Showing posts with label R&D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R&D. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Catalina - ASW

Catalina Flying Boat

Coastal Command - ASW
https://youtu.be/uTE-jHVIKJU?t=19m3s
Inside The Cockpit - Short Sunderland - MAH > .
Sub Chasers of the Civil Air Patrol > .
Why Aircraft Patrols Were a Source of Fear for Nazi U-Boats > .
Why Depth Charges Don't Have to Touch a Submarine to Sink It > .

Catalina - ASW

Other work by the Coastal Command's Operational Research Section (CC-ORS) indicated that on average if the trigger depth of aerial-delivered depth charges (DCs) were changed from 100 feet to 25 feet, the kill ratios would go up. The reason was that if a U-boat saw an aircraft only shortly before it arrived over the target then at 100 feet the charges would do no damage (because the U-boat wouldn't have had time to descend as far as 100 feet), and if it saw the aircraft a long way from the target it had time to alter course under water so the chances of it being within the 20-foot kill zone of the charges was small. It was more efficient to attack those submarines close to the surface when the targets' locations were better known than to attempt their destruction at greater depths when their positions could only be guessed. Before the change of settings from 100 feet to 25 feet, 1% of submerged U-boats were sunk and 14% damaged. After the change, 7% were sunk and 11% damaged. (If submarines were caught on the surface, even if attacked shortly after submerging, the numbers rose to 11% sunk and 15% damaged). Blackett observed "there can be few cases where such a great operational gain had been obtained by such a small and simple change of tactics".
------
"The "exchange rate" ratio of output to input was a characteristic feature of operational research. By comparing the number of flying hours put in by Allied aircraft to the number of U-boat sightings in a given area, it was possible to redistribute aircraft to more productive patrol areas. Comparison of exchange rates established "effectiveness ratios" useful in planning. The ratio of 60 mines laid per ship sunk was common to several campaigns: German mines in British ports, British mines on German routes, and United States mines in Japanese routes."

http://www.feightstudios.com/navalasw.htm .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research .

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Supermarine Spitfire

.
Spitfire story - Mark IX > .
Supermarine Spitfire | Effective WW2 Fighter Aircraft - HiHi > .
Spitfire Mk I Cockpit - IWM > .
Spitfire Cockpit - Dials > .


Introduction 0:00 
The Origins Of The Spitfire 4:27 
The Spitfire Prototype And Design 7:43 
303 Browning Machine Gun, 20mm Hispano Cannon 13:18 
The Spitfire MK I And MK II 16:41 
The Spitfire MK V 19:47 
Spitfire vs Bf 109 22:46 
Spitfire vs Focke Wulf 190 27:34 
The Spitfire MK IX, MK VI, MK VII and MK VIII 32:11 
Spitfire MK XII, MK XIV, MK 21 and MK 24 38:07 .
 

History > .

Monday, July 27, 2020

Budgets (Military)

2021 Why Does the US Spend So Much On Defense? - CoCa > .
24-9-8 Ruscian War Economy 2024: sanctions, inflation, mounting risks - Perun > .
24-8-13 Economics of War - CNBC I > .
24-5-14 USA+NATO: MIC & Strategic Power vs XIR - OBF > . 
24-4-14 US Arms Production - Strategy to Restore Arsenal of Democracy? - Perun > .
24-1-20 Can Ruscia win the military production race? - Anders > .
23-12-5 Most Dangerous [XIR] Moment: America’s Role in the Pacific | Hoover > . 
23-10-28 Poland's military dream: A tank too far? - Geo Perspective > .
23-10-6 Poland orders US HIMARS & SK Chunmoo systems - Binkov > .
23-9-18 South Korean Factories Churning Out Armaments for NATO | WSJ > .
23-9-10 Industrial Competition & Consolidation, Military Procurement - Perun > .
23-9-5 Strategic Autonomy: Will Europe Ever Be Able to Defend Itself? | Waro > .
23-8-31 Poland: powerhouse in the making - Caspian > .
23-8-20 NATO's Rearmament & Spending - NATO's R-U Response - Perun > .
23-8-13 Game Theory Of Military Spending | EcEx > .
23-7-31 Ruscia Cannibalizing Its Economy - Still Not Enough - gtbt > . skip > .
23-7-28 Why America Needs a Space Force - McBeth > .
23-7-25 Can Germany Really Become Europe's Great Military Power? - Waro > .
23-7-18 Futureproofing for changing threats; Defence Command Paper - Forces > .
23-7-9 How Wars End - Negotiations, Coercion, War Termination Theory - Perun > .
23-6-18 Procurement vs Efficacy - Requirements, R&D pitfalls - Perun > .
23-3-19 Britain's Shrinking Military - Cold War to Cash-Strapped Shadow - mfp > .
23-2-20 Military spending: UK may offer some insights - CNBC > .
23-1-26 Germany's military in dire state. Fix? | DW > .
23-1-22 Politics Can Destroy Armies: Factionalism & R-U War - Perun > .
23-1-13 No more doubts for the West | Ukraine weaponized (subs) - Katz > .
23-1-8 War Economies - Russia and Ukraine won't collapse tomorrow - Perun > .
22-11-27 Polish military modernisation & buying Korean kit - Perun > .
22-10-5 US Military’s Massive Global Transportation System - Wendover > .
22-9-4 6 Months of Ukraine War - Economics, Endurance, Energy War - Perun > .
22-8-6 How Many BCTs can the US Army Form for a Large Scale War? - CoCa > .
22-7-22 Poland could become strongest land force in the EU - Binkov > .
22-7-21 How the economy of Russia is dying (English subtitles) - Максим Кац > .
22-12-29 German Rearmament: Is it going wrong? - mah > .
22-6-29 2022 adjusted MoD's Military Budget - UK > .
22-6-23 Germany's $100 Billion Military Upgrade - CaspianReport > .
22-6-19 Economics of war - Russia vs Ukraine - sanctions, shelling - Perun > .
22-5-11 Lend Lease 2.0 - Ukraine's 'Arsenal of Democracy?' - Perun > .
22-4-14 Lithuanian Army Ready For War? Task & Purpose > .
22-3-31 Germany: Where did the 100 billion go? - mah > .
22-3-30 How will Germany spend its massive €100 billion military budget? | DW > .
22-3-24 Ukraine's War Economy - Into Europe > .
22-3-14 How the Ukraine invasion drives military spending worldwide | DW > .
2022 Defense Budgets by Country 2022 - Military Spending - Mega 3D > .
21-12-25 Economics of War - Learn Economics > .
2022 Fort Bragg: Largest Military Base in the World - Megaprojects > . skip ad > .
24-4-14 US Arms Production - Strategy to Restore Arsenal of Democracy? - Perun > .
exercitus pecūnia - pro libertate >> .


Geostrategic Projection

On 22-3-1 Germany announced €100 billion for the Armed Forces and an increase to +2% GDP on military spending one month ago.

00:00 - Intro (22-3-31)
00:45 - Topics of this video
01:33 - German F-35
05:37 - Defense planning announcement
07:09 - Germany's shopping list
11:36 - €100bn: Setup
13:49 - €100bn: Analysis
20:01 - Outro


The DoD is prioritizing China as the top pacing priority, as it remains the only U.S. competitor able to combine its economic, diplomatic, military, and technologic power to mount a sustained challenge to the international system. The rapid development and operational focus of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) constitutes a significant and long-term security threat to the United States and to our allies and partners. This threat is a consequence of nearly two decades of intense effort by China to modernize and reform the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and other forces into an increasingly capable joint force able to conduct the full range of military operations across every warfighting domain.

In addition to a significant buildup and modernization of its strategic forces, the PLA is advancing its capabilities and concepts for conducting information, cyber, space, and counterspace operations. China is also mobilizing vast resources to become a global leader in emerging technologies and is leveraging those advances in support of its military modernization.

China has made clear that it expects the PLA to be a global military actor capable of securing China’s growing overseas interests and advancing other PRC objectives abroad. These changes are accompanied by aggressive and at times coercive activities that seek to expand the PRC’s military influence by forging closer ties with foreign militaries, developing overseas military bases, and expanding the PLA’s presence worldwide.

China’s robust military modernization activities have, in recent decades, sought to erode the ability of U.S. forces to project power in the region, and China has continued to accelerate the development of capabilities specifically designed to counter key U.S. strategic and operational advantages. The continued erosion of U.S. military advantages relative to China remains the most significant risk to U.S. security interests. If left unimpeded, this continued erosion could fundamentally challenge our ability to achieve U.S. defense objectives and to defend the sovereignty of our allies, the consequence of which would be to limit DoD’s ability to underpin other U.S. instruments of power.


Why military aid to Ukraine has a positive effect on Western economies: In the short term, the increase in military spending due to the war in Ukraine has a stimulating effect on the GDP of the Western allies’ countries. This was reported by Ukrainian media, quoting the National Bank of Ukraine’s Inflation Report (July 2023). Various factors have been mentioned in the report.

According to the report, one US dollar spent by donor governments on military needs generates $0.79-0.87 of GDP in these countries within one to two years, and the overall positive effect does not disappear even after five years. 

There are several additional positive effects for nations providing military aid to Ukraine, such as the possibility of sharing military experience, more efficient allocation of defence resources, a boost for arms exporters, and increased productivity due to additional investment in research and development.


Saturday, June 27, 2020

Beware Dragons



20-9-29 Leading Chinese dissident, the artist and filmmaker Ai Weiwei, says China's influence has become so great that it can't now be effectively stopped.

"The West should really have worried about China decades ago. Now it's already a bit too late, because the West has built its strong system in China and to simply cut it off, it will hurt deeply. That's why China is very arrogant."

Ai Weiwei has never minced his words about China. "It is a police state," he says.

---

First, the U.S. is — rightly — no longer willing to accept China’s unfair trade restrictions on importing of U.S. goods and its stealing of the intellectual property of U.S. firms — something the U.S. tolerated for many years before China became a technology powerhouse.

And second, now that China is a technology powerhouse — and technological products all have both economic and military applications, unlike the toys, T-shirts and tennis shoes that used to dominate China-U.S. trade — the two sides are struggling to figure out what to buy and sell from and to each other, without damaging their national security. The ripping sound you hear is the sound of two giant economies starting to decouple ⇒ possibility that the integration of global innovation ecosystems will collapse as a result of mutual efforts by the United States and China to exclude one another.

And now that tear is moving to people. Since June 11, the State Department has been restricting visas for Chinese graduate students studying in sensitive fields — like aviation, robotics and advanced manufacturing — to one year, instead of five years. There has also been a crackdown on Chinese investments in anything close to American infrastructure or military-related industries. 

Many of those who do go abroad now prefer Canada and Australia over America. The  U.S. will pay a price for that over time.

This decoupling is not all Idiot-in-Chief’s fault — not by a long shot. China’s president, Xi Jinping, also overplayed his hand, taking over islands in the South China Sea, announcing plans to invest massive amounts so China can dominate critical technologies of the 21st century, and worse, tightening Communist Party rule over Hong Kong and horrendously sending Muslims in Western China to “re-education” camps. He’s also resisting pressures to reduce China’s most abusive trade practices.

The country benefited tremendously from the globalization system that the U.S. and its allies built since World War II, but Beijing has often been grudging about making any sacrifices to maintain it.

Friday, February 28, 2020

AI Weaponry

.
24-4-5 Israel's Lavender System, AI Targeting, Battlefield Informatics - McBeth > .

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), AI algorithms,




Biden urged to back AI weapons to counter China and Russia threats

The US and its allies should reject calls for a global ban on AI-powered autonomous weapons systems, according to an official report commissioned for the American President and Congress. It says that artificial intelligence will "compress decision time frames" and require military responses humans cannot make quickly enough alone. And it warns Russia and China would be unlikely to keep to any such treaty. [Yup! WW2 demonstrated that belligerents take advantage of appeasers, and the CCP and Kremlin have repeatedly proved untrustworthy.]

Critics, such as Prof Noel Sharkey, spokesman for the Campaign To Stop Killer Robots, claim the proposals risk driving an "irresponsible" arms race, which could lead to the "proliferation of AI weapons making decisions about who to kill." [Unfortunately, China and Russia are as unlikely to honor the terms of a ban as Hitler and Stalin were likely to honor the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.]

The report counters that if autonomous weapons systems have been properly tested and are authorised for use by a human commander, then they should be consistent with International Humanitarian Law.

Much of the 750-page report focuses on how to counter China's ambition to be a world leader in AI by 2030. It says that senior military leaders have warned the US could "lose its military-technical superiority in the coming years" if China leapfrogs it by adopting AI-enabled systems more quickly - for example by using swarming drones to attack the US Navy.

The report predicts AI will transform "all aspects of military affairs", and talks of rival algorithms battling it out in the future. Although it warns that badly-designed AI systems could increase the risk of war, it adds that "defending against AI-capable adversaries without employing AI is an invitation to disaster". It does, however, draw the line at nuclear weapons, saying these should still require the explicit authorisation of the president. 

The report maintains that the White House should press Moscow and Beijing to issue public commitments of their own over this matter.

Not all the report's proposals focus on the military, suggesting that the US's non-defence spending on AI-related research and development be doubled to reach $32bn (£23bn) a year by 2026.

Other proposals include:
  • creating a new body to help the president guide the US's wider AI policies
  • relaxing immigration laws to help attract talent from abroad, including an effort to increase a "brain drain" from China
  • creating a new university to train digitally-talented civil servants
  • accelerating the adoption of new technologies by the US's intelligence agencies
The report also focuses on the US's need to restrict China's ability to manufacture state-of-the-art computer chips. It advises that the US must keep at least two generations ahead of China's micro-electronics manufacturing capabilities. To do this, it says the government needs to offer large tax credits to companies which build new chip fabrication plants on US soil.

President Biden has already ordered a review of the US semiconductor industry, and last week pledged support for a $37bn plan by Congress to boost local output.

The report contends that export restrictions need to be put in place to prevent China being able to import the photolithography machines required to make the most advanced types of chips with the smallest transistors. This, it says, will require the co-operation of the governments of the Netherlands and Japan, whose companies specialise in these tools.

China's semiconductor-makers have been seeking out second-hand photolithography equipment to do this, buying up as much as 90% of available stock, according to a report in Nikkei Asia. However, these older machines are not capable of producing the most advanced chips, which are prized for use in both the latest smartphones and other consumer gadgets, as well as military applications.

In addition, the report says US firms that export chips to China should be compelled to certify they are not used to "facilitate human rights abuses", and should submit quarterly reports to the Department of Commerce listing all chip sales to China. This follows allegations that chips from American firms Intel and Nvidia were used to conduct mass surveillance against China's Uighur ethnic minority in its Xinjiang region.

Friday, November 1, 2019

40-7-10 Battle of Britain Begins

The Battle of Britain was a military campaign of the Second World War, in which the Royal Air Force (RAF) defended the United Kingdom (UK) against large-scale attacks by Nazi Germany's air force, the Luftwaffe. It has been described as the first major military campaign fought entirely by air forces. The British officially recognise the battle's duration as being from 10 July until 31 October 1940, which overlaps the period of large-scale night attacks known as The Blitz, that lasted from 7 September 1940 to 11 May 1941. German historians do not accept this subdivision and regard the Luftschlacht um England (Air Battle for England) as a single campaign lasting from July 1940 to June 1941, including the Blitz.


The Kanalkampf (Channel fight) was the German term for air operations by the Luftwaffe against the British Royal Air Force (RAF) over the English Channel in July 1940. The air operations over the channel began the Battle of Britain during the Second World War. By 25 June, the Allies had been defeated in Western Europe and Scandinavia. Britain rejected peace overtures and on 16 July, Adolf Hitler issued Directive 16 to the Wehrmacht (German armed forces), ordering preparations for the invasion of Britain, under the codename Unternehmen Seelöwe (Operation Sea Lion).

The Germans needed air superiority over southern England before the invasion and the Luftwaffe was to destroy the RAF, assume command of the skies and protect the cross-channel invasion from the Royal Navy. To engage RAF Fighter Command, the Luftwaffe attacked convoys in the English Channel. ... British and German writers and historians acknowledge that air battles were fought over the Channel between the Battle of France and Battle of Britain; deliberate German attacks against British coastal targets and convoys began on 4 July. During the Kanalkampf, the Luftwaffe received modest support from shore artillery and the E-Boats of the Kriegsmarine (German navy).

Fighter Command could not protect adequately the convoys; the Germans sank several British and neutral ships and shot down a considerable number of British fighters. The Royal Navy was forced to suspend the sailing of large convoys in Channel waters and close it to ocean-going vessels until more protection could be arranged, which took several weeks. On 1 August, Hitler issued Directive 17, extending Luftwaffe operations to the British mainland and RAF-related targets and on Adlertag (Eagle Day, 13 August) the main air offensive against the RAF began. The Kanalkampf had drawn out Fighter Command as intended and convoy attacks continued for several more days. Both sides had suffered losses but the Luftwaffe failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Fighter Command and the RAF; the Luftwaffe had yet to gain air superiority for Operation Sea Lion.

Directive 17, August 1, 1940, Battle of Britain, Full text .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Adolf_Hitler%27s_directives .

ASV AI RDF ..
Battle of Britain & RDF ..
Blitz ..
Bomb Sight Site ..

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

D-Day innovations

Lies and Deceptions that made D-Day possible - IWM > .

Analog & Digital Computing  


1. TIDE-PREDICTION MACHINE
In 1942, British mathematician Arthur Thomas Doodson had begun working on existing models of tide-prediction machines - essentially mechanised calculators that could reveal tidal patterns. In 1944, using his specially modified machine >, Doodson identified the exact time the landings should take place (H-Hour) and that D-Day should fall between 5 and 7 June.
The development of specialised landing craft had begun early in the war. D-Day vessels ranged from tiny Assault Landing Craft to huge Landing Ships. Other landing craft were fitted with guns or rockets. There was even a 'Landing Barge, Kitchen'. Equipment could be brought directly onto the beaches, providing a short-term solution to the problem of securing the harbours and ports needed for the immediate build-up of men and materiel. 

3. HORSA GLIDERS
Gliders ..
Horsa gliders were first produced in 1942 and made significant contributions to airborne assaults throughout the latter part of the Second World War. On D-Day, these gliders were used on an unprecedented scale to transport troops and supplies to Normandy. They were towed by transport or bomber aircraft before gliding into the landing zone, where supplies could be retrieved. Gliders transported heavier equipment that could not be delivered via parachute drops or when using larger transport aircraft was not possible. The hinged nose and removable tail section allowed cargo to be unloaded relatively easily without damaging the overall structure. But gliders were flimsy – constructed mainly of wood and fabric – and were difficult to operate. They would often violently break apart on landing, especially during improvised or crash landings.

4. 'HOBART'S FUNNIES' AND AVRES
Crocodiles, Donald Duck, Landing Craft ..
Hobart's Funnies ..
These unusual vehicles played an important role on D-Day and throughout the Battle of Normandy. The failed raid at Dieppe in August 1942 exposed how difficult it was to land armoured vehicles during an amphibious invasion and to break through German coastal defences with insufficient armoured support. As a result, armoured vehicles were designed to perform specialist tasks and reinforce ground troops on D-Day. These vehicles were nicknamed 'Hobart's Funnies' after their inventor, Major-General Sir Percy Hobart. They include the Duplex Drive (DD) 'swimming' tank; the 'Crocodile' flamethrower tank and the 'Crab' mine-clearing flail tank. Although the Funnies had been used in simulation and training exercises, they had not been tested in combat until D-Day. Modified vehicles known as AVREs (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineer) were created by adding specialised devices to tanks. One example, the 'bobbin' carpet layer tank, laid reinforced matting on sandy beaches so other vehicles could drive across the soft surface.

5. MULBERRY HARBOURS
Mulberry Harbours ..
Mulberry Harbours WW2: Disaster at Dieppe led to D-Day success - IWM > .
After D-Day, the Allies needed to continually build up reinforcements of men and supplies in Normandy to sustain the invasion's momentum. Previous experience taught the Allies hard but important lessons about the need to secure harbours and ports - harbours to provide protection from bad weather and rough seas, and ports to provide a place to ferry men and cargo. The planners responsible for 'Overlord' proposed creating two artificial harbours - codenamed 'Mulberries' - by sinking outdated ships ('Corncobs') and large concrete structures ('Phoenixes'). Adding floating roadways and piers (codenamed 'Whales') would allow them to use the beachhead as an improvised port.

6. PLUTO
PLUTO - short for 'pipeline under the ocean' - supplied petrol from Britain to Europe via an underwater network of flexible pipes. It gave the Allied forces access to enough petrol to fuel aircraft and vehicles and to sustain the momentum of their advance. Two PLUTO pipelines ran from the Isle of Wight to Port-en-Bessin - the linkup point between Omaha and Gold beaches. Another pipeline was added later, running from Dungeness on the Kent coast to Boulogne in France, and the PLUTO network continued to expand as the Allies advanced across Europe. The 3-inch-wide pipeline was wound around giant floating spools called 'conundrums' - like the one in this photograph - and then unrolled across the Channel.

7. GERMAN DEFENCES
Atlantikwall .. 
German Defences ..
When Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was put in charge of German defences in Normandy, he believed that any invasion would come at high tide, when the beachhead was at its narrowest and troops would be vulnerable to German fire for the shortest period of time. He therefore devised a series of obstacles adapted for use under water that would be completely concealed during mid and high tides. The jagged edges of iron 'hedgehogs', pictured above, could tear through the bottom of landing craft. Some were rigged with explosives that would detonate on impact. Round, flat land mines (called 'teller mines' after the German word for 'plate') were attached to wooden posts wedged into the sand and would explode when they came into contact with landing craft. Inland, Rommel also designed a network of large posts fixed vertically into the ground that prevented gliders from landing in open areas. These defences were nicknamed 'Rommel's Asparagus'.

Friday, September 20, 2019

Israel's High-Tech Rise

.
23-11-7 Scientific Progress & War - [Counterproductive for Ruscia] (subs) - Katz > .First Arab - Israeli War 1948 - Cold War Doc - K&G > .Yom Kippur War 1973 - Sinai Front Doc - K&G > .
Israel's Military Technology | Iron Dome | Gaza Conflict - Moco > .

1848 Middle East 2020 ..
47-11-29 UN partition plan - Palestine ..
Israel's High-Tech Rise ..

sī vīs pācem, parā bellum

igitur quī dēsīderat pācem praeparet bellum    therefore, he who desires peace, let him prepare for war sī vīs pācem, parā bellum if you wan...