Month: September 2009

With the FCS Cancelled….

No Comments

The Army is looking at acquiring replacements for its M113 APC and Bradley IFV beginning in the next decade.

It’s clear that the M113 needs to be replaced, but the Bradley could continue serving but for one small problem: The Bradley has never carried enough troops, it carries 6 as opposed to the typically 9 which army doctrine calls for in a fire team.

That being said, if you replaced the current crewed Bradley turret with remotely operated turret, like the CTI 40mm Tele-Operated/Manned Turret, (top) a 40mm turret with case telescoped rounds, (bottom) you would eliminate the space inside the hull for the gunner and the commander would sit up front next to the driver, you would have about 3x the firepower, and 50% more crew carrying capacity.

F136 Saga Continues

No Comments

Well, the Senate Appropriations Committee cut funding for the F136 alternate engine for the JSF, though the committee chair, Daniel Inouye (D-HI) has made it clear that he wants it back when the conference report comes out.

In any case, it’s clear that the White House’s opposition to continuing work on an alternate engine is soft, as the discussions between the Pentagon and GE/Rolls on a firm fixed price for the engine, are continuing, and GE is promising a, “formal unsolicited Fixed Price offer,” in the next week or so.

I’m not sure if the DoD is seriously looking at proposals, of if they are just trying to browbeat Pratt & Whitney though.

When Technology Works For You

No Comments

I give you the Spike missile, the version from the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) at China Lake, not the rather more expensive ATGM produced by the Israeli company Rafael.

This Spike is a small (25″), light weight (2.5 kg) and very inexpensive (about 5000 lbs) that can be effective out to about 3200 m against relatively lightly armored targets. (The warhead weighs 1 pound)

It’s not fast, being decidedly subsonic, and it leaves launch tube at around 100 mpg, which means no backblast.

What makes this missile different is that it was designed using technology to meet a cost goal, so the seeker is, basically a camcorder bolted to the front of a rocket motor, and it can launch at low speed because it relies on COTS processor for flight controls, which do not require high initial speed.

It locks on the target image, and so is fire and forget, a capability that has been in the US arsenal since the 1970s with the Maverick missile.

Another advantage of this system is that it can easily be carried by a UAV when targeting things like insurgents, with a much lower cost, and a much higher number of rounds on existing UAVs that carry Hellfires, or it could be mounted on much smaller UAVs.

It just goes to show that technology can be used to create a reasonably effective weapon at a very reasonable price.

Some PDF with more details are here and here.

House of Saud Looking at Silent Eagle

No Comments

So, it looks like al Queida’s best friends are looking at buying an additional 72 F-15 Eagles, and the word is that they are very interested in the modified reduced signature (stealth is way to strong a word here) F-15 SE.

If they do, it will likely be instead of purchasing the F-35 Lightning II, and a quick perusal of the Wiki shows that nothing is moving there yet.

What the F-15 SE brings to the table for the Saudis is greater speed and payload at the expense of having a larger radar cross section.

Carbon Tax Update

No Comments

Well, it’s beginning to look like France will impose its own carbon tax €17 ($24.90) per ton of CO2.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to move France toward greater reductions in carbon emissions, but it is also a reflection of just how big a failure that Europe’s cap and trade regime has been, with the creation of false offsets overseas, construction of hydroelectric plants without transmission lines in China, and paying farmers not to grow food.

In addition to that, there is the detail that the markets simply do not work, creating a “pollution fire sale,”* which makes this system a joke.

In any case, I ran the numbers,† and got about $0.2212/gallon, which in the scheme of things is not a huge chunk of change, particularly in France, where the price of a gallon of gas is about $6.00 including tax, but it is likely to make coal powered electricity much less competitive, particularly if the tax goes up over time.

France is emulating Finland and Sweden, who implemented carbon taxes over a decade ago, and got reductions in emissions, as opposed to the EU cap and trade, which hasn’t ever worked.

On a related note, both Caterpillar and Federal Express are lobbying for a carbon tax instead of a cap and trade too.

They mention a number of reasons, not the least of which is the giveaways to big coal, but the big reason is buried a few paragraphs down here:

A predictable, graduated tax would have an impact on the role of the military overseas, improve the environment and be good for the economy, [FedEx CEO] Smith argued.

(emphasis mine)

Simply put, they don’t want to live in a world where the cost of carbon credits will fluctuate day to day because of the machinations of that great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,‡ Goldman Sachs.

FedEx and Caterpillar, and pretty much everyone but the coal burning utilities can live with a carbon tax, it effects them all equally.

If you make carbon permits a trade able market commodity, and suddenly you have where the difference between survival and bankruptcy are choices in an opaque and volatile market.

You end up diverting enormous resources from upgrading equipment and doing research on more efficient ways to do things, and drive it into the blood funnel of the vampire squid.

*Original author’s pun, not mine.
†I assume that the tax is actually per tonne (metric ton), so that is 1000 kg of CO2, which is 273 kg of carbon. This means that the actual tax for a kg of carbon is about €0.0623 per kilo of carbon.

A good approximation of the formula for gasoline is C8H18 (It’s actually a witches brew of different hydrocarbons), and the weight of a liter of gasoline 0.76, so the weight of carbon in a liter is about 0.64 kg.

This gives a tax of about €0.03989/liter, or about $0.2212/gallon
‡Alas, I cannot claim credit for this bon mot, it was coined by the great Matt Taibbi, in his article on the massive criminal conspiracy investment firm, The Great American Bubble Machine.

Economics Update

No Comments
Click for Full Size

Blah, blah, blah!

Well, let’s lead with housing sales, since it gives me an opportunity to start with one of my pet peeves: Journalists pumping up news as better than it is.

CNN leads with New home sales rise for 5th straight month in August,which sounds good, sales went from a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 429K, up from July’s 426K, so what’s the problem?

Well the problem is that the forecast was for 440K, and a 3K gain is about ¾%, nothing to phone home about, and as Calculated Risk so ably notes when he looks at the numbers and declares that sales were flat, “This is a slight increase from the revised rate of 426 thousand in July (revised from 433 thousand).” (emphasis mine)

So there was an increase relative to the revised figure, but a drop when compare initial figure to initial figure, and in any case, an honest description for this would be “flat”, or “down slightly”, not a hed screaming a 5th straight month of increase.

In either case, we are still seeing week demand for manufactured goods, as evidenced by the 2.4% drop in durable goods orders, though the Truck Tonnage Index rose in in August, which compares to the drop in rail traffic I reported 2 days ago.

In the world of finance, banks losses in big mofo loans, the so-called syndicated loans, tripled in 2009.

In energy, revelations regarding Iran’s nuclear program and potential sanctions pushed oil up, though it is still well below $70/bbl, and in currency, the dollar fell broadly, hitting a 7½ month low vs the Yen, and remaining near the 1-year low vs the Euro that it hit a few days ago.

SEC to Take on Ratings Agencies, Flash Trading

No Comments

It looks like the SEC will start cracking down on the ratings agencies, like Standard & Poors and Moody’s.

Basically, they are going to be issuing a ruling saying that they will be treated as “experts” which creates greater liability for their opinions:

Currently, the rating agencies are not considered experts. They have argued that they are exempt from these rules because they are only providing an opinion and are protected by free speech laws.

Meanwhile, others such as auditors that companies use and cite in their public filings are considered experts and can be sued by investors. Other experts include engineers that oil and gas companies rely on to determine the amount of resources in the ground.

They are also going after the super high speed trading done by some brokerages who have placed their servers in the same room as the exchanges, allowing them to basically front run the entire market, at the expense of honest market participants.

Of course, the idea that the ratings agencies aren’t experts, and until now, never were experts, just buggers the mind.

As it stands now, the exchanges grant access to buy and sell orders a few fractions of a second before they execute to the flash traders, which allows them to pick up a penny or two by buying before a big buy, or selling before a big bell.

It requires the cooperation of the exchanges, and the SEC is moving to forbid any such cooperation:

SEC commissioners unanimously voted today to seek public comment on a rule barring exchanges and trading platforms from giving clients access to information about stock orders a fraction of a second before the market. The proposal requires a second vote at a later public meeting to become binding.

“Investors that have access only to information displayed as public quotes may be harmed if market participants are able to flash orders and avoid the need to make the orders publicly available,” [SEC] Chairman Mary Schapiro said.

This never would have happened under the last guy in the White House.

Washington Post Reporters Don’t Actually Read the Washington Post

No Comments

Paul Kane, writing for the Washington Post, notes that Democratic political committees are seeing a major drop in fund raising, but he assigns blame to, “Complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party’s harsh rhetoric about big business.”

It ain’t complacency, it’s anger and demoralization, because the Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular, have folded any time the small by historical standards Republican minority has gotten their nose out of joint.

I saw that in the paper today on the front page, and by paper, I mean paper, I have the ink and newsprint sitting by my keyboard.

You know what else I saw in the paper, just today?

Let me make this clear, this is just what is in today’s Washington Post.

When you add in:

  • Obama’s support of the status quo on gays in the military, the Defense of Marriage Act.
  • Support of Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers and His Evil Minions™ on the idea that there should be no meaningful accountability for banks or their executives.
  • His phony reforms on the state secrets privilege.

Is it any wonder that people are disinclined to donate money to a Democratic Party fund raising apparatus that he is firmly in control of?

You know, if Barack Obama showed a little bit of guts, members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party might be inclined to have his back.

But when you are in Baucus and Conrad’s corner, you ain’t in ours.