Friday, August 15, 2014

WHY DID WE GIVE AWAY THE PANAMA CANAL

 

 

 

The waterway that shrank the world: How the Panama Canal was built against all the odds 100 years ago

  • The 48-mile ship canal, situated in Panama, Central America, celebrated the 100th anniversary of its opening today
  • But celebrations of engineering triumph were marred by doubt as plans for a multi-billion-dollar expansion are failing
  • Massive upgrade was supposed to be completed by October, but has been delayed by 14 months following problems
  • These include cost overruns, strikes and threat of competition from Chinese rival route in Nicaragua, 420 miles north
  • President of Panama Juan Carlos Varela today opposed suggestions that the centennial be declared national holiday
  • About 100 people turned up to wave flags and greet cargo ships in small ceremony at Miraflores locks this morning
  • Locals will celebrate canal's anniversary with evening of fireworks and free concert by salsa crooner Ruben Blades

It was supposed to be a grand celebration of the engineering triumph that forged a nation.

But instead, the 100th anniversary of the Panama Canal's opening was today marred by the failure of plans for a multibillion-dollar expansion.

The work, which began in the Central American country in September 2007 and is the largest project at the canal since its construction, was due to be finished this year.

However, it has been delayed by 14 months after becoming beset by problems, including cost overruns, strikes and the threat of competition from a Chinese rival route.

Scroll down for video

Engineering triumph: The 100th anniversary of the Panama Canal's (pictured) opening was today marred by doubt as plans for a multibillion-dollar expansion are failing

+17

Engineering triumph: The 100th anniversary of the Panama Canal's (pictured) opening was today marred by doubt as plans for a multibillion-dollar expansion are failing

Celebrations: Fireworks over the canal and live music are just a few of the events scheduled to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the waterway that forged a nation

+17

Celebrations: Fireworks over the canal and live music are just a few of the events scheduled to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the waterway that forged a nation

Currently, the canal can only accommodate vessels carrying up to 5,000 TEUs (a unit of cargo capacity), but that will change following its expansion

+17

Transformation: Currently, the canal can only accommodate vessels carrying up to 5,000 TEUs (a unit of cargo capacity), but that will change following its expansion

Grand plans: A multi-billion dollar canal expansion will include locks that are as wide as 180ft and can accept much larger container ships

+17

Grand plans: A multi-billion dollar canal expansion will include locks that are as wide as 180ft and can accept much larger container ships

The latest setback in the canal's expansion came in May, when about 5,000 laborers walked off the job for two weeks as part of a strike over wages by construction workers nationwide.

That followed a two-week stoppage in February in a dispute over $1.6billion in extra costs between the canal's administrator and the European contractor building a third new set of locks.

Meanwhile, a Chinese firm was recently awarded a contract to build a $40billion (£23billion) waterway through Nicaragua, around 420 miles north. The 173-mile waterway would stretch from Punta Gorda on the Caribbean through Lake Nicaragua to the mouth of the river Brito on the Pacific; the path initially favored by 19th century American engineers.

While just a threat on paper for now, Panamanian authorities have responded with the possibility of digging a fourth set of locks to maintain dominance.

Because of the interruptions and overspending, the canal's original completion date of this October has been pushed back by 14 months and analysts say more delays can't be ruled out.

China's plan to build £25bn rival to the Panama Canal

 

Journey: The work, which began in the country in September 2007 and is the largest project at the canal since its construction, was due to be finished this year

+17

Journey: The work, which began in the country in September 2007 and is the largest project at the canal since its construction, was due to be finished this year

Vessel: But it has been delayed by 14 months after becoming beset by problems, including cost overruns, strikes and the threat of competition from a Chinese rival route. Above a vessel travels through the Miraflores locks of the Panama Canal

+17

Vessel: But it has been delayed by 14 months after becoming beset by problems, including cost overruns, strikes and the threat of competition from a Chinese rival route. Above a vessel travels through the Miraflores locks of the Panama Canal

Two Panama Canal workers paddle in their small boat near a cargo ship sailing through the Miraflores Locks

+17

A general view of the Miraflores station at the Canal of Panama in Panama

+17

Left, Two Panama Canal workers paddle in their small boat near a cargo ship sailing through the Miraflores Locks and, right, an aerial view of the Miraflores station

Attraction: