Shared posts

04 Feb 09:13

Watch Nigeria's First Confirmed Drone Strike -- Against Boko Haram

by Kelsey D. Atherton
China Nigeria Drone

Aminu Gamawa

Nigerian CH-3

This January 25, 2015 photo appears to show a Chinese made CH-3 drone, owned by Nigeria, which has crash landed upside down. The two AR-1 ATGMs attached to its wing pylons suggest that Nigeria is turning to drone strikes as the bloody war against Boko Haram continues.

The circle of drone warriors is growing, slowly. Today, Nigeria announced a successful drone strike in its ongoing war against the militant group Boko Haram. With it, Nigeria joins a dubious club of the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, and Iraq who have all used armed drones in modern war.

While we’ve seen evidence of Nigerian armed drones before, notably after one crashed, this time there’s video evidence of a strike, released by Nigerian itself.

There are two big implications from this strike. The first is that, when the United States doesn’t sell countries drones over fear of how they’ll use them, the countries buy their drones from elsewhere, often China.

Nigeria joins a dubious club of the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, and Iraq who have all used armed drones in modern war.

Much of Nigeria’s drone arsenal are Israeli-made Aerostar UAVs, which are unarmed. Nigeria also has its own, locally-made drones that strongly resemble these Aerostars, and are likely also only surveillance tools. Instead, for the strike it looks like the drone was a Chinese CH-3.

The CH-3 is an armed adaption of earlier Chinese reconnaissance drones, and has been in Nigeria’s inventory since at least 2014. In the video released of the attack, there’s a large blast, and the Nigerian Air Force claims they hit a logistics base belonging to Boko Haram, possibly an ammunition storehouse. Nigeria, like Iraq, appears to buy their armed drones from China.

The second major implication is that, despite more nations using drones, they all seem to be using them in a similar manner to the United States: for counter-insurgency warfare. This is perfectly expected: modern military drones drones are slow, lightly-armed airplanes with cameras, best at flying for a long time and scanning the ground below. When nations today get armed drones, this is how they plan to use them. It will take a lot of change in technology for those drones to start being a threat to other countries.

Watch the video below:

Video of VIDEO: Nigeria Air Force drone destroys Boko Haram's logistics base
01 Jan 19:26

DARPA Wants To Turn Small Ships Into Drone Aircraft Carriers

by Kelsey D. Atherton
TERN Concept Art

DARPA

TERN Concept Art

Note the missiles under the wings. Friendly!

Aircraft carriers revolutionized naval war. Before carriers, giant battleships defined naval battles, their powerful cannons threatening other vessels and coastal cities alike. Then came the aircraft carrier, a floating runway and hangar that could launch planes far away from land, at targets well beyond the range of a ship's cannons, sinking enemy vessels far beyond the line of sight.

It took a few decades to realize this impact, but once naval planners took it in, battleships were sunk for good. Now, DARPA wants to expand the aircraft carrier revolution by developing a small drone that can take off and land even on small ships. This would give reach and power not just to dedicated giant naval vessels, but smaller escorts too.

Dubbed TERN, for “Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node,” the drone is a tail-sitter on land or decks, meaning the body takes off and lands like a helicopter, but turns 90 degrees once airborne to fly like a plane. It’s a medium-altitude long endurance vehicle, helpfully acronymed as MALE, just in case their were any doubts about this robot’s gender. Two counter-rotating propellers on the nose provide first lift then thrust, and the body would be a flying wing. When not in use, the TERN would nest securely inside the ship.

DARPA just awarded Phase III funding to Northrop Grumman for this project, with the aim of building a full-size demonstrator that can takeoff at sea, transition to and from horizontal flight, and land from a small platform, like that available on a destroyer or other small combat ship (but not, yet, from a submarine). This makes it markedly different from the last naval drone to make big waves, the X-47B unmanned combat aerial vehicle, which took off from an aircraft carrier’s runway.

We don’t yet know if the TERN program will work, but future ships are already incorporating it into their designs. The Navy’s high-tech Zumwalt destroyer, which went to sea for the first time this month, has a rear landing pad for either two helicopters or several smaller drones. The T2050, a British concept for the ship of the future, features a large drone landing pad and lots of small drones.

AIrcraft carriers changed war by expanding the reach of the biggest, deadliest ships. If the TERN works, it could usher in a second age of aircraft carriers, where all but the tiniest boats in the Navy can launch planes of their own, scouting places and striking targets in distances far greater than the ship’s humble bodies suggest.

05 Jul 15:11

Europas Führung wusste seit 1977, dass der Euro scheitern wird

by fundstueck@achgut.de (Fundstück)
(Fundstück)

Christopher Booker has uncovered the original report commissioned by the European Union (not that it was called that yet) into monetary union. And the basic point being made was that if you have monetary union without fiscal union then it is doomed. So, what did the EU then do? They went ahead with monetary union without fiscal union and then act all surprised when it doesn’t work:

“Particularly timely right now has been its failure ever to tell us of the predictions made in 1977 by a committee of expert economists led by Sir Donald MacDougall, appointed by the European Commission to advise on what would be necessary to make a single currency work. It would only be viable, they concluded, if Europe’s “government” controlled 25 per cent of member states’ GDP, allowing it to redistribute massive amounts of money from richer parts of Europe to poorer countries. Failure to attend to this matter,” their report stated, would result in “stagnation”, at least, and “at worst in secession and dissolution”. Furthermore, the “accession to membership” of countries such as “Greece and Portugal would add substantially to the problem”.

Here is the actual report in two parts.

Then think what fiscal union means. That the economies of those richer areas of Europe should have 3-10% of GDP abstracted out of them to be sent off to those poorer areas. This is indeed exactly the same as insisting that these areas should be running budget surpluses of 3-10% of GDP. And not just for a few years, but permanently.

It’s not going to work, is it? At least it’s not going to work in any system where the voters in those richer countries get to vote on it, is it?

The sheer size of the fiscal transfers necessary to make the euro work simply are not going to happen if the people are allowed their say. And we were all told this 40 years ago, that the euro was going to fail unless this happened. It did not happen, the fiscal transfers, because it is impossible (look, seriously, do an experiment. Go into a pub in Germany and ask whether anyone in the room would like to send 10% of the German economy off to the Greeks each year. Just to ask the question rhetorically is to know the answer). And thus the euro is failing just as we were all told it would.

What enrages at this point is that of course the federasts are all standing around with a “What? Who? Me?” look on their faces as what they were told would happen if they continued is happening. Yet still they continued.