"Man-portable Integrated Laser Assault Rifle":

According to the Danger Room over at Wired, the US ARMY has set forth a small business initiative proposal for, amongst other things, what it calls a "Man-Portable Integrated Laser Assault Rifle".

Well now...

I didn't see that one coming.

Dave Hambling's article has lots of background on this and related projects so read the whole thing.

Note that while I'm skeptical, the big show stopper is, of course power, and given the big strides being made in ultracapacitiors, this sort of thing might be feasible sooner than people think....though that's still a long way off.

Still.... it involves FRICKING LASERS!!! How could I NOT blog about it?


Atomic Rocket, an interesting source page for science fiction authors, has a surprisingly decent overview of the challenges and potential benefits of laser small arms. It's in no way official...but it is quite cool, as is that whole site.

LCS Derived Frigate?

With the recent announcement that the Lockmart version Littoral Combat Ship has been canceled by the Navy and given the many troubles with the DDX program, this proposal from General Dynamics for an improved version of their LCS design is seriously intriguing.

I find it interesting that there is no upgrade from the 57mm gun.

Now the big AGS is right out as it it weighs as much as some battleship guns, but its little brother, the lightweight 5"62 would seem to be a good thing for a frigate to have as it will out-range the netfires missiles the LCS is to be fitted with. Perhaps the hull can't handle a larger one.

Indeed, this seems to be little more than a very slightly modified LCS with the maximum viable weapons fit.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, as the combination of AEGIS, and VLS tubes on a slightly modified LCS hull looks to be a relatively risk free approach and could be a good way of giving the USN the numbers it will need to replace older ships as they wear out.

This would seem to deserve considerable attention.

UPDATE: Fixed links, added ill informed commentary.

Tumblehome Troubles

Originally via Murdoc, concerns were recently raised over the stability of the DDX hull form.

One former flag officer, asked about DDG-1000, responded by putting out his hand palm down, then flipping it over. “You mean this?” he asked.

Ken Brower, a civilian naval architect with decades of naval experience was even more blunt: “It will capsize in a following sea at the wrong speed if a wave at an appropriate wavelength hits it at an appropriate angle.”

I believe the technical term is "ewww".

Despite the non-ridiculousness of the idea that modern naval architects might utterly screw something up...I'm slightly skeptical

The article makes a lot of he demise of French and Russian Battleships which used a tumblehome hullform around the turn of the century.

The shape was popular among French naval designers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and a number of French and Russian battleships — short and fat, without any wave-piercing characteristics — were put into service. But several Russian battleships sank after being damaged by gunfire from Japanese ships in 1904 at the Battle of Tsushima, and a French battleship sank in 90 seconds after hitting a mine in World War I. All sank with serious loss of life. Both the French and Russians eventually dropped the hull form.

However, there are a few problems with this...
The UK's pre-dreadnaughts starting with the Royal Sovereigns and Majestic's also used a tumblehome hull form albeit less pronounced than the French.

These battleships, designed by Sir William White, were the most successful and prolific series of battleships of their day and some served into the '20s. Indeed, the Japanese battleships that slaughtered the Russian BB's at Tsushima were built in UK yards to UK designs. The Fuji was a modified Royal Sovereign and the Shikinshima's improved Formidable's.

The French/ Russian designs, like some early US designs greatly exaggerated the tumblehome form to facilitate a good (theoretical)end on fire of secondary armaments. See here....the French built Russian BB Tscharevitch which was the only Russian heavy unit to survive Tsushima...is illustrative of the extremes this was taken.

The Russian Borondino class that was so annihilated at that battle was a Russian built version of this ship, but without the torpedo defense and in many ways inferior, especially regards topweight . Poorly trained, worn out crews, poor discipline, bad tactics, a very incomplete damage control system and little DC training coupled with the superbly trained IJN and their extremely destructive shells and expertly used torpedoes ended these ships.

If a tumblehome hullform contributed it was likely due to the extremely exaggerated nature of that feature in these ships.

The French BB lost in 90 seconds was even less useful a case study. The Bouvet was old poorly maintained, and hit a WW1 mine far more powerful than any contemplated when she was constructed in the 19th century. Reportedly her counterflooding arraingements did not work and when she was brought out of mothballs (she had been discarded as obsolete years earlier) her watertight doors were so rusted they would not close.

Now this does not mean that the Navy has not made an error here...a good argument can be made that the whole DDX program is a bit muddled, but the idea that because poorly handled, designed and maintained ships with a very exaggerated version of a hullform used by a 20th century ship got sunk is hardly compelling. In fact, using that logic we can make a good argument that this is a cool idea.

In 1917 the aformentioned Tscharevitch and her Borondino class half sister Slava (completed too late to get sunk at Tsushima) despite being utterly obsolete, fought off several modern German Dreadnoughts at the battle of Moon Sound....both survived considerable damage though Slava had to be scuttled as she drew too much water to return to port after battle damage.

This isn't compelling either.

It is quite possible that in an attempt to achieve stealth the Navy has compromised seakeeping.

Flair, the opposite of tumblehome, has certain advantages in damage control....as the ship gets lower in the water the Surface Area increases somewhat mitigating buoyancy loss.

But as this DID article points out, the jury is still out.

I'm not a fan of the DDX program, and I'm certainly not a naval architect, but I am, again, somewhat skeptical of this story....

.....but not exactly dismissive either.

Royal Swedish Navy....

The RSN is very competent in coastal defense and operating in the littorals. They have really pioneered the ideas of naval coastal defense for over a hundred years, now they are looking to see how this can work in concert with an international force, complementing say, the USN or other EU navies, in an coastal engagement.



Given the political realities in Sweden this seems an unlikely scenario, but this is something the Swedes are world leaders at and should they be involved in a peacekeeping or interdiction force their contribution might well be most valuable.

On Bombers....

Over at Anthony Williams forum is an interesting discussion on bombers based in part on this article in Slate.

One point brought up was the idea of adapting maritime patrol bombers like the new Poseidon for the bomber roll, several objections were raised regards payload and the suitability of such an aircraft for heavy bombing but one point raised in favor of a similar layout was interesting.
Given the need for extreme precision in counter insurgency warfare a future bomber may need similar data-processing and target designation capacity to an ASW aircraft, albeit with rather different sensors.

A version of an aircraft very similar to the Poseidon with thermal, IR and other air to ground surveillance sensors and armed with a battery of precision guided munitions might well be a good investment. It also might be fitted with palletized sensors so that with a quick swap it could be used as an ASW aircraft....something we need a LOT more of as the US has let its anti-sub forces atrophy badly.

With 9 reconfigurable workstations such a plane might also operate a swarm of UAV's reserving its SDB's and other heavy weapons for tougher targets, and if a compact missile in the Hellfire or "netfires" class could be dropped from the bomb bay or the sonobuoy dispensers sized to take some sort of compact missile...perhaps the cheap effective Spike-missile....the plane would have very good combat persistence. Like an AC130 but at high altitude and with the ability to drop real bombs if needed.

Anyway, I'm no airdale but the idea seems interesting....any thoughts?

The Shipyard Problem...

Murdoc touches on something in this post that is extremely important.

The fact that an entity called "Northrop Grumman Newport News" even exists is maybe part of the problem in the first place, but because of the massive slowdown in shipbuilding that's where we are and we need to maintain what we have left.

One of the reasons big government is bad is that in the absence of competition things break down.

This also holds true for private enterprise. We don't have just one shipyard of course, but we have so few that fear that one will go out of business and result in near or total monopoly that there is insufficient sanction available against them for incompetence, overpricing or fraud.

According to Global Security.org ....

As of 2001, there were eight active shipbuilding yards in the United States. Six of those shipyards, referred to as the Big Six, were the primary builders of large U.S. Navy and commercial vessels. Those shipyards are Avondale Industries in New Orleans, Louisiana; Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine; Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut; Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi; National Steel & Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, California; and Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia. In 1998, the Big Six accounted for two-thirds of the industry's total revenue (over $6.7 billion), and performed nearly 90 percent of all military work. Ninety-five percent of the revenues of these shipyards were defense-related. The Big Six also accounted for about 11 percent of the industry's commercial revenues from 1996 to 2000.

By 2005 two companies owned the Big Six shipyards. In 2001, Northrop Grumman purchased Newport News Shipbuilding and Litton Industries, which included the Avondale and Ingalls shipbuilding yards. General Dynamics owns Electric Boat, Bath Iron Works, and National Steel & Shipbuilding Company.

With respect to commercial vessels that must be constructed by a US shipyard under the Jones Act, there are approximately 20 private US shipyards that can accommodate the construction of vessels up to 400 feet in length. Because of the current overcapacity at US shipyards, the current small volume of commercial work available, and the fact that most contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive bidding, price competition is particularly intense. Since 1977, the number of privately owned major shipbuilding yards in the United States has fluctuated between 17 and 32. This includes combined statistics for active shipbuilders and shipyards with build positions. As of 2001 a total of 17 of the shipyards reported on had not constructed a major ocean-going vessel in the previous 2 years.

.....which is more than worrisome.

There is only ONE US shipyard that can make nuclear aircraft carriers, Newport News., which is just another feather in the cap of Northrop Grumman as a result of the massive consolidations of the early to mid 90's. There are only 2 other nuclear capable shipyards, one on each coast and I don't think Pearl Harbor has built anything in a long time.

Most of the shipbuilding capacity is held by two main companies Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics, neither has a good reputation for ethical conduct in defense contracting, partly as a result of the idiotic cost-plus procurement system which is more concerned with how much a percentage profit a company makes than the bottom line.

For example....

If a company can produce a good quality product, cheaper than anyone else and turn a 90% profit....more power to them, but the cost plus system sets a fixed profit margin....requires a legion of (expensive) lawyers and accountants that, in the big two, exceed the total employment of several of the smaller shipyards (one reason they don't do govt contracts). It gets worse. Since the profit margin is fixed this gives as the only way to increase revenues....cost overruns. It's simple math and is largely responsible for spiraling defense costs, but simple math, it seems, is beyond our legislators.

This and the near monopoly environment that has come about in all the heavy industries after the cold war has seriously undermined all aspects of our procurement, not just in shipyards but in EVERYTHING from aviation to vehicles. This is, IMHO, one of the bigger long term problems facing the US military.

Nothing short of getting rid of the idiotic cost plus system and a full on balls-out Teddy Rosevelt style "trust busting" campaign is going to resolve this. But I don't see this happening. The Dems are all about concentration of power, the Republicans did nothing about it when they were in office and the big two have been moving their assets between shipyards to ensure that most of them are fairly non-viable commercially (that is non-diverse, overspecialized)in the event they aere cut loose....this makes good business sense as it reduces redundancy...but it is also, no doubt, insurance against needed reforms.

I'm not optimistic....

US Army Issues PDW Requirement

Anthony Williams reports here (in his forum)that the US Army has issued a requirement for a new personal defense weapon.

A report in today's Jane's Defence Weekly quotes Brigadier General Mark Brown, the head of the US Army's 'Programme Exectuve Office - Soldier' and commanding general of the Natick Soldier Centre in Massachusetts, as saying that the US Army is looking to acquire a new personal defence weapon: a compact, medium-powered firearm for issue to vehicle crews.

He stated that the new weapon will be "larger than a pistol and smaller than a carbine" and would be employed by personnel not primarily engaged in infantry combat. He said: "When you get all your soldiers geared up in an uparmoured Humvee, there's not a lot of room".


As Mr. Williams says..."This one should be interesting".

A Bushmaster Armpistol would, in theory, seem to fit the bill fine. This weapon always intrigued me with its interesting solution to the ambidexterity problem. In the forum however several points against it are brought up. I think the sighting issue could be dealt with by an ACOG or SuSAT type sight, but the weirdness might be a hindrance.
On to more conventional solutions....all hypothetical as I have NO idea what the army is going to get...
There was a 6mm round and associated weapon discussed over at ACE a while back. Here is the companies ad brochure.
...and a write-up at Security Arms...

...which also mentions the SAAB PDW, another interesting weapon given its 6.5mm round. Which can, with a barrel swap fire 9x19mm NATO as well.
Given the short ranges involved and the need for the rather elusive quality of "stopping power", might a PDW be effective if chambered for one of the more powerful pistol rounds? There have been instances of the M1 Carbine chambered for .44 Magnum or .45 Win-mag. I wonder how practical a Hezi chambered for that or .357mag rather than .30 carbine would be?

I could speculate for pages, but someone named "thatguy96" on the above linked forum just posted this helpful link of PDW Pr0n. :)

UPDATE:Welcome Murdoc Online, Airborne Combat Engineer, and Defense Tech readers!
I've added a link to Mr. Williams actual post on this subject, as the link originally just went to his home page. I've looked for a second source on this hopefully with more info, but only the dead tree issue of Jane's Defense Weekly quoted above has turned up thus far.

Regards the rather scatter-shot selection of PDW's and ideas in this post, I don't have any idea what characteristics the US Army is looking at. For instance, if they want something easily carried in a holster then something like the MP7 rather than the P90 would be in the cards. ACE likes the idea of a 5.56 pistol, several of which are on the civilian market including the Kel-Tec model he mentions , which has a good reputation. I'm skeptical that the 5.56 round, which already has lethality issues when fired from short length carbines would really work, though, it WOULD simplify logistics to use the same round. Such a solution, however, might not be any worse than the .22 and .17 caliber rounds in the Belgian and German weapons.Both these rounds, despite their iffy stopping power, DO have very good penetration which is likely to be quite important as body armor increases in distribution....already an issue in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 6mm from Knights Armament looks good but has performance perhaps too close to a 5.56 NATO to warrant adopting a new round....it is also too long to fit in a pistol grip I believe.


Of the alternatives alrady in full production, the P-90 and MP7 would seem most likely. The P-90 is in service with several armies and police forces and FN has a good relationship...perhaps too good....with US Army ordinance. It's 5.7mm round has gotten mixed reviews but seems to have done well if fired against an armored foe. I don't know anything about the MP7 round except that it fires a 4.6mm (~17 caliber)bullet. I also do not know if the MP7 could be re-chambered for the more powerful and more common FN 5.7 round of the P90, though in the comments to this post Pete Zaitcev says that it is likely adaptable to other calibers due to its gas operation.

Cutter Conundrum' and Coastie Window Shopping

The Coast Guard's patrol boats are getting long in the tooth and are desperately in need of a replacement.








The immediate problems go back to the '80s. The Coast Guard had large numbers of 82' and 95' patrol boats. All were slow but useful. The 95 foot boats had been designed in WW2 and produced over several years in different batches, their hulls were quite worn out, the 82'Point class had been built in the '60s they were cramped but useful vessels though a large number had been given to Viet Nam to assist that nation in its attempt to stave off the evil that ultimately consumed it.

As a stop-gap, the Island class patrol boats were ordered in small numbers in fits and starts in the early to mid 80's. Congress was unwilling to fund the CG and they were collateral items in drug war legislation with some actually being bought for the CG by the Navy! The design was (by congressional order) not an American one but an off the shelf Vosper export design. Now the Brits have nothing to learn in the field of shipbuilding, but this was an export design that put paper performance ahead of operational characteristics. The Coast Guard knew this but they needed something fast to catch drug smugglers, the ships could be built very quickly and anyway, they were just considered a stopgap until the Leopold Class was to be commissioned in the early '90s.

The Leopold class was an interesting design. A very strongly built 120 foot patrol boat the craft would have been capable of 30 knots or more despite far stronger construction than the lightly built 110's. They embodied every lesson learned in Patrol Boat ops for the last several decades. They would have had a secondary coastal ASW capability in wartime. These cutters were much needed replacements for a hundred small cutters that were at or past the end of their service lives and the USCG had high hopes for them.

Alas, the Congress canceled them around 1990. A few more 110's were ordered, but the Coast Guard has had a patrol boat deficit since the late '80s. Leopold was laid up incomplete and ordered scrapped.

In the mid 90's a different Congress financed the 87' Barracuda class.
These are quite small cutters. They are NOT replacements for the seagoing 95's and 110's. They are really revenue and law enforcement boats. In those tasks they excel, especially as they are small enough and have a shallow enough draft to get into nearly all small boat stations, and patrol and conduct rescues inshore (an important and little appreciated requirement).

In the late 90's and early 'naughts the first batches of 110's were coming up on the end of their design lives and generating harrowing sea stories for their crews. The Coast Guard began looking at replacements and began designing the ideal cutter of the future.

The ICOF involved a lot of design work as it was to have a composite hull for long life, high speed, high fuel efficiency, a high degree of automation, be operable in any sea state and generally be a mass of conflicting requirements....all under 150 feet in length.

The composite hull took time to develop and the materials science did not progress as planned. The CG wanted to integrate the new Deepwater C4I systems into the new vessels from the start and wanted a homogeneous class for ease and inexpensiveness of maintainability.

The solution to this delay was to completely refurbish the 110's into 123's adding the safer and manpower-saving stern launching arrangements of the 87's. The vessels were stretched 13 feet, their hulls were refurbished and prototypes of the new communications system were installed. This was a logical choice to compensate for the delays in the new design. The planned future vessels would come online as the 123's were wearing out and machinery and equipment in the maintenance pipelines could be switched at once.

Unfortunately the 110' hull did not stretch well.
Unlike a certain-other-debacle this does not seem to be the result of failure to do ones job, but rather a genuine marine engineering learning experience. The stretched hulls were extensively computer tested, but certain choppy seas cause stresses that were not foreseen in the lightly built hulls. The result was yet more harrowing sea stories and the laying up of the refitted ships.

Now there is a problem....the CG needs patrol boats....like yesterday.

But what should they buy, the ultimate cutter design is still decade or 2 off and we have got to get something in the water now.

I'm not an engineer nor a Boatswains mate. I'm certainly not an officer, but this is a BLOG! So keeping in mind my stock disclaimer, here are my thoughts on the matter as I commence tilting at windmills far above my paygrade!

First thing! No more surprises....off the shelf designs only for now.

One obvious choice would be the NAVY/Coast Guard Cyclone class patrol boat. It's very highly regarded in Coast Guard service, uses the same diesels the CG 110's use, is fast and is already in service .


From Australia we have this well proven design from Tenix. Their 56 meter Search and Rescue craft is based on their stock 57m fast attack craft, but it has actually been built! Two were delivered to the Philippines a few years ago. The Philippine Coast Guard is so pleased with the design that they are ordering 6 more of these instead of buying more of the similarly sized Cyclone class ships (they operate 1 of those too). The design is interesting for a number of reasons. It is reasonably fast (26 kts). It has a large (enclosed) rescue deck for survivors (or migrants). It is very seaworthy and despite its small size it has a landing deck for a small helicopter. There is no hangar but the cutter seems to have a similar capability to the larger Reliance class cutters with 1 third the crew in a package 7knots faster and no bigger than the Cyclone class...ie one that can fit in many Coast Guard stations. It's 20-30 feet longer than the CG seems to want but its manning is reasonable (though admittedly 10 more than a 110'). It is likely more seaworthy than a 110' and it is very well adapted to SAR duty. In all likelihood its maintenance and operations costs are fairly low (these being of PARAMOUNT importance to the Philippine Coast Guard).


