<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" ><channel><title>Defense Tech &#187; Money Money Money</title> <atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/category/money-money-money/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://defensetech.org</link> <description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:07:13 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>Video: The Latest, Terrifying Drone Dog</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/08/video-the-latest-terrifying-drone-dog/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/08/video-the-latest-terrifying-drone-dog/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:07:13 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Arms Trade]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Bizarro]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Ground Vehicles]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Robots]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16353</guid> <description><![CDATA[Remember DARPA’s BigDog? You know, the terrifying, four-legged robot that won’t fall over when kicked or when walking on ice and snow. Well, DARPA and Boston Dynamics (the guys who are also working on this) are testing an upgraded version of the dog that will carry 400 pounds of gear for more than 20 miles [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/08/video-the-latest-terrifying-drone-dog/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>24</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>UK and France Desperate to be Included in Mid East Ops?</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/07/uk-and-france-desperate-to-be-included-in-mid-east-ops/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/07/uk-and-france-desperate-to-be-included-in-mid-east-ops/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:11:12 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Around the Globe]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Balance of Power]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[navy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sea Services]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Ships and Subs]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16340</guid> <description><![CDATA[“Britain had to plead with US to take part in Iran flotilla” This headline from Britain’s telegraph newspaper shouldn’t shock anyone who has been following the latest developments of the British military. Yup, both Britian and France apparently insisted on being included in the Pentagon’s military task force that is in the Middle East with [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/07/uk-and-france-desperate-to-be-included-in-mid-east-ops/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>88</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Did Chinese Espionage Lead to F-35 Delays?</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/06/did-chinese-espionage-lead-to-f-35-delays/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/06/did-chinese-espionage-lead-to-f-35-delays/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:33:25 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Arms Trade]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Cyber Security Center]]></category> <category><![CDATA[F-35 Watch]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Future Wars]]></category> <category><![CDATA[JSF Watch]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Planes, Copters, Blimps]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16336</guid> <description><![CDATA[Did Chinese cyber spying cause the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s cost spikes and production delays? That’s the question Pentagon budget officials are asking according to Aviation Week. Chinese spies apparently hacked into secure conference calls and listened to meetings discussing the classified technologies aboard the jets. In particular, China may have stolen info about the [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/06/did-chinese-espionage-lead-to-f-35-delays/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>189</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Army Eying the K-MAX for Tactical Airlift?</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/03/army-eying-the-k-max-for-tactical-airlift/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/03/army-eying-the-k-max-for-tactical-airlift/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:02:34 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[army]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Planes, Copters, Blimps]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Rotary Wing]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16326</guid> <description><![CDATA[Check this out. We’ve been wondering how the cancellation of the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft would impact the Army’s tactical airlift needs. While the Air Force says canning the JCA won’t hurt anyone, it looks like the Army is eying the optionally-manned K-MAX helo to carry realatively small but urgent loads of cargo to remote [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/03/army-eying-the-k-max-for-tactical-airlift/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>40</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Get Ready for the EQ-4 Global Hawk</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/get-ready-for-the-eq-4-global-hawk/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/get-ready-for-the-eq-4-global-hawk/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:01:34 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Arms Trade]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Around the Globe]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Planes, Copters, Blimps]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16298</guid> <description><![CDATA[The Air Force is paying Northrop Grumman $47 million to equip two more Block 20 RQ-4 Global Hawks with BACN. You know, the communications link that allows different types of  datalinks to communicate with one another; allowing troops on the ground to easily share info with pilots in jets overhead even if they’re out of [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/get-ready-for-the-eq-4-global-hawk/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>20</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Ponce Not Quite Floating Spec Ops Base</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/ponce-not-quite-floating-spec-ops-base/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/ponce-not-quite-floating-spec-ops-base/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:55:52 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Around the Globe]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Commandos]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[navy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sea Services]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Ships and Subs]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16293</guid> <description><![CDATA[Well,  the Navy is trying to downplay the special operations role the USS Ponce will play after it is converted into a floating base for anti-mining, coastal patrol and special operations missions in the Persian Gulf. The amphibious transport dock, commissioned in 1970 is being rapidly converted into an interim Afloat Forward Staging Base for [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/ponce-not-quite-floating-spec-ops-base/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>72</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Rafale Wins in India</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/rafale-wins-in-india/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/rafale-wins-in-india/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:49:24 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Air-to-Air Combat]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Arms Trade]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Around the Globe]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Planes, Copters, Blimps]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16289</guid> <description><![CDATA[France finally scored an international customer for its Rafale fighter jet. After years and years of fits, starts and frustrations, India’s medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest ended this morning with a French victory. Remember, MMRCA pitted the Rafale against everything from the Eurofighter Typhoon and Mig-29 to the American made F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/rafale-wins-in-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>99</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>USAF’s Big Penetrator Needs to Be Harder</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/30/usafs-big-penetrator-needs-to-be-harder/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/30/usafs-big-penetrator-needs-to-be-harder/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:46:04 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Ammo and Munitions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Arms Trade]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Fast Movers]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Future Wars]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Planes, Copters, Blimps]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Deadlies]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16270</guid> <description><![CDATA[Yup, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) needs to be harder, according to anonymous Pentagon sources cited in a Wall Street Journal article. A series of recent tests found that the Air Force’s 30,000-pound tool for penetrating 32 stories of reinforced concrete might not have enough penetrating power to take out Iran’s most heavily protected nuclear [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/30/usafs-big-penetrator-needs-to-be-harder/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>148</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>A Basic Mistake That Trashed a JSTARS</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:08:08 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Planes, Copters, Blimps]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Deadlies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Defense Biz]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16157</guid> <description><![CDATA[Imagine flying, along with 20 or so fellow aircrew, in an Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Targeting and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) jet for a mission to track down insurgents planting roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan. You’ve just taken off from your base in Qatar but before you can go scan the ground for [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>206</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Hot Docs: DoD’s 2013 Budget Briefing Documents</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/26/hot-docs-dods-2013-budget-briefing-documents/</link> <comments>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/26/hot-docs-dods-2013-budget-briefing-documents/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:57:25 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>John Reed</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Acquisition Reform]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category> <category><![CDATA[army]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Around the Globe]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Future Wars]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Marine Corps]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Money Money Money]]></category> <category><![CDATA[navy]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://defensetech.org/?p=16164</guid> <description><![CDATA[Here’s where you’ll see the weapons programs are going to thrive going forward and the types that won’t (barring Capitol Hill getting involved, which you’ve always got to factor in). Below you’ll the Pentagon’s basic budget documents that the DoD has released to coincide with the budget rollout that we’ve been live Tweeting. The first [...]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2012/01/26/hot-docs-dods-2013-budget-briefing-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>32</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 2/23 queries in 0.015 seconds using apc
Object Caching 1080/1112 objects using apc

Served from: defensetech.org @ 2012-02-09 04:11:13 -->
