly implemented, will have all
>manner of vulnerabilities -- most of which are not particularly
>obvious.

Absolutely.

>Remember the competition for the successor to DES as the standard
>crypto algorithm? That was *quite* interesting.

What was interesting about it?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:08:36 -0400, John Hairell > wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
>Andrews) wrote:
>
>>In > (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:
>>
>>> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
>>> attacks.
>
>[stuff snipped]
>
>I love it when people make blanket statements.
>
>There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
>that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

I would be very surprised if modern symmetric and assymetric ciphers
are prone to cryptanalitic attack.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>> >
>> >I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
>> >that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.
>>
>> I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
>> effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
>> implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
>> words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
>>
>> Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
>> large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
>> weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
>> vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
>> a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
>> complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
>> main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
>> a limited traverse.
>
>If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
>tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
>because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,

That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:55:53 GMT, Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message

>
>> Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
>> never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
>> in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
>> and not in any technology of any kind.
>
>That's true now, but only to a point. That point is the advent of quantum
>computing, which allows you to effectively solve for all the possible
>factors in very little time (say 10^500 times faster than conventional
>computing for this sort of problem). If QC happens, large prime number
>encryption is crackable in a matter of seconds.

Maybe. And maybe QC will make possible other encryption techniques.

>OTOH, the real danger in the near- to mid-term is not crypto-system attack,
>but physical compromise of the crypto-system (the adversary getting hold of
>the both the mechanism and the keys themselves).

All good cryptosystems are still effective if the adversary knows
the algorithm.

The most effective attacks aren't usually on the systems, but on the
people -- e.g. getting an insider to divulge secrets.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:42:59 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>
>>In message >, Greg Hennessy
>>
>>Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
>>the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.
>
>One wonders why.

Indeed.

>Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
>inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.

I agree.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...

> Has the Diemaco proved to be a disaster?

Not at all, especially if the foreign sales are taken into account.
However, for the first eight or so years there were bugs to be ironed out
(magazines and their lips primarily).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[R. Steve Walz]

Fred Abse wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
>
> > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
>
> It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
>
> That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
>
> 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
>
> 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
>
> It took 1757 days.
>
> Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
> from RSA Labs for the correct key.
>
> 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
------------------------
We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
number of atoms in the big bang!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:08:36 -0400, John Hairell > wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
> >Andrews) wrote:
> >
> >>In > (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> >>> attacks.
> >
> >[stuff snipped]
> >
> >I love it when people make blanket statements.
> >
> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
>
> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
>

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?



> I would be very surprised if modern symmetric and assymetric ciphers
> are prone to cryptanalitic attack.

With computers.....

--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[L'acrobat]

"Fred Abse" > wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
>
> > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
>
> It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
>
> That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
>
> 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
>
> 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
>
> It took 1757 days.
>
> Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
> from RSA Labs for the correct key.
>
> 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)

and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
task.

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...

>
>
> > Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
lifetime of
> > the serious user" ands so you did.
> ---------------------------
> It *IS*!
> If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
> test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
> lengths that are do-able.

We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.

We are discussing a Govt doing it.


>
>
> > > > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system
was
> > safe.
> > > ----------------
> > > You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
> > > to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> > > qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.
> >
> > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
> -------------------
> Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
> It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
> universe.
>

That is what you believe. you are wrong. everyone always thinks their codes
are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.


>
> > but you are.
> --------------------
> More of your meaningless blather and ridiculous self-covering.

Yawn.

>
>
> > What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they
own?
> > playing Doom?
> ---------------------
> Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
> or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.
>
> But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
> sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore.
> They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
> commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
> while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
> defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
> download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
> firewall properly installed.


Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.


>
>
> > Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
> > and I
> > assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there
was
> > no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
> ---------------------------
> That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
> wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.

Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is utterly
ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "Fred Abse" > wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> >
> > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> >
> > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> >
> > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
> >
> > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> >
> > It took 1757 days.
> >
> > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
> > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> >
> > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
>
> and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
> task.
------------------
BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
about right. (~10^22)

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
> lifetime of
> > > the serious user" ands so you did.
> > ---------------------------
> > It *IS*!
> > If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
> > test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
> > lengths that are do-able.
>
> We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
> We are discussing a Govt doing it.
---------------
You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
of govts.


> > > > > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his system
> was
> > > safe.
> > > > ----------------
> > > > You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
> > > > to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> > > > qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.
> > >
> > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
> > -------------------
> > Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
> > It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
> > universe.
>
> That is what you believe. you are wrong.
--------------
No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.


> everyone always thinks their codes
> are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
---------------
That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.


> > > What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters they
> own?
> > > playing Doom?
> > ---------------------
> > Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
> > or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.
> >
> > But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
> > sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore.
> > They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
> > commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
> > while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
> > defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
> > download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
> > firewall properly installed.
>
> Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
> supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
------------------------------------
I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".


> > > Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
> > > and I
> > > assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that there
> was
> > > no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
> > ---------------------------
> > That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
> > wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.
>
> Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
> utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
-----------------------
Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
And you don't even know. Pitiful.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[Dave Holford]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> Fred Abse wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> >
> > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> >
> > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> >
> > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
> >
> > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> >
> > It took 1757 days.
> >
> > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
> > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> >
> > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
> ------------------------
> We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
> number of atoms in the big bang!
>
> -Steve
> --


There were atoms in the Big Bang?
That should come as a surprise to science!

Dave

[Paul Austin]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message
>...
> >> On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or
for
> >> >that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and
30mm.
> >>
> >> I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are
more
> >> effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
> >> implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in
other
> >> words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
> >>
> >> Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
> >> large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
> >> weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
> >> vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably
have
> >> a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper
(no
> >> complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong).
Its
> >> main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun
with
> >> a limited traverse.
> >
> >If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head
with a
> >tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
> >because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,
>
> That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

The only cost advantage that a Jagdpanzer would have over a
conventional tank would be the turret and training mechanism which in
a modern tank is relatively small beer. The propulsion, electronics
and gun would be the same. Tanks using the Rheinmettal gun are almost
always limited by sight line rather than ballistic performance for
lethality so I don't see a lot of advantage to up-gunning to say, a 14
0mm tube. Since a Jagdpanzer gives up a lot in anything but a
set-piece defensive engagement compared to a tank, I don't think
there's much advantage-now-.

During WWII, the deletion of the turret speeded up production because
that was a bottle-neck item in German production and up-gunning one
size was a real advantage.

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
> > lifetime of
> > > > the serious user" ands so you did.
> > > ---------------------------
> > > It *IS*!
> > > If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
> > > test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
> > > lengths that are do-able.
> >
> > We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
> > We are discussing a Govt doing it.
> ---------------
> You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
> of govts.

And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief
is more dangerous?


>
>
> > > > > > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his
system
> > was
> > > > safe.
> > > > > ----------------
> > > > > You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
> > > > > to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> > > > > qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.
> > > >
> > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
> > > -------------------
> > > Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
> > > It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
> > > universe.
> >
> > That is what you believe. you are wrong.
> --------------
> No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
> James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.


Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they
have always been wrong.

>
>
> > everyone always thinks their codes
> > are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
> ---------------
> That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
> and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.


I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their
favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys
quoted the math.

>
>
> > > > What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters
they
> > own?
> > > > playing Doom?
> > > ---------------------
> > > Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
> > > or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.
> > >
> > > But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
> > > sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore.
> > > They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
> > > commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
> > > while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
> > > defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
> > > download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
> > > firewall properly installed.
> >
> > Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
> > supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
> ------------------------------------
> I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
> to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".

A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.

Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.



> > > > Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
> > > > and I
> > > > assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that
there
> > was
> > > > no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
> > > ---------------------------
> > > That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
> > > wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.
> >
> > Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
> > utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
> -----------------------
> Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
> And you don't even know. Pitiful.

You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is uncrackable.

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "Fred Abse" > wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
> > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> > >
> > > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> > >
> > > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> > >
> > > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
> > >
> > > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> > >
> > > It took 1757 days.
> > >
> > > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
prize
> > > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> > >
> > > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
> >
> > and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
> > task.
> ------------------
> BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
> about right. (~10^22)

Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
good admirals codes.

Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
proved wrong. always.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:57:02 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:

>> Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?
>
>I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
>Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
>proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
>According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
>(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)

The Steyr may have shot rings around the rest, but by that standard
the first SA80 I ever fired was also wonderful and far better than my
old SLR. Meanwhile, in the real world, Aussies I have spoken to have
apparently experienced worse problems with the Steyr than I ever did
with the SA80, and I can personally recall magazines falling out all
the time and once a cocking handle coming off in somebody's hand.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[John Keeney]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> Fred Abse wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> >
> > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> >
> > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> >
> > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
> >
> > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> >
> > It took 1757 days.
> >
> > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
> > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> >
> > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
> ------------------------
> We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
> number of atoms in the big bang!

Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>In article >,
says...
>> >
>> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
>> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
>>
>> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
>
>Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
>Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:14:42 +1000, L'acrobat
> wrote:
>>
>> 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
>
>and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
>task.

If you think that throwing money and machines at the problem will
crack a 2048 bit assymetric cipher, you nare a complete and utter
fool who knows nothing, I repeat *nothing* about encryption.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
> > > lifetime of
> > > > > the serious user" ands so you did.
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > > It *IS*!
> > > > If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
> > > > test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
> > > > lengths that are do-able.
> > >
> > > We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
> > > We are discussing a Govt doing it.
> > ---------------
> > You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
> > of govts.
>
> And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which belief
> is more dangerous?
---------------------
Yours, because it's wrong.


> > > > > > > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his
> system
> > > was
> > > > > safe.
> > > > > > ----------------
> > > > > > You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you try
> > > > > > to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> > > > > > qualitatively different than any systematically crackable cipher.
> > > > >
> > > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
> > > > -------------------
> > > > Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
> > > > It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
> > > > universe.
> > >
> > > That is what you believe. you are wrong.
> > --------------
> > No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
> > James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.
>
> Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and they
> have always been wrong.
-------------------------
None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.


> > > everyone always thinks their codes
> > > are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
> > ---------------
> > That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
> > and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.
>
> I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks their
> favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto guys
> quoted the math.
---------------------------
Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
Bad practice for a Nazi.
He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!


> > > > > What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those 'puters
> they
> > > own?
> > > > > playing Doom?
> > > > ---------------------
> > > > Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
> > > > or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.
> > > >
> > > > But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
> > > > sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot anymore.
> > > > They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of using
> > > > commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat them,
> > > > while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are totally
> > > > defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up and
> > > > download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
> > > > firewall properly installed.
> > >
> > > Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
> > > supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
> > ------------------------------------
> > I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
> > to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".
>
> A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
-------------------
Irrelevant.


> Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
----------------------
If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
they aren't too sharp.


> > > > > Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals systems
> > > > > and I
> > > > > assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him that
> there
> > > was
> > > > > no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > > That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
> > > > wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.
> > >
> > > Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
> > > utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
> > -----------------------
> > Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
> > And you don't even know. Pitiful.
>
> You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is > uncrackable.
--------------------------
That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
pitifully.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > > "Fred Abse" > wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
> > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> > > >
> > > > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> > > >
> > > > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > > > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> > > >
> > > > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
> > > >
> > > > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> > > >
> > > > It took 1757 days.
> > > >
> > > > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
> prize
> > > > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> > > >
> > > > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
> > >
> > > and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for the
> > > task.
> > ------------------
> > BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
> > about right. (~10^22)
>
> Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
> good admirals codes.
-----------------------------
Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.

Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.


> Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
> proved wrong. always.
-----------------------
You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
pitiful.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[R. Steve Walz]

John Keeney wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Fred Abse wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> > >
> > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> > >
> > > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> > >
> > > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> > >
> > > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple machines).
> > >
> > > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> > >
> > > It took 1757 days.
> > >
> > > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck prize
> > > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> > >
> > > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
> > ------------------------
> > We're talking life of the universe now using more computers than the
> > number of atoms in the big bang!
>
> Hmm, not very limiting. Atoms come significantly after the big bang.
------------
You don't even understand the math, go the **** away and be pitiful.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[R. Steve Walz]

Fred Abse wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:53:32 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma. Bad practice
> > for a Nazi.
> > He didn't anticipate Colossus
>
> Sorry, Steve, have to correct you here. Colossus had nothing to do with
> Enigma, it was used on the Lorenz pseudo-random (more pseudo than random
> to quote Tony Sale) teletype encryptor. (Codename Fish)
-------------
Ooops, sorry, you're right, but the Lorenz was a machine that used the
same basic principle as Enigma.


> I've seen the replica running. The paper tape reader is awesome. 5000
> characters a second.
>
> The machines used on Enigma were called Bombes.
-------------
True, thanks for that!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[R. Steve Walz]

Fred Abse wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:27:27 +0100, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and James Bidzos
> > believe for solid mathematical reasons.
>
> You forgot Bruce Schneier.
>
> And (taking a bit of a liberty), Claude Elwood Shannon (RIP).
------------
Yes, this all comes out of Claude's signal theory.
And a couple others as well!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > Only an idiot would suggest that any code is "Uncrackable in the
> > > > lifetime of
> > > > > > the serious user" ands so you did.
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > It *IS*!
> > > > > If you choose to try to crack RSA go to their site and download a
> > > > > test message and try it. None have done so above the known prime
> > > > > lengths that are do-able.
> > > >
> > > > We aren't discussing ME doing it you cretin.
> > > > We are discussing a Govt doing it.
> > > ---------------
> > > You have megalomaniacal paranoid delusions as to the capability
> > > of govts.
> >
> > And you are an idiot who believes that Crypto is unbreakable. Which
belief
> > is more dangerous?
> ---------------------
> Yours, because it's wrong.


Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.

>
>
> > > > > > > > Again, ask the Good Admiral D how confident he was that his
> > system
> > > > was
> > > > > > safe.
> > > > > > > ----------------
> > > > > > > You're blathering, hoping that line will sustain you while you
try
> > > > > > > to bluster your way out of this, when the fact is that RSA is
> > > > > > > qualitatively different than any systematically crackable
cipher.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable,
> > > > > -------------------
> > > > > Which we knew, but it takes for ****ing ever statistically.
> > > > > It can easily be made to take longer than the current age of the
> > > > > universe.
> > > >
> > > > That is what you believe. you are wrong.
> > > --------------
> > > No, that is what Whit Diffie, R., S., and A, in "RSA" and
> > > James Bidzos believe for solid mathematical reasons.
> >
> > Just as every other crypto expert has believed their system is safe and
they
> > have always been wrong.
> -------------------------
> None of them had reason to believe so. They merely preferred to
> believe so. Now we DO have reason to believe it.


Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.

>
>
> > > > everyone always thinks their codes
> > > > are safe right up to the point that they are not safe.
> > > ---------------
> > > That alone has nothing to do with the mathematical argument here,
> > > and what is truly sad is that you simply don't understand the math.
> >
> > I do understand the math. it is not unbreakable. everyone who thinks
their
> > favorite crypto system is safe always quotes the math. Doenitzs crypto
guys
> > quoted the math.
> ---------------------------
> Doenitz trusted the Czech engineer who built the Enigma.
> Bad practice for a Nazi.
> He didn't anticipate Colossus, which he SHOULD have if he had read
> the papers of Konrad Zuse who had already submitted plans for a
> general purpose tube computer to the Reich, after building slower
> ones out of relays in his parents' front room using university
> student labor, and another two for the Reich using telephone relays.
> Those relay machines could have cracked some of the Enigma messages
> by iteration WITHOUT being rebuilt 2000 times faster with tubes!


I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
anticipating?

>
>
> > > > > > What, exactly do you think the NSA is doing with all those
'puters
> > they
> > > > own?
> > > > > > playing Doom?
> > > > > ---------------------
> > > > > Monitoring un-coded transmissions en masse hoping to flag trends
> > > > > or conspiracies by other characteristic signatures.
> > > > >
> > > > > But as for cracking RSA encoded messages or even kiddy porn being
> > > > > sent encoded from Europe: Not a whole ****ing hell of a lot
anymore.
> > > > > They are hoping their hardware will frighten terrorists out of
using
> > > > > commonly available public domain technology to completely defeat
them,
> > > > > while knowing that everyone who knows anything knows they are
totally
> > > > > defeated by any kid with a computer if he bothers to look it up
and
> > > > > download the tools and use a long enough bit-length and a decent
> > > > > firewall properly installed.
> > > >
> > > > Of course they are, they have eleventy squillion bucks worth of
> > > > supercomputers, all of which is just to 'frighten'.
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > I see you don't actually even KNOW the scale difference available
> > > to the NSA. Example, please define "eleventy squillion".
> >
> > A **** of a lot more than a bunch of PCs.
> -------------------
> Irrelevant.
>

Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.

>
> > Now give some proof that the NSAs role is to 'frighten terrorists'.
> ----------------------
> If deterrence by reputation wasn't one of their major roles, then
> they aren't too sharp.
>


Not proof, stevie boy, just the opinion of a fool.

>
> > > > > > Of course RSA is uncrackable, just like the good Admirals
systems
> > > > > > and I
> > > > > > assume he had a lackwitted buffoon just like you telling him
that
> > there
> > > > was
> > > > > > no way anyone could be decrypting our stuff too...
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > That's irrelevant, because he would have simply been technically
> > > > > wrong out of his own ignorance of cryptology, whereas I am not.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone stupid enough to believe their crypto is uncrackable is
> > > > utterly ignorant and a dangerous fool to boot.
> > > -----------------------
> > > Unless they're right, and then, of course, they're aren't.
> > > And you don't even know. Pitiful.
> >
> > You are simply an idiot with dangerous delusions that RSA is >
uncrackable.
> --------------------------
> That's not even what I said, but you continue to delude yourself
> pitifully.

Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
you know it.

[L'acrobat]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> L'acrobat wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > L'acrobat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Fred Abse" > wrote in message
> > > > news:pan.2003.09.26.18.56.35.507185.669@cerebrumco nfus.it...
> > > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:38 +0100, L'acrobat wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As has already been shown, RSA isn't uncrackable
> > > > >
> > > > > It was cracked by brute force but only on a 64-bit key.
> > > > >
> > > > > That was done by literally thousands of machines around the world,
> > > > > collaborating, using spare processor time (mine was one).
> > > > >
> > > > > 331,252 individuals participated (some were using multiple
machines).
> > > > >
> > > > > 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys were tested
> > > > >
> > > > > It took 1757 days.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some guy in Japan is one happy bunny. He got the ten thousand buck
> > prize
> > > > > from RSA Labs for the correct key.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2048 bit keys are a little more difficult :-)
> > > >
> > > > and Govts have a little more money and slightly better machines for
the
> > > > task.
> > > ------------------
> > > BUT NOT a billion trillion times more, which is just
> > > about right. (~10^22)
> >
> > Just like nobody could do the amount of computations needed to crack the
> > good admirals codes.
> -----------------------------
> Indeed we DO know PRECISELY the kind of computing power required,
> it falls right out of the procedure of the RSA algorithm itself.
> Anyone who has studied it can tell you to the Megaflop how much
> and how long it takes statistically for a given key length.
>
> Why are you still on about Doenitz? He didn't even DO any math.
>
>
> > Yet they did. the ONLY constant in crypto is idiots like yourself being
> > proved wrong. always.
> -----------------------
> You're blathering some mystical true-believerism that makes you
> pitiful.

And right.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> >
> >> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
> >> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
> >
> >Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
> >Navy not tell me what he did ?
>
> Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
> us it.
>

You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

Like others have said, never trust that your ciphers are secure.


--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 25 Sep 2003 06:23:38 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> >> On 23 Sep 2003 20:00:32 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
> >> >> >transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
> >> >> >radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*,
> >> >>
> >> >> Bear in mind that I'm talking about automated electronic gear here,
> >> >> not manual intervention. Electronics works in time spans a lot
> >> >> quicker than 10 ms.
> >> >
> >> >So what? Unless you know the frequency hopping plan ahead of time
> >> >(something that is rather closely guarded), you can't capture enough
> >> >of the transmission to do you any good--they use a rather broad
> >> >spectrum.
> >>
> >> OK, I now understand that DF generally relies on knowing the
> >> frequency in advance.
> >>
> >> BTW, when you say a rather broad spectrum, how broad? And divided
> >> into how many bands, roughly?
> >
> >It uses the entire normal military VHF FM spectrum, 30-88 MHz. ISTR
> >that the steps in between are measured in 1 KHz increments, as opposed
> >to the old 10 KHz increments found in older FM radios like the
> >AN/VRC-12 family, so the number of different frequencies SINGCARS can
> >use is 58,000.
>
> More than one 1 kHz slot is likely to be in use at anyone time,
> since you need enough bandwidth for voice. Say 20, then about
> 1/3000th of the frequency space is in use at any one time.
>
> >> Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
> >> attacks.
> >
> >Only if it were so...but thank goodness it is not.
>
> Oh? So who can break AES/Rijndael?
>
> > Otherwise we would
> >have lost the value of one of our largest and most valuable intel
> >programs, and NSA would no longer exist. Even the cypher keys used by
> >our modern tactical radios (said keys being generated by NSA at the
> >top end, though we now have computers in the field capable of "key
> >generation" using input from that source) are not
> >unbreakable--instead, they are tough enough to break that we can be
> >reasonably assured that the bad guys will not be able to gain any kind
> >of *timely* tactical intel; enough computing power in the hands of the
> >crypto-geeks and they can indeed break them,
>
> True, but "enough" happens to be more than all the computers in
> existance right now, or likely to exist.
>
> Assume: there are 1 billion computers, each of which can check 1
> billion keys/second.
>
> Then a brute-force search on a 128-bit keyspace would take about
> 10^60 years.

Well, I guess you ought to inform Congress that the NSA is a sham, then.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>In article >,
says...
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> says...
>> >> >
>> >> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
>> >> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
>> >
>> >Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
>> >Navy not tell me what he did ?
>>
>> Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
>> us it.
>
>You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?

IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
> >> >> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
> >> >
> >> >Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
> >> >Navy not tell me what he did ?
> >>
> >> Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
> >> us it.
> >
> >You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?
>
> IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.
>
>
No, I was pointing out that even with my current clearance my brother-in-
law could'nt tell me what he was doing for the NSA computers.

Neither you nor I know if thay can or not.



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:49:22 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>In article >,
says...
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> says...
>> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
>> >> >> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
>> >> >Navy not tell me what he did ?
>> >>
>> >> Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
>> >> us it.
>> >
>> >You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?
>>
>> IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.
>
>No, I was pointing out that even with my current clearance my brother-in-
>law could'nt tell me what he was doing for the NSA computers.
>
>Neither you nor I know if thay can or not.

While it is impossible to know in detail everything about the NSA,
some things can be known or reasonably surmised.

1. we know for certain that some encryption schemes are unbreakable.
One-time pads, for example, or schemes where the ciphertext is
smaller than the key. Of course, as will all symmetric ciphers,
there's the key distribution problem, but in the context we were
discussing -- a battlefield internet -- there is a secure channel to
distribute keys, you can simply exchange data storage media around
the battalion. (Sometimes, there is no secure channel, which is when
public-key encryption gets useful).

2. we know for certain that some algorithms are computationally
intractable, i.e. there's no way to run them faster. This followes
from Turing's Halting Problem. It may be possible that in the future
quantum computing will have some effect on some such problems; but
that's entirely speculative.

3. we know for certain that ideas are often independently invented
by multiple people in multiple places; we can therefore reasonably
surmise that what the NSA knows now, others will know within a few
years.

4. we know for certain that the US govmt is encouraging people to
use AES in its civilian Internet infrastructure

5. we can reasonably surmise that the US govmt thinks that no
potential adversary will be able to crack AES in the forseeable
future. The largest potential adversary might be China, which has
about 1/10th the resources of the USA, which is equivalent to adding
3 bits on a symmetric key, or waiting 5 years for computers to get
faster.

6. From 3, 4, and 5, we can reasonably surmise that the NSA cannot
currently crack AES.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[R. Steve Walz]

L'acrobat wrote:
>
> Yours, because it is both stupid and wrong.
>
> Thank you Admiral D's crypto buffoon.
>
> I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what it is that you aren't
> anticipating?
>
> Nope, you just hate to face the fact that your toy will be cracked.
>
> Poor Steve. RSA will be cracked well within the lifetime of the user. and
> you know it.
--------------------
You have said precisely nothing contentful.

You're merely spoiling for flame without even owning a brain.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:49:22 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:28:35 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> says...
> >> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> says...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
> >> >> >> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
> >> >> >Navy not tell me what he did ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
> >> >> us it.
> >> >
> >> >You really think anyone would answer that on usnet ?
> >>
> >> IOW you are bull****ting. Thanks for admitting it.
> >
> >No, I was pointing out that even with my current clearance my brother-in-
> >law could'nt tell me what he was doing for the NSA computers.
> >
> >Neither you nor I know if thay can or not.
>
> While it is impossible to know in detail everything about the NSA,
> some things can be known or reasonably surmised.
>
> 1. we know for certain that some encryption schemes are unbreakable.
> One-time pads, for example, or schemes where the ciphertext is
> smaller than the key. Of course, as will all symmetric ciphers,
> there's the key distribution problem, but in the context we were
> discussing -- a battlefield internet -- there is a secure channel to
> distribute keys, you can simply exchange data storage media around
> the battalion. (Sometimes, there is no secure channel, which is when
> public-key encryption gets useful).
>
> 2. we know for certain that some algorithms are computationally
> intractable, i.e. there's no way to run them faster. This followes
> from Turing's Halting Problem. It may be possible that in the future
> quantum computing will have some effect on some such problems; but
> that's entirely speculative.
>
> 3. we know for certain that ideas are often independently invented
> by multiple people in multiple places; we can therefore reasonably
> surmise that what the NSA knows now, others will know within a few
> years.
>
> 4. we know for certain that the US govmt is encouraging people to
> use AES in its civilian Internet infrastructure
>
> 5. we can reasonably surmise that the US govmt thinks that no
> potential adversary will be able to crack AES in the forseeable
> future. The largest potential adversary might be China, which has
> about 1/10th the resources of the USA, which is equivalent to adding
> 3 bits on a symmetric key, or waiting 5 years for computers to get
> faster.
>
> 6. From 3, 4, and 5, we can reasonably surmise that the NSA cannot
> currently crack AES.


Maybe they don't need to crack it..



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:04 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>The Steyr may have shot rings around the rest, but by that standard
>the first SA80 I ever fired was also wonderful and far better than my
>old SLR. Meanwhile, in the real world, Aussies I have spoken to have
>apparently experienced worse problems with the Steyr than I ever did
>with the SA80,

Allegedly down to domestic production issues with non spec ingredients and
lack of QC.


FWIH Austrian produced models havent had similiar issues. Not surprising
given steyrs standard demo is to throw one picked at random into some
suitable mire, drive a truck over it, shake the water out and fire it.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[John Hairell]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:33 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>>In article >,
says...
>>> >
>>> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
>>> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
>>
>>Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
>>Navy not tell me what he did ?
>
>Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
>us it.

You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
going to be so stupid as to post it here.

John Hairell )

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:47 -0400, John Hairell > wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:33 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>> >
>>>> >There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
>>>> >that's not sitting there just generating heat.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.
>>>
>>>Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
>>>Navy not tell me what he did ?
>>
>>Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
>>us it.
>
>You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
>going to be so stupid as to post it here.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "evidence" not "knowledge". I have
posted my reasons for believing strong ciphers are secure, and I
note no-one has attempted to refute my argument.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Steyr]

In article >, Andrew Chaplin says...
>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> <snip>
>> Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories,
>> this one never made much headway in the news.
>>
>> Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?
>
>I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
>Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
>proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
>According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
>(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)
>--
>Andrew Chaplin
>SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
>(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>
>
>

I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us that their new
rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

A teenager from the Welch was blown up by a UDA frag device a few days
previously. I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier.

The Brits were stuck in a Saxon APC and had to eat, **** and pee in the darn
contraption which looks more like an armoured telephone repair van rather than a
real APC. I thought it looked like a relic from the 1950s.

[Steyr]

In article >, The Revolution Will Not Be
Televised says...
>
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:57:02 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:
>
>>> Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?
>>
>>I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
>>Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
>>proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
>>According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
>>(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)
>
>The Steyr may have shot rings around the rest, but by that standard
>the first SA80 I ever fired was also wonderful and far better than my
>old SLR. Meanwhile, in the real world, Aussies I have spoken to have
>apparently experienced worse problems with the Steyr than I ever did
>with the SA80, and I can personally recall magazines falling out all
>the time and once a cocking handle coming off in somebody's hand.
>
>Gavin Bailey


I like the full furniture Steyr Deer rifle. I like rifles which look as if they
escaped from Kenya in the 1950s. I hate automatic rifles because the philosophy
behind them is entirely suspect.

One can either hit the bloody target or one can't. Of course that is just a
civilian perspective.

:o))

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 29 Sep 2003 19:49:55 -0700, Steyr > wrote:

>I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us that their new
>rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
>formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

Bear in mind a non-infantry unit going out on roulement to NI oppress
you on your way to the newsie's to get your regular "Aeroplane
Spotter" will be last on the list for the A2 version. All the
refitted A2's will have gone to Iraq, as the main focus of Treasury
approved-MoD spending, even if they haven't sent any water, tents or
generators. It will of course be a matter of critical importance to
the average citizen of Basra that the troops ordering them into queues
for collecting drinking water will have the A2 as opposed to the A1
version. They might feel a little let down and question coalition
priorities if they knew it was the latter.

>A teenager from the Welch was blown up by a UDA frag device a few days
>previously. I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
>not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
>soldier.

I always wanted to know why it was just as heavy as the SLR.

>The Brits were stuck in a Saxon APC and had to eat, **** and pee in the darn
>contraption which looks more like an armoured telephone repair van rather than a
>real APC. I thought it looked like a relic from the 1950s.

You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
Germans, and stick some armour on it".

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 29 Sep 2003 19:58:49 -0700, Steyr > wrote:

>I like the full furniture Steyr Deer rifle.

Mmm, with two triggers and hand-polished walnut stocks for full
Victorian authenticity when on a drive for some beaten Mau Mau. Only
when the season's open, mind.

> I like rifles which look as if they
>escaped from Kenya in the 1950s. I hate automatic rifles because the philosophy
>behind them is entirely suspect.
>
>One can either hit the bloody target or one can't. Of course that is just a
>civilian perspective.

It took until 1956 before the Treasury would allow squaddies even a
semi-automatic version.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:06:16 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>
>I always wanted to know why it was just as heavy as the SLR.
>

Overt poltical interference in the selection process to featherbed a
domestic supplier.

>You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
>to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
>line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
>Germans, and stick some armour on it".
>

See above.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:36:25 +0100, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>>You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
>>to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
>>line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
>>Germans, and stick some armour on it".
>>
>
>See above.

No ****. I presume you instruct everybody telling a joke that their
punchline was a punchline.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:28:11 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>>See above.
>
>No ****. I presume you instruct everybody telling a joke that their
>punchline was a punchline.
>

Oh my, we are a bit touchy today, who ****ed in your cornflakes.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[John Hairell]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:43:07 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:47 -0400, John Hairell > wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>>
>>You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
>>going to be so stupid as to post it here.
>
>Yes, I know. That's why I said "evidence" not "knowledge". I have
>posted my reasons for believing strong ciphers are secure, and I
>note no-one has attempted to refute my argument.

What you call "evidence" may not lead to the correct "knowledge".
What you believe (based on inferences about NSA made from very
incomplete public information) may not be true.

You made the assertion that "strong cyphers" are supposedly secure, so
prove it. It's not our job to prove they are insecure, it's your job
to prove they are secure - after all you are the one making the
allegation. Also, please cross-post to sci.crypt so that they can get
the benefit of your posting.

As an aside, as previous posters have noted, the Germans thought that
their Enigmas were secure because they had over one hundred sextillion
(1.074586873273 x 10 to the 23rd) "states" but their various
cryptosystems were indeed penetrated.

You also stated in a previous posting that NSA's computers are used
for "processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly". Please prove
this also.

You also posted that OTPs are unbreakable. That's true in theory but
not in reality. Several OTP-based cryptosystems have been broken,
maybe not using purely cryptanalytic means but broken nonetheless.

John Hairell )

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:06:16 GMT, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised > wrote:
>>The Brits were stuck in a Saxon APC and had to eat, **** and pee in the darn
>>contraption which looks more like an armoured telephone repair van rather than a
>>real APC. I thought it looked like a relic from the 1950s.
>
>You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
>to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
>line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
>Germans, and stick some armour on it".

Wouldn't surprise me.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[lisieux]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...
> On 29 Sep 2003 19:58:49 -0700, Steyr > wrote:
>
> >I like the full furniture Steyr Deer rifle.
>
> Mmm, with two triggers and hand-polished walnut stocks for full
> Victorian authenticity when on a drive for some beaten Mau Mau. Only
> when the season's open, mind.

My Great Uncle Charlie prefered to go Mau Mauing with a .600 Nitro
Express hammer gun. Whether it was ethical or not depends on one's
perspective on franchised colonial wars. The slug was the size of an
old gas stove and if that missed the culprit, the noise would surely
kill the blighter.


>
> > I like rifles which look as if they
> >escaped from Kenya in the 1950s. I hate automatic rifles because the philosophy
> >behind them is entirely suspect.
> >
> >One can either hit the bloody target or one can't. Of course that is just a
> >civilian perspective.
>
> It took until 1956 before the Treasury would allow squaddies even a
> semi-automatic version.
>
> Gavin Bailey


Can't blame everything on Suez.

[Steyr]

In article >, The Revolution Will Not Be
Televised says...
>
>On 29 Sep 2003 19:49:55 -0700, Steyr > wrote:
>
>>I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us that their new
>>rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
>>formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.
>
>Bear in mind a non-infantry unit going out on roulement to NI oppress
>you on your way to the newsie's to get your regular "Aeroplane
>Spotter" will be last on the list for the A2 version. All the
>refitted A2's will have gone to Iraq, as the main focus of Treasury
>approved-MoD spending, even if they haven't sent any water, tents or
>generators. It will of course be a matter of critical importance to
>the average citizen of Basra that the troops ordering them into queues
>for collecting drinking water will have the A2 as opposed to the A1
>version. They might feel a little let down and question coalition
>priorities if they knew it was the latter.
>
>>A teenager from the Welch was blown up by a UDA frag device a few days
>>previously. I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
>>not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
>>soldier.
>
>I always wanted to know why it was just as heavy as the SLR.
>
>>The Brits were stuck in a Saxon APC and had to eat, **** and pee in the darn
>>contraption which looks more like an armoured telephone repair van rather than a
>>real APC. I thought it looked like a relic from the 1950s.
>
>You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
>to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
>line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
>Germans, and stick some armour on it".
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever invented,
however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.

The Saxon is like a bloody big electricity box on wheels. It is like a
fairground tractor-generator.

[Steyr]

In article >, The Revolution Will Not Be
Televised says...
>
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:36:25 +0100, Greg Hennessy >
>wrote:
>
>>>You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
>>>to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
>>>line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
>>>Germans, and stick some armour on it".
>>>
>>
>>See above.
>
>No ****. I presume you instruct everybody telling a joke that their
>punchline was a punchline.
>
>Gavin Bailey
>
>--


Crew 2 + 10 troops.
Hull Length 5.16 m.
Height 2.63 m.
Width 2.48 m.
Ground Clearance (axles) 0.33 m.
Combat Weight 10,670 kg.
Main Armament 1 x 7.62 mm GPMG.
Engine 164 bhp Bedford 600 6-cylinder diesel (Cummins BT 5.1 fitted to IS
variant).
Maximum Speed 96 kph.
Maximum Range 510 km.
Armour Proof against 7.62 mm rounds at point-blank range


http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_sxn.htm

That last bit is more impressive than most flak jackets if you will excuse the
comparative and approximate irony.

'The vehicle, which can be best described as a battlefield taxi, is designed
around truck parts and does not require the enormous maintenance of track and
running gear normally associated with APC/AIFVs.'

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0039.html

It is a 'dressed' truck and the above description is army-speak for: 'complete
crap'.

[Steyr]

In article >, Greg Hennessy says...
>
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:28:11 GMT, (The Revolution
>Will Not Be Televised) wrote:
>
>
>>>See above.
>>
>>No ****. I presume you instruct everybody telling a joke that their
>>punchline was a punchline.
>>
>
>Oh my, we are a bit touchy today, who ****ed in your cornflakes.
>
>
>greg
>--
>$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
>Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
>If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like
>a fish!
>
>
>

I knew it was a joke. However the vehicle, pile of sad truck parts that it is,
might just have something to do with the old Bedford series of trucks. Humour
and disparaging lego scrapheap reality rolled into one big lump of green
electricity transformer bollix on wheels. I know Gavin from the grand days we
spent in Kenya together, cheerfully shooting natives to keep the map pink. I was
later recruited by Mugabe because he liked my totally non-discriminating style
of game conservation. I now hunt wildlfe documentary film makers and sell the
meat on the black-market. The white market kind of got expelled from the
country.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Steyr" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
invented,
> however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.

I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge of
a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[lisieux]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message >...
> "Steyr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
> invented,
> > however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.
>
> I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
> entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge of
> a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
> within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
> mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
> sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.


They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.

They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.

Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
the kids away.

[Andrew Chaplin]

lisieux wrote:

> They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
> ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
> they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.
>
> They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.
>
> Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
> drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
> through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
> the kids away.

I never saw them in an urban situation, except on display outside
armouries after their retirement and an occasional patrol by the Force
Reserve through the suburbs of Nicosia. They were quite tricky to
drive in snow as they could high-centre on the belly plate and wind up
with no traction under any wheel. At the same time, because of their
transmission and transfer case design, if they had one wheel on the
ground that could still drive they could usually keep moving.

The Canadian versions I saw had no turret (they were hell in winter)
so I am sure their drivers would have been really polite.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 1 Oct 2003 08:28:34 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:

>> Mmm, with two triggers and hand-polished walnut stocks for full
>> Victorian authenticity when on a drive for some beaten Mau Mau. Only
>> when the season's open, mind.
>
>My Great Uncle Charlie prefered to go Mau Mauing with a .600 Nitro
>Express hammer gun. Whether it was ethical or not depends on one's
>perspective on franchised colonial wars. The slug was the size of an
>old gas stove and if that missed the culprit, the noise would surely
>kill the blighter.

I think this is where the old Webley RIC .577 pistols came in: when
facing down the rabid hordes of Fenians waving sheets of recycled
Chartist propaganda and stoked high on IRB hallucinogens, you needed
the kind of high-momentum stopping power on savage, uncivilised
nervous systems that worked with the .455 on hoped-up Zulu impis and
45 ACP on gibbering Phillipino tribesmen. Indeed, I think there
might be an arithmetical progression in terms of the relationship
between colonial enforcement and the pistol calibre required to subdue
the restless natives responding to the imposition of imperialist
oppression like cricket, district health officers and increased
Vickers dividends at their expense.

>> >One can either hit the bloody target or one can't. Of course that is just a
>> >civilian perspective.
>>
>> It took until 1956 before the Treasury would allow squaddies even a
>> semi-automatic version.
>
>Can't blame everything on Suez.

It worked for Eden.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 1 Oct 2003 09:14:25 -0700, Steyr > wrote:

>. I know Gavin from the grand days we
>spent in Kenya together, cheerfully shooting natives to keep the map pink.

When the natives start introducing maxims like "democracy", it's time
to introduce them to the Maxim.

>I now hunt wildlfe documentary film makers and sell the
>meat on the black-market. The white market kind of got expelled from the
>country.

You should have got a job as a meejah consultant showing all the yank
camera crews around the ghetto. We could have staged some on-demand
hardcore warry actions scenes for you, like the company commander
driving his landie into the back of a tractor, ambushing the local IRA
QM on his way to fradulently claim housing benefit from the colonial
occupying power and other such cutting-edge combat situations from the
war zone.

Well, if Geraldo can do it, I think we can do it with more
credibility, and undercut his price in the process.

Gavin Bailey



--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 2 Oct 2003 02:28:18 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:

>They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
>ambushes without too much difficulty.

Going by the standard of driving displayed by most recce troop drivers
I saw, this wouldn't be too difficult as they loved to pile their
vehicles into random ditches, culverts and hedges with gay abandon.
And that was before they found the reverse gear.

> Even children can stop them if
>they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.
>
>They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.

Another cunning Fenian ploy unmasked. First, paint a zebra crossing
on the road to stop the enemy armour...

>Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
>drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
>through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
>the kids away.

My favourite was the Fox, with a centre of gravity so high that it
would overturn on any sharp corner and squish the vehicle commander if
he was perching on the turrent roof to escape the stench of the
driver's socks in the main compartment as per usual. I talked my way
into driving a Scimitar down Colchester high street once. That was
fun. As was parking it at the Little Chef for lunch.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised > wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2003 02:28:18 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:
>into driving a Scimitar down Colchester high street once. That was
>fun. As was parking it at the Little Chef for lunch.

Wouldn't parking it *on* the Little Chef have been a better culinary decision?

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 2 Oct 2003 14:54:59 +0100, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
wrote:

>The Revolution Will Not Be Televised > wrote:
>>On 2 Oct 2003 02:28:18 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:
>>into driving a Scimitar down Colchester high street once. That was
>>fun. As was parking it at the Little Chef for lunch.
>
>Wouldn't parking it *on* the Little Chef have been a better culinary decision?

After several days on compo, overpriced spicy chicken fillets and
chips was manna from heaven, believe me.

Gavin Bailey
--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[James Hart]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> My favourite was the Fox, with a centre of gravity so high that it
> would overturn on any sharp corner and squish the vehicle commander if
> he was perching on the turrent roof to escape the stench of the
> driver's socks in the main compartment as per usual. I talked my way
> into driving a Scimitar down Colchester high street once. That was
> fun. As was parking it at the Little Chef for lunch.

Mum always found it strange that tank drivers (no doubt the commanders)
would pull up at the traffic lights and would sit there waiting to do a
right turn with their arm out, stiff as a brush, like a schoolkid doing the
cycling proficiency test.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[lisieux]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...
> On 1 Oct 2003 09:14:25 -0700, Steyr > wrote:
>
> >. I know Gavin from the grand days we
> >spent in Kenya together, cheerfully shooting natives to keep the map pink.
>
> When the natives start introducing maxims like "democracy", it's time
> to introduce them to the Maxim.


Self government in Africa hasn't worked since the Cathaginians.

I might add that the EU as it was then constituted by the Pax Romana
tended to think that even under the Punic regime of random mercantile
despotism, too much scope remained for littering, double-parking and
the errant use of Mare Nostrum.

It was eventually discovered that Carthage had been built without
planning permission and so regulations being regulations.......


>
> >I now hunt wildlfe documentary film makers and sell the
> >meat on the black-market. The white market kind of got expelled from the
> >country.
>
> You should have got a job as a meejah consultant showing all the yank
> camera crews around the ghetto. We could have staged some on-demand
> hardcore warry actions scenes for you, like the company commander
> driving his landie into the back of a tractor, ambushing the local IRA
> QM on his way to fradulently claim housing benefit from the colonial
> occupying power and other such cutting-edge combat situations from the
> war zone.


We could try to simply re-occupy a white farm after first softening up
with some close air support and a few hundred cruise missiles.



>
> Well, if Geraldo can do it, I think we can do it with more
> credibility, and undercut his price in the process.
>
> Gavin Bailey

I think the "BBC Journalists will be shot" notices and bilboards might
scare Geraldo just a little. He has not dome anything really brave
since he went to Dade County Florida.

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"lisieux" > wrote in message
om...
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Steyr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
> > invented,
> > > however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.
> >
> > I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
> > entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge
of
> > a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
> > within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
> > mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
> > sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.
>
>
> They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
> ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
> they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.
>
> They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.
>
> Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
> drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
> through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
> the kids away.

Why on earth would a ferret enter into a zebra crossing, surely it would get
trampled. You know those zebras can get pretty big don't you?

:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP30jMFBGDfMEdHggEQIR2QCg4M18vQwYr3K6hQTSSjoI79 qQmcwAoMEQ
W6iuMkw2+yqHe1dFf+DAXBZH
=yc/B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:00:47 +0100, "James Hart"
> wrote:

>Mum always found it strange that tank drivers (no doubt the commanders)
>would pull up at the traffic lights and would sit there waiting to do a
>right turn with their arm out, stiff as a brush, like a schoolkid doing the
>cycling proficiency test.

It was revealing to see how few car drivers actually understood the
Highway Code arm gestures, and was funnier to see their faces when
they suddenly realised that their ignorance was going to pile them
into the side of a tank.* Having said that, it had army landie effect
in the traffic stream: drivers suddenly became less aggressive and
left a reasonable amount of space to avoid their precious cars getting
squished and dented. Although, to be fair, a CVRT in stop-start
traffic rocks backards a forwards quite a bit which can confuse people
anticipating the queue moving forwards.

Gavin Bailey

* I use the word in the loosest possible context to include the
Scimitar.
--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Blair Maynard" > writes:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> "lisieux" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> >...
>> > "Steyr" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
>> > invented,
>> > > however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.
>> >
>> > I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
>> > entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge
> of
>> > a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
>> > within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
>> > mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
>> > sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.
>>
>>
>> They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
>> ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
>> they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.
>>
>> They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.
>>
>> Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
>> drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
>> through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
>> the kids away.
>
> Why on earth would a ferret enter into a zebra crossing, surely it would get
> trampled. You know those zebras can get pretty big don't you?

The odd thing about this is that the Ferrets in question are quite a
bit larger than Dingoes.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>
> The odd thing about this is that the Ferrets in question are quite a
> bit larger than Dingoes.

Aren't they larger than dingoes but smaller than Dingoes?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[[email protected]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:

>"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The odd thing about this is that the Ferrets in question are quite a
>> bit larger than Dingoes.
>
>Aren't they larger than dingoes but smaller than Dingoes?

Good one Andrew!... :)
--

-Gord.

[lisieux]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Blair Maynard" > writes:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > "lisieux" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > "Steyr" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > The Ferret armoured car was clearly the greatest golf buggie ever
> invented,
> >> > > however it was a little too under-armed for use in Florida.
> >> >
> >> > I met a Ferret for the first time in 1973 as I stood sentry at the
> >> > entrance to a battery position on a cloudy, moonless night on the edge
> of
> >> > a forest. The little bugger came out of the woods and was able to get
> >> > within less than 10 metres before I could hear it (and what I heard was
> >> > mostly the "crunch" of gravel under its tires). Possibly the best
> >> > sneak-and-peek recce vehicle ever built.
> >>
> >>
> >> They are a very cute little vehicle. I have seen them disabled in
> >> ambushes without too much difficulty. Even children can stop them if
> >> they have lots of paint and a few big bricks.
> >>
> >> They also tended to stop at Zebra crossings as a matter of routine.
> >>
> >> Their drivers tended to be more polite than the Saracen and Humber Pig
> >> drivers. The Saladins were the most fun to attack as they simply drove
> >> through the hail of paint bombs and bricks without stopping to chase
> >> the kids away.
> >
> > Why on earth would a ferret enter into a zebra crossing, surely it would get
> > trampled. You know those zebras can get pretty big don't you?
>
> The odd thing about this is that the Ferrets in question are quite a
> bit larger than Dingoes.


Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html

[Andrew Chaplin]

"lisieux" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.
>
> http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html

Daimler was also the producer of the original Dingo (produced under
license in Canada as Lynx, IIRC).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[lisieux]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message >...
> "lisieux" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.
> >
> > http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html
>
> Daimler was also the producer of the original Dingo (produced under
> license in Canada as Lynx, IIRC).


Smilar concepts I feel, one overly optimistic version of the Dingo had
a (Tetrach) turret with a little 75mm gun.

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Speaking of Canada. This is an interesting article on Canada's unwillingness
to spend money on light armored patrol vehicles.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031004.uiltis1004/BNStory/
National/

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "lisieux" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Daimler LTD, UK, made thousands of them between 1952 to 1971.
> >
> > http://www.defence.gov.au/army/2cav/oldgear.html
>
> Daimler was also the producer of the original Dingo (produced under
> license in Canada as Lynx, IIRC).
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP37g3lBGDfMEdHggEQJSAACgklvYVXCiHLrs3dl6Luo/VqZrXQ0AniE2
wHO2Xx+fhIK8d8Kt0w7AJCsE
=T+yI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Steyr
> writes
>I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us
>that their new
>rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
>formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

Spoke to a colour-sergeant from the Royal Irish Rangers a few days ago
and he said the L85A2 was, quote, "****ing fantastic as long as you look
after it". While like any weapon it's less tolerant of neglect than an
AK, it shoots much better and is very reliable with basic (and correct)
care.

He'd been out using it for real, I assume he had some knowledge of the
subject.

>I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
>not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
>soldier.

Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
operations.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Andrew Chaplin]

Blair Maynard wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Speaking of Canada. This is an interesting article on Canada's unwillingness
> to spend money on light armored patrol vehicles.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031004.uiltis1004/BNStory/National/

As a counterpoint, see http://tinyurl.com/ppdc.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So Canada isn't armoring any of their jeeps because doing so would insulate
them from the populace? Interesting idea. Are there studies which have shown
this? Do they also consider the following factors:

1. humvees with armor have windows that roll down,
2. although the vehicles are armored, that doesn't mean the soldiers have to
stay inside and buttoned up all the time. It merely gives them the option to
do so if they are transiting an especially dangerous area and there is
little benefit of passing out candy bars?

That article said that the Ilitis' replacement vehicle would not have made a
difference the crew would still have died. True, but that is a red herring.
Nobody said that the unarmored vehicle replacing the Ilitis (IMHO the
G-Wagen) would have made a difference. The argument is that an armored
vehicle would have saved their lives. A casual reader would come away from
that article thinking that an armored vehicle would have made no difference.
That is trash journalism it is most despicable, throwing red herring
arguments in to distract from the main point.

I would agree about the "peace-keeping" argument in that article. The troops
are not "peace-keeping," they are "policing," which is what Afghanistan
needs. And the Canadian contingent seems to be doing a pretty good job of it
too. Good for them. Casualties will happen in such circumstances, but if
unprofitable risks are avoided, such casualties can be minimized.

All this argument and red herrings detract from the main question:

Were the Canadian troops who died doing something AT THAT TIME which they
couldn't have done just as effectively in an armored Humvee?

Believe what you want, but I doubt it.

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Blair Maynard wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Speaking of Canada. This is an interesting article on Canada's
unwillingness
> > to spend money on light armored patrol vehicles.
>
>
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031004.uiltis1004/BNStory/
National/
>
> As a counterpoint, see http://tinyurl.com/ppdc.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3+ZEVBGDfMEdHggEQIeQACdFIMnqe7+PB8U7VciaiQ0Hq 1AxqwAnRQS
xsA1UxUQEJ1N/hh7m2bqOY3b
=+BbW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andrew Chaplin]

Blair Maynard wrote:

> So Canada isn't armoring any of their jeeps because doing so would insulate
> them from the populace? Interesting idea. Are there studies which have shown
> this? Do they also consider the following factors:

Canada is not armouring its Iltises because they are clapped out and
awaiting replacement.

> 1. humvees with armor have windows that roll down,
> 2. although the vehicles are armored, that doesn't mean the soldiers have to
> stay inside and buttoned up all the time. It merely gives them the option to
> do so if they are transiting an especially dangerous area and there is
> little benefit of passing out candy bars?
>
> That article said that the Ilitis' replacement vehicle would not have made a
> difference the crew would still have died. True, but that is a red herring.
> Nobody said that the unarmored vehicle replacing the Ilitis (IMHO the
> G-Wagen) would have made a difference. The argument is that an armored
> vehicle would have saved their lives. A casual reader would come away from
> that article thinking that an armored vehicle would have made no difference.
> That is trash journalism it is most despicable, throwing red herring
> arguments in to distract from the main point.
>
> I would agree about the "peace-keeping" argument in that article. The troops
> are not "peace-keeping," they are "policing," which is what Afghanistan
> needs. And the Canadian contingent seems to be doing a pretty good job of it
> too. Good for them. Casualties will happen in such circumstances, but if
> unprofitable risks are avoided, such casualties can be minimized.
>
> All this argument and red herrings detract from the main question:
>
> Were the Canadian troops who died doing something AT THAT TIME which they
> couldn't have done just as effectively in an armored Humvee?

No. Have a look at the photo of the crater posted in
news:alt.binaries.pictures.military. A HUMMV would not likely have
saved them either. A LAV would have, but one had already been used to
prove the route.

> Believe what you want, but I doubt it.

I have been in places with similar risks and done similar things. I
have known the battalion commander for 25 years and the contingent
commander for 24 (he's from my regiment). I trust their judgement.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Blair Maynard wrote:
>
>
> No. Have a look at the photo of the crater posted in
> news:alt.binaries.pictures.military. A HUMMV would not likely have
> saved them either. A LAV would have, but one had already been used to
> prove the route.
>
> > Believe what you want, but I doubt it.
>
> I have been in places with similar risks and done similar things. I
> have known the battalion commander for 25 years and the contingent
> commander for 24 (he's from my regiment). I trust their judgement.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

I see the picture. It shows two guys kneeling next to a small hole where it
looks like they might have dug a hole (presumably looking for another mine).
There is a small blackened area on the left side of the photo in front of
them. The blackened area is cut off by the left side of the photo, so I
can't see how big it is. There is white tape behind them presumably
designating a safe approach to the area. The photo is too close for me to
see a crater. A pic of the jeep would help.

I don't understand that last comment about trusting the battalion commander
and contingent commander. I never questioned their judgement. What is your
point? How is this relevant?

Are you saying that they would have disobeyed their orders to go to
Afghanistan if they thought armored hummvees would save lives?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3++8lBGDfMEdHggEQKNTQCg3rKrI6QS/r/u/8y/Dwj3UlNdXSYAoNGL
LM4lHsWcGz0aCW2PA8xe6Fkb
=bEZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andrew Chaplin]

Blair Maynard wrote:

> I see the picture. It shows two guys kneeling next to a small hole where it
> looks like they might have dug a hole (presumably looking for another mine).
> There is a small blackened area on the left side of the photo in front of
> them. The blackened area is cut off by the left side of the photo, so I
> can't see how big it is. There is white tape behind them presumably
> designating a safe approach to the area. The photo is too close for me to
> see a crater. A pic of the jeep would help.
>
> I don't understand that last comment about trusting the battalion commander
> and contingent commander. I never questioned their judgement. What is your
> point? How is this relevant?
>
> Are you saying that they would have disobeyed their orders to go to
> Afghanistan if they thought armored hummvees would save lives?

No. They are the ones who ordered the patrol in a soft-skinned vehicle
when they had LAV variants available. They would have weighed the
risks carefully and judged this sort of patrol warranted under the
circumstances.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[lisieux]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Steyr
> > writes
> >I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us
> >that their new
> >rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
> >formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.
>
> Spoke to a colour-sergeant from the Royal Irish Rangers a few days ago
> and he said the L85A2 was, quote, "****ing fantastic as long as you look
> after it". While like any weapon it's less tolerant of neglect than an
> AK, it shoots much better and is very reliable with basic (and correct)
> care.
>
> He'd been out using it for real, I assume he had some knowledge of the
> subject.
>
> >I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
> >not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
> >soldier.
>
> Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
> we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
> have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
> operations.

A group of British soldiers spoke to an American lady about the crisis
in North Belfast, I was standing next to the group, I asked the
soldier holding the eapon what he thought of it, he said it was
"crap".

He then remarked to the American lady that he thought her soldiers had
a real rifle. His coleagues who ere living out of a Saxon vehicle
agreed with the soldier doing the talking.

'I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've not
actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier'

As I'm unlikely ever to use one, I've no personal opinion on the
matter other than it looks like a ergonomic copy of a 1949 rifle the
British contemplated adopting. I'd sooner have a Martini-Henry Mark
IV.

'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
except for general external "bullpup" layout.'

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Blair Maynard wrote:
>
> > I see the picture. It shows two guys kneeling next to a small hole where
it
> > looks like they might have dug a hole (presumably looking for another
mine).
> > There is a small blackened area on the left side of the photo in front
of
> > them. The blackened area is cut off by the left side of the photo, so I
> > can't see how big it is. There is white tape behind them presumably
> > designating a safe approach to the area. The photo is too close for me
to
> > see a crater. A pic of the jeep would help.
> >
> > I don't understand that last comment about trusting the battalion
commander
> > and contingent commander. I never questioned their judgement. What is
your
> > point? How is this relevant?
> >
> > Are you saying that they would have disobeyed their orders to go to
> > Afghanistan if they thought armored hummvees would save lives?
>
> No. They are the ones who ordered the patrol in a soft-skinned vehicle
> when they had LAV variants available. They would have weighed the
> risks carefully and judged this sort of patrol warranted under the
> circumstances.
> --

Right. These things happen. Soldiers use what they have, which is usually
dictated by what their governments are willing to buy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP4CL7lBGDfMEdHggEQLpLACggwivkVFHY/Tf5vwBpelY9tuD7hwAoLAX
FhD+u2X0a0guH6yfoJB+10dU
=LMXI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>
>>"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> The odd thing about this is that the Ferrets in question are quite a
>>> bit larger than Dingoes.
>>
>>Aren't they larger than dingoes but smaller than Dingoes?
>
> Good one Andrew!... :)

And, as it turns out, accurate as well. FOr some reason, I'd alwauys
thought that the Daimler Dingo was smaller than the Ferret. Turns out
that the Dingo has a couple of tons on it. I've got to get some of
those newfangled Disk Brains - the Drum Brains fade with repeated use.

Now, I could tell you about the M8 Grayhound we had for a short
while. We tried to register it as a 1943 Ford Convertible, color
Green.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, lisieux
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> Talk to a few who have used it. It's interesting how the "it's crap and
>> we hate it" mindset of the early 1990s has changed among soldiers who
>> have (a) used it on operations, (b) seen other weapons used on
>> operations.
>
>A group of British soldiers spoke to an American lady about the crisis
>in North Belfast, I was standing next to the group, I asked the
>soldier holding the eapon what he thought of it, he said it was
>"crap".

Had he used it in combat and seen how other forces' weapons performed?

>He then remarked to the American lady that he thought her soldiers had
>a real rifle. His coleagues who ere living out of a Saxon vehicle
>agreed with the soldier doing the talking.

An opinion not entirely shared by UK troops currently returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has a serviceable and proven weapon but it
hasn't proven to be fault-free or perfect either.

Again, I'd be curious about the experience of the troops involved. My
most recent contact was with sergeants, colour-sergeants and WO2s
recently returned from operational deployments where they had used their
rifles in action; and they were solidly positive (and in a few cases
rueful that they'd bitched so much in the past)

>'I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've not
>actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
>soldier'

Try asking a few more, especially those who have been deployed
operationally.

>As I'm unlikely ever to use one, I've no personal opinion on the
>matter other than it looks like a ergonomic copy of a 1949 rifle the
>British contemplated adopting. I'd sooner have a Martini-Henry Mark
>IV.

Your loss: you gain stopping power but lose range and rate of fire. How
well do you shoot and reload with 5.56mm ball through your torso?

>'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
>story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
>assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
>is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
>except for general external "bullpup" layout.'
>
>http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Tony Williams]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, lisieux
> > writes
>
> >'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
> >story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
> >assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
> >is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
> >except for general external "bullpup" layout.'
> >
> >http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm
>
> I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?

I'll have to have a word with Max about that :) I suspect that he
wrote it before the successful use of the L85A2 in Iraq.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[lisieux]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

>
> >'So, Brits had to adopt another design, but this is also another
> >story. There's also some rumors that infamous British SA80 / L85
> >assault rifle, introduced in 1980s, was based on the EM-2 design. It
> >is not true, since the crappy L85 has nothing in common with EM-2
> >except for general external "bullpup" layout.'
> >
> >http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm
>
> I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?

The earlier British rifle was potentially a better development
product, the 5.56 round was not really the answer and neither was the
7.62 NATO.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 7 Oct 2003 19:32:43 -0700, (lisieux) wrote:


>> I think the wording is its own evidence as to veracity, don't you?
>
>The earlier British rifle was potentially a better development
>product, the 5.56 round was not really the answer and neither was the
>7.62 NATO.


Reading the ballistic data at the bottom makes for an interesting what if.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.