Versatility is the watchword of the Coast Guard, and few vessels are as versatile as Denmark's Flyvefisken class. These 35 knot vessels are nominally fast attach craft, but are fitted with modules for pollution control, search and rescue, oceanography as well as 4 weapons modules for SSMs, SAMs minesweeping gear, and torpedoes. The heavy weapons are superfluous in CG service but a case might be made for one or more of the neat 12 packs of Evolved Seasparrows or perhaps a SeaRAM on overseas deployments. Sooner or later an asshat is going to take a potshot at a cutter with a missile and a good point defense missile would be useful...especially onewith secondary antiship capability...decadent I know.... the point is the vessel is quite adaptable to a war situation if necessary.

The HUGE workdeck (used for mines and torpedo tubes in RDN service) would lend itself admirably to ATON (aids to navigation) work and pollution control in the rare cases the CG has to do that. Base crew without the big weapons (which the CG would rarely if ever use) is 19....very economical indeed. There are 4 modules for weapons or other kit. Forward the Danish models are fitted with a 76mm gun so the CG's superb 57mm weapon would be no problem, let alone the smaller guns we could actually afford to put on it right now.The hull is constructed of a fibre-reinforced plastic! Despite this, these ships are minimally ice strengthened (but NOT ice breaking) and designed to operate safely in some of the worst seas on the planet...the Atlantic between Denmark and Greenland. This is a VAST improvement upon the CG's 110's (which, with their hull plating about the thickness of a nickel(!) do not deal well with ice).
With a waterline length of 164 feet it is closer to what the Coast Guard says it needs. The speed is remarkable but depends on a gas turbine, (fuel hawg!) note that on cruising diesels alone the speed of these vessels is still 20 kts A Coast Guard version would likely make 26-30 kts on uprated diesels not optimized for cruising, or perhaps 4 diesels (possibly at the expense of one of the mission modules). I like this one a LOT. :)

Going a bit smaller we come to this Lurrsen design for the German Sea Rescue Service. Only 144 feet long, and drawing 10 feet of water, these ice strengthened vessels are capable of 26 knots, have a stern launched rescue boat, and are designed with north sea winters in mind. The big fire monitor on the bow could easily be replaced with a machine gun or light auto-cannon. Incredibly, they have a small helipad for light helicopters, and though this tiny platform might give airdales harrowing seastories, it is a useful emergency capability to have, extending the range of small choppers or allowing wounded rescuees to be medi-vacd. The German Maritime Rescue Service is a civilian organization that exists only by private donations therefore economy of operation is high on their priority list. These vessels were built in the 70's and are very highly regarded. Lurrsen still advertises being ready to build them and the company seems quite proud of the design.

Their likely replacements are represented by the very similar (but slightly larger ) Herman Marwede. A bit slower with a much higher superstructure, this vessels helicopter arrangements seem less....scary. The high focs'le looks to improve seakeeping but the moderate freeboard and flush deck of the Essberger might be better for some SAR situations (yes I'm way beyond my expertise here). I'm not sure if this ship is ice strengthened, but given the operating area I'd be surprised if it wasn't. The ship is still brand new so I don't know if it is as well regarded as the Essbergers.
*******************************************************************

There are myriad other designs as well by many very highly regarded naval architects, but these are in service, seem to be working quite well and are reasonably economical to operate.

So let's buy something!

Anyhow this concludes my un-liscenced foray into marine procurement.


UPDATE: Welcome Murdoc Online readers!

UPDATE2: Note that in referring to the 123s STRUCTURAL problems as unforeseen,
I was not suggesting that the other issues that have been widely reported were as well. However the contractor related issues regards wiring and shielding, were, as I understand it, not nearly as serious as some reports suggested and were fixed almost immediately.

Also, while the work-deck of the Danish craft would make them useful as supplemental buoy tenders, the lack of both a full sized buoy hold and a true icebreaking capability would mean that the versatile "black hull fleet" would still be needed.

I'm Just Shocked!....SHOCKED I Say!

Murdoc reports that there is...get this...a PROBLEM with the new V-22 Osprey's, all of which have been grounded for the time being.

Well, who'da thunk it?


We might do better to invest in big gyrocopters...

Blast From the Past...

...or at least a bang from the past.

A poster on Anthony Williams forum discovered this picture in some video footage from the current fighting in Lebanon.



Look closely at the Hezzies weapon...it's an WW2 German MP4!! The first successful assault rifle (yes the Fedorov was first but it didn't have much influence on anything). This Nazi weapon was what the AK 47 was designed in response to.

It seemed remarkable to me that this weapon is still being used, but according to Mr. Williams they were likely kept in storage in Syria, and the Serbs still make the ammo as it was a frontline rifle there until the 1980s.


Wow I had no idea that the weapon had served that long.

That Nazi weapons are still being used by those who wish to kill
Jews is sickly appropriate somehow....and is a reminder of which side these people were on even then.

Hey Al-Quaeda...

Lookee...

It's a girl.

A girl without a bhurka.

A girl without a veil.

Who shoots a gun bigger than herself...

To send you straight to hell.

Hat tip ACE.

7.62mm Bullpup From Kel Tech

Over at Anthony Williams's site there is a thread about the new Kel Tec RFB chambered for 7.62 NATO.

This is looks like it could really be an impressive weapon in that it gets rid of the length and bulk that hinder most 7.62x51mm weapons like the M-14 and the excellent FN FAL, while dealing with the case ejection issues that plague bullpups via a forward ejection system reminiscent of (but, reportedly, mechanically distinct from) the FN 2000.

The weapon is quite compact at only 26 inches long with the 18" barrel and uses the reliable and still common FN FAL magazines.

Note that the compact design does not alleviate the excessive weight of a full load of 7.62mm ammo as opposed to the 5.56 ammo used by most US (and NATO) individual weapons. The 5.56mm round has gotten a bit reputation for lacking stopping power against and while "stopping power" is hard to quantify imperiacally, the 5.56 round does lack in range. The rationale behind its adoption was that infantry rarely have to engage enemies at extreme range...but as has been discovered in Afganistan and Iraq, that doesn't count if you encounter an enemy on the other side of a barren valley or a sniper in a minnarette well outside M-16 range. The 5 percent or so of engagements where one needs something one doesn't have are the 5 percent of engagements one is likely to die in. What is likely needed is an intermediate cartridge like the Brits tried to get us to use back in...oh...1949! but we went with the heavy and overpowered 7.62mm round...and then overcompensated and went with the 5.56mm round...a modified "varmint" round that is illegal to hunt deer with in most states because it will not reliably kill them. (This was a MacNamera special. He wanted something that would wound rather than kill on the grounds that it is a greater drain on logistics to care for the wounded than bury the dead)

Of course it is better to have too much firepower than too little, especially with body armor becoming more ubiquitous and we are NOT going to retool to a completely new round at this point. If this weapon proves reliable (And from my limited knowledge, Kel Tec has a good reputation for high quality fairly inexpensive weapons) this weapon would seem to be a damned good choice for the services, particularly the Navy and Coast Guard who need something with good range for use over water....of course the US Military absolutely hates bullpups and the likelyhood of this weapon getting adopted is small.

More is the pity.

The fact that they are using FN FAL magazines which are much more common in Europe and the third world rather than M-14 magazines might indicate they are looking at the overseas market.

A brochure is available in PDF format here.
I want someone to review this.

UPDATE:All the cool cats are Gunblogging this weekend, so my cunning plan to get linky love is thwarted. ACE has several quite good posts, and has spent the day rounding up gun related posts from around the net .right here. My only unique contribution to the discussion at this point is this grainy video of some random loli firing a 'cataling gun'

Another Double Barreled Over n' Under.....But Bigger

Looking like something out of a Toho movie, the new Russian twin artillery piece just begs for a Kaiju or alien invader to shoot at.

Actually the weapon is a massive 6 inch (152mm) auto-cannon capable of 18 rounds a minute. I'm unsure if this is per barrel or for the whole mount. I assume the latter. While such a ROF is not unheard ( both the UK and Sweden produced naval mounts with 15-20RPM firing rates) this is not a shipboard mount but a self propelled artillery piece, with no access to, say water cooling or other whistles and bells. The gun is reportedly not actually a linked twin weapon like some of the soviet aircraft weapons but two seperate weapons linked hydraulically. I don't know if this means one can fire if the other is disabled. It carries 50 rounds on mount.
Big tip of the hat to Anthony G. Williams who actually knows what he's talking about and has the scoop here

The vertical twin arrangement looks wierd but I imagine it cuts down on the size of the turret ring, which is, I suppose, a big plus for an AFV. It was used in at least 1 other weapon I know of, an Italian 3" gun from the '60s, for that reason.


There is purportedly a naval variant in the works, and with its space economizing it might be able to fit in a gun pit only a little larger than the big twin 130mm weapon on the Soveremmennys, but I seriously doubt they are truely interchangeable. Something like this would make sense for destroyers and frigates.....the big AGS of the DD1000 actually weighs more than many battleship rifles and requires as much ship as a battleship gun does. (which is one reason the DD1000 is so big...it's a 2 gun dreadnaught ) A weapon similar to this one would give smaller vessels good hitting power, albiet with about half the range and shell weight.

While we are on the subject of naval guns, Anthony Williams has updated his naval cannon page here.

Now all we need are some maser tanks and Markalites and then we'll be set.

Update: Welcome Murdoc Online Readers!!

USCGC Bertholf Launched

The first large Coast Guard cutter built in more than 35 years was launched on Veterans Day. Bertholf is the first of a class of at least 8 high endurance cutters that will ultimately replace the 378 ft Hamilton Class. She is named for the first Head of the Coast Guard, Commodore Ellsworth Bertholf who amongst his many accomplishments led the legendary Point Barrow relief expedition.

The USCGC Bertholf, the first of what is called the "Legend Class", is 418 feet long, carries a large helicopter hanger, onboard labs, a vastly improved small boat handling system (stern launch) and is big and seaworthy enough to keep to the sea in the worst weather. With a 57mm gun, point defense system and what is cryptically described as a "mission module" she is well equipped for anti-piracy duties and the other overseas functions of the Coast Guard (enforcing treaties protecting certain pacific republics ect.) as well as operating as a naval auxiliary in a major war. She should be a huge improvement on previous cutters. The class is badly needed as the other large cutters are getting quite old. Completely aside from fatigue issues in such old and hard driven ships, there simply aren't spare parts being made for a lot of their equipment any more (including their engines).
The ships launch was delayed due to the hull and shipyard being thrashed by Hurricane Katrina.

Bang!

Murdoc wants to know the difference between the Barrett models 468 and 648.

Now I'm pretty sure that the 648 is apocryphal and just a persistant typo. I, however, am a gun enthusiast and not a gun expert....so...amirite?

**************************
While looking for info on PDWs I blundered upon the site for Marshal Arms

They seem to be marketing a family of weapons based upon a feed system similar to the FN P-90. The pistol/PDW in particular looks promising , though I imagine that such a magazine arraingement would make the assault riffle version awkwardly wide. Still it will be interesting to see if they get it off the ground. ~50 rounds of pistol ammo in a package way more compact than a Calico does sound promising indeed.

****************************
Anthony G. Williams has recently updated his assault rifle ammunition page....which, if you havent seen it and are the least bit interested in weapons, is probably a good stop. His whole website is informative and if you find it interesting you should probably scroll down and buy his books. :)
On a related note, his co-author, Maxim Popenker, has, for some years been running this very informative site.

*****************************
Finally, hiding in my favorites list with no attribution was this article on the Dardick "revolver" from the '60s. The weapon was actually a magazine fed weapon with a revolver feed mechanism. The triangular ammo (trounds) allowed for supercompact storage (20 round capacity) and in addition to its ingenious (but rare) ammo had adapters for normal .38 or .22 ammo. A search through the many tubes of these here internets turned up only one other decent bit of info on the Dardick...that wasn't a Twilight 2000 reference.

The unsinkable topic....

Murdoc is blogging on battleships again. He links to this article. and again poses the question of reactivating the old behemoths.

The DDX program is now cut down to 2 ships and delayed 'till at least 2015.

The BBs are old but in fairly good condition (though Iowas fungus ravaged wooden deck must be replaced). The 16" guns are indeed formidable though with a range of just under 30 miles they are of little use outside the immediate beachhead area. Assuming your BB stays 10 miles offshore (perilously close in an age of supersonic missles) you've got an arc going a maximum of just under 20 miles inland.

There are ways to improve this. Both a 13 inch sabot, 11 inch sabot, and 16 inch Rocket assisted rounds were developed, though it is unclear to me how far along in development they got. One of the sabot shells was intended to have a 100+ mile range and the 13" sabot was tested to around 40nm IIRC, but none are in storage as far as I know.

The BBs are VERY hard to sink but they are not unsinkable. Torpedoes, and mines accounted for most BBs lost historically, and although the Iowas have decent torpedo protection it is not invulnerable. (Indeed, it is inferior to the older North Carolina Class and the now gone French Richielu class) The Iranians or the Chinese would throw EVERYTHING they had at the BBs just because of the propoganda value that sinking a ship widely touted as "unsinkable" would bring.

They do make VERY effective vehicles to show the flag and they can likely stay in action longer than most other ships. If their machinery can be maintained. If their guns can be made useful (read longer ranged and guided) If they can be given a means to defend themselves (quite doable with ESSM) they could act as stopgaps until replacements come along. These are big "Ifs".


The AGS (Advanced Gun System) on the upcoming DD1000 class ships, will have FAR longer range, though it will not be as good at penetrtating bunkers and it is not as destructive in general, one should remember that NATO armies have gotten rid of anything larger than 155mm so it's adequate for most tasks. If it is not then one would call in an airstrike or use a heavy missile like ATACMS

ATCAMS has a 186 mile range and a bigger warhead than a 16 inch shell (the hi- capacity version having a 154pound warhead) so it would seem to make sense to put these in VLS tubes for the occasional need.

Guns of course DO have a few advantages over missles. One minor one is that the 16" shell will likely have better penetration and the kinetic energy of he very dense shell adds some destructive power.However, the # of rounds carried is a big BIG advantage to guns. They can carry more rounds because the shell doesn't have a rocket motor (thats what the gun barrel is for) and they can be stored more efficiently. The Ticonderoga class cruisers, with more missle tubes than any other US ship have 122 tubes. These can carry 1 missile each (except for ESSM which can be quadpacked).And that must be divided between the various types of missles AA, ASW, Surface Fire, that the ship carries.

The IOWA can cary +- 1200 rounds of 16 inch ammunition. She could fire a round a day for over 4 years :)

Modern propellants and new technology give guns good performance. The AGS will fire a 6.1 inch shell a hundred miles or more and be precision guided.

Whatever is done with the BBs if they are activated TODAY they will need replacement in a decade or so. (High pressure steam plants have limited lifespans).

So what do we replace them with?


Sadly.......no. :) If you want more of that glorious sillieness go here and hit the tipjar


In this rambling post I advocated an arsenal ship with an AEGIS style firecontrol system to produce a relatively surviveable BBG at a cost of only 2-3 destroyers in exchange for survivability and perhaps 10 or more times the missles. CGX will likely be a smaller, but stealthier version of this.

This is a true battleship in the old sense, a capital ship that is in no way expendable.It is really a more capable version of the DDGs and CGs we now have. Not what the BBs are being considered for activation for Ie fire support.

Assuming that the gunship with really BIG guns is worthy as a concept what does one do. New BBs are really expensive.

In WW1 the UK needed fire support ships but couldn't spare modern battleships, so they ecomissioned old battlewagons for firesupport duty.....these were largely a stopgap...sound familliar?

They then produced a series of Monitors (some with their excellent 15" guns) to do the task much more economically.



In the 60s and 70s the USN designed some similar vessels. Below are some of these sketches of designs for firesupport ships. Both of these feature a 16" triple turret one has an 8" lightweight gun in addition to its 5" secondaries . Both are taken from Friedman's book on US amphibious warships, which you can buy here. The ships are capable of ~20kts and are diesel powered.


Assuming we still have the physical plant to manufacture 16" rifles it might behoove us to build similar ships with short VLS tubes for ESSM and replace the 5"54 caliber guns with the new 5"62s.

The 16" guns as noted are of limited range, but we might simply relign them to 33cm weapons (13")which would give a 62 caliber barrel just like the AGS gun. It would also make the barrel stronger. With modern propellants it might achieve similar range though we are far outside my paygrade here. I suggest this conservative approach in order to get a saftey margin and avoid having to make new lathes. A vessel with 3x13 inch guns and 2x5 inch guns and perhaps 32-64 VLS tubes for various missles...mostly quadpacked ESSMs...and some helicopters/RPVs would have a good chance of surviving inshore, and might be crewed with as few as 150 men (the big turret would require 75) It'd have no aegis though the new versions of ESSM will have active radar homing and therefore multiple target capability for self defense.

It might get built in 5 years or so if we have the capability to make the guns. Build a couple for every amphibious ready group.

At the lower end of the scale, take something off the shelf like the German MONARC system and put in on a light frigate or Offshore Patrol Vessel with a VLS nest. It won't have the range of the big guns but is not only cheaper, it is an improvement in fire support over our current destroyers.

Either of these are preferable to replacing the two mothballed hulls with 2 super expensive irreplaceable ones....in 10 years.

I'm waaaaay out of my area of expertise here, so let me know what I'm missing...

Tiny Carriers.....

A few months ago Murdoc did a post on small aircraft carriers. I immediately started on this post in response, saved it as a draft and forgot about it.

Anyway, Murdoc was talking about "small" carriers like, say an Essex as opposed to a Nimitz.

That ain't small.....


This is small!!

Here is what I'm talking about....



This is a Bremer Vulkan design that I think was the one proposed to Thailand. The German government nixed the project as they got the vapors over a carrier being built in Germany. I think this resulted in Bremer Vulkan's going bankrupt.
As you can see the vessel, while having a through deck arrangement and carrying aircraft, is hardly what we think of when we think of carrier. At 5000 tons it is smaller than many frigates and looks to be armed like an offshore patrol vessel.
Note however, that while hardly offensive, such craft might well be useful. Carrying 5-8 helicopters gives a wide reach for search and rescue operations , law enforcement, or, in a hot war, ASW. I don't think the above design could really operate harriers with a useful load, but if fitted perhaps with the excellent ESSM it might make a good complement to the Navy's Littoral combat ship.

Such a vessel might be a useful Coast Guard cutter (which is what the above design was really intended for) with a larger complement of SAR helicopters and surveillance drones than a regular cutter. The vessel would actually be pretty cheap though more choppers might have to be procured (alternatively those at air stations could be forward deployed aboard).

In a more combat oriented vein we have this overview of small carrier proposals from the last 26 or so years....

Crossbow, also known as Sea Archer, and Corsair was a proposal for a super,-high-tech, cutting edge laser armed catamaran vessel that was intended to replace supercarriers on about a 12 for one basis. more on that here, here, and via Murdoc there is a congresscritter interest shown here.

The second one down is the Vosper "Harrier Carrier" concept. Proposed in the late '70s and early 80's as force multipliers for third world nations. The design was interesting in that the turbines were all above the waterline, and the ship had electric transmission. This has all sorts of space and damage control worries but makes for a VERY quiet ship in ASW operations.

Next is a Vickers design I know nothing about, and beneath it the Thai version of the US Sea Control Ship, followed by this interesting design from Austal in Australia. Basically putting a flight deck on their successful HSV design that is being tested, quite successfully by the US Army and Navy.

There are a number of problems with these small designs though as escorts or patrol ships they could be quite useful. The big problem is this.....They are carriers and will be seen as a replacement for a fleet carrier.

Note that Sea Archer, would require 12 to equal one Nimitz, and that doesn't take into account that the Nimitz aircraft would have longer legs than the F-35s the small carrier MIGHT be able to carry. Thus there are things a Nimitz could do that a HUNDRED Sea Archers couldn't.

OTOH 12 sea archers might be more survivable than a single Nimitz, but often the people who advocate these see them as a cadge to seem to be buying a bigger military when spending less. I could easily see A Kerryesque President or congresscritter boasting about how he'd gotten the navy 4 times as many carriers with the little Corsairs, when in fact he'd havecut the navies capability by two thirds.

According to Friedman, the US Navy looked at small carriers in the 70s (really medium ones...bigger than these in the 30-50,000 ton range). There was a HUGE decrease in capability, but the feeling was that if 2 or three times as many could be bought then there would be a net increase in survivability and an ability to keep planes in the air longer.

Those plans were abandoned when it became clear the Dems in Congress were only interested in cost savings and that the navy would suffer a severe reduction in capability. That is, to my mind the biggest argument against them now.

IF Congress would authorize enough then they might have merit, say 48 of these and 6 big NIMIT's, but I have no confidence that enough would be built to avoid a huge loss in capability.

On the other hand, given the increasingly hostile nature of Naval Warfare, they might be necessary in any event.

More discussion of this sort of thing on this very interesting thread here.

Update: Got 2 stubborn images to post. Added HSV link.
Upodate 2: Welcome Murdoc Online Readers!

I'm Betting Her Name is Thelma....

The US and Israelis have combined a cat-girl and a laser cannon to come up with the ultimate weapon.

Actually the THEL was a big leap forward in AAA, but its expensive and toxic fuels (it was a chemical laser) rendered it unsuitable for mobile deployment.

Given the toll the Hezbollah rockets are taking as I type this, it might have been good to set up several non-mobile arrays in northern Iraq.

Murdoc links to an article on what may be THEL's successor Skyguard.

Skyguard certainly doesn't look at all mobile, but if high powered enough could be a inner layer ABM system or provide for defense for a city. For compact nations like Israel and perhaps even Taiwan and Japan it might well make sense to buy lots and set up a laser defense system.

Projectile weapons have certain advantages over DEWs but lasers do look promising for some applications.

For a primer on lasers and scifi weapons in general go here.

For an explanation of what madness gripped the above artist......I can't help you. But if you are really exited by that sort of thing, then you should keep that to yourself while clicking here.

Norwegian Coasties!

Here is a fairly in-depth article on Norway's new Coast Guard Cutters.

Norway's Coast Guard has made some interesting decisions in recent years and their ships have proven to be very capable in the area that the Norwegian Coast Guard finds itself. These particular new ships are gaining attention mainly because of the fact that they will have a hybrid propulsion plant...fueled by natural gas.....

Ahem.....

This strikes me as unwise. Natural gas is explosive and there are issues with its energy density, in certain LE operations and defense auxiliary tasks having big tanks full of boomgas is a bad idea, there is also the issue that even in a completely peaceful world a Coast Guard cutter is a rescue vessel and must go INTO the teeth of terrible weather and Norway has some of the WORST in its area of responsibility. Hulls bend, and flex and even robustly built ships will pop seams and break girders in the teeth of those gales.
The sheer force of a North Sea storm is not something I'd like to be dealing with in a ship with natural gas cylinders taking up its hull.
Nevertheless it's an interesting article and I'm curious as to how the project will turn out.
Anyway my stock disclaimer is likely warranted.

Battleships Without Pants

Quite innocently, (that is my story and I am sticking to it) I was directed to this site and learned that these Mecha-Tan thingies are not just an occasional item that pops up now and again, but yet more proof that the Japanese are Stark-Raving-Cuckoo-4-Cocca-Puffs.
But this madness seems to manifest itself in a way that is kind of wacky, but ( we all dearly hope) harmless.

Anyway, in amongst these Transformers from the Island of Doctor Moreau, I stumbled upon these gems. Yes, Dreadnaught-Tans! Each wearing some identifying bit of superstructure, and armarment, and a uniform that is as appropriate as possible without pants......as this is a SFW blog they are wearing bikini bottoms.

I'm pretty sure the above is supposed to represent the first of the German Pocket Battleships, Deutschland, the control mast is much slimmer than the others of the class. This vessel was later renamed Lutzow by Hitler, to prevent a ship with the name "Germany" from being sunk which would be bad for morale. This quasi-superstitious name change made much more sense than invading the USSR, which ended up causin a far greater loss of morale...... The ship caused much consternation amongst the Naval powers of the '30s as she was of cruiser size with light battleship guns, but was too slow and poorly armored to even be an acceptable cruiser.
Jumping into the Tardis and going back to WW1 we find SMS Von Der Tan, The first German battlecruiser and one of the smallest vessels ever given that designation. This spunky little minx was pounded mercelessly at Jutland, but survived and, as the British Battlecruisers retired from the confused opening phase of the battle to alert their main force, she fired a salvo of 2x11 inch shells from her last operational turret at extreme range and sank HMS Indefatigable with a magazine explosion. She survived considerable pounding throughout the rest of the battle doing a good bit of damage to the enemy and made it home.......only to be scuttled with the rest of the High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow after the war.

Not as fortunate was the old SMS Scharnhorst an "armored cruiser" (a sort of second class battleship). Admiral Graff Spee's flagship in the German Asiatic squadron, she and her squadron were caught in an untenable position with no hope of support when Japan declared war upon Germany. Scharnhorst and the rest of the squadron then embarked on an epic journey across the Pacific in hopes of making it back to Germany. Scharnhorst's gun crews were crack and had won a Navy-wide competition just before the war. They stood her in good stead when the 2 armored cruisers and 3 protected (light) cruisers utterly annihilated Admiral Christopher Craddock's armored cruiser squadron off the coast of Chile. Unfortunately for our ascot adorned beauty, when the Germans attempted to raid the Falkland Islands, they encountered Admiral Sturdees squadron of 1 old battleship, 2 modern battlecruisers, and a whole schlew of smaller UK cruisers that could outrun and outgun the old German ships. Spee went down with his ships, and most of his men.


I think this is the WW1 era French battleship Lorraine which fought under the Free-French flag during WW2, firing her guns mainly at shore positions in....France.

Not a battleship, but an old and quite small light cruiser, SMS Emden was a member of the same ill-fated squadron as Scharnhorst, but did not join the rest of the squadron on the journey across the Pacific. Instead, she lurked in the SW pacific and Indian Ocean as a corsair cruiser, raiding UK and Japanese commerce, tying down a ridiculous number of UK and IJN assets to guard the Anzac convoys, spreading abject panic, attacking coaling stations filling her bunkers with looted coal and being generally piratical. Her Captain, Karl von Muller was universally praised for his chivalrous treatment of his prisoners and his efforts to assure their saftey after he'd liberated them of their vessels. Always turning heads, one of Frau Emdens most daring exploits was when she ran between the allied ships she encountered when she raided the Malayan (Myanmar) port of Penang, causing them to hit mainly each other. She then concluded her evening by sinking a Russian Cruiser and a French destroyer.

While putting a raiding party ashore in the Keeling islands to destroy a telegraph station, she was caught by the brand new Australian cruiser Sydney, which was faster, and had much longer ranged guns, Emden, astonishingly managed to get close enough to the faster cruiser to knock out a gun and fire control station, but her old 105mm guns were not able to punch through Sydneys armor. She could not get away and was pounded into scrap resulting in Muller beaching on North Keeling Island to save what was left of his crew. The Sydney took the few survivors prisoner.

Afterwards...that raiding party.... Remember them? Well, HMAS Sydney didn't. They had captured the island in question, so they seized a sailboat, and embarked on a harrowing journey through the East Indies then across the Red Sea and Arabia finally arriving in Germany via the Ottoman Empire in 1915.
I'm pretty sure this is the Vichy French battleship Jean Bart, because of the single quad turret. Unfinished when France fell, the Richelieu class battleship Jean Bart fled to North Africa despite only having one of her 15" turrets installed and little of her fire control. Later she sallied forth to oppose the Allied North African landings and engaged the brand new US battleship Massachusets (which had all of her turrets BTW) in a spirited but rather unequal duel, before being defeated. Repaired after the war with a state of the art AAA battery, she served into the 1950's. I'm guessing this is the French Battleship Richelieu, judging from the funnel shape, the presence of two turrets .......and the word "Richelieu" being prominently displayed.
The 2 French Richelieu class BBs were ton for ton, perhaps the best BBs ever built, very nearly as fast as the Iowas, with comparable armor, 8x15 inch guns in two innovative quad turrets and a superior torpedo defense system, all on 13,000 tons less displacement. Still incomplete at the French capitulation, she was amongst the ships attacked by the British Force-H, a squadron sent to prevent Hitler from utilizing the French fleet. They did this by sinking it. Unlike much of the French fleet, Richelieu gave a good account of herself and withstood shell and torpedo hits well. Despite this, after several engagements with UK ships determined to sink her, and with no desire to pull into a now Nazi controlled French port, she was unable to effect repairs and she was essssentially a stateless ship, thus her damage accumulated. By the time North Africa threw in with Free French forces, she had only 3 working main guns and could only attain a speed of 14 kts. Finally able to join Free French forces in 1942, she was fully repaired and completed in the US, later seeing considerable action with the UK in the Indian ocean, relieving the hard run UK BB's in escorting carriers and conducting shore bombardment. She tripped a magnetic mine but suffered little damage. She was present at the Japanese surrender in Tokyo bay. She was scrapped in 1968.

HMS Warspite, built in 1912, fought in both World Wars, and saw as much action as any battleship....EVER. Present at Jutland, Warspite was, due to a helm jammed by battle damage engaged at one point by virtually the entire German line, she is said to have taken as many shell hits as the rest of the Grand fleet at that battle combined, even if that is an exaggeration (I'm pretty sure it is), Warspite took a terrific pounding and lived to tell the tale. In WW2 she fought thru the conflict i the Atlantic, Mediterranian and Indian Ocean seeing action against aircraft and surface vessels including Italian Battleships. Struck off Salerno by 3 of the massive Fritz-X guided missiles, the same type that sank the state of the art Italian BB Roma, The old Lady Warspite soldiered on (albeit with one turret forever jammed)and continued to fight for the rest of the war, covering the Normandy landings in 1944.

Although the most storied battleship in UK history and indeed the world, she was, despite calls for her to become a museum ship alongside Nelson's Victory, ignominiously sold for scrap, but being the defiant Dame that she was, she beached herself hard aground on the way to the breakers...It took years to finish the job!
Ever dignified, Dame Warspite is the only one of our dreadnought damsels to wear pants.
The Italian Battleship Roma, one of the graceful and fast Vittorio Veneto class battleships, was one of he most attractive BBs ever built. Her carreer was quite short. As Italy changed sides in WW2 she fled south to join the Allies, but was struck by 2 massive Fritz-X guided missiles, which blew her apart.
The German-built Chinese battleship Zhenyuan was one of the most advanced ships in the world when built in the 1880s. During the Sino-Japanese War, despite the fact that the Japanese won pretty much every engagement, she did considerable damage to the Japanese at the Battle of the Yalu River, she probably would have done more had corrupt procurement officers not embezzled and filled her 12 inch shells with coal dust rather than the high explosive they were designed for! Ultimately captured at the end of the war by the Japanese, she saw action in the Russio-Japanese War, this time on the winning side, though the graceful old lady was quite obsolete by then.

Speaking of grace, a cheongsam may not be pants, but it beats the heck out some of the other things we've seen today...

This concludes todays special insanity.....I'm on active duty right now, hence little blogging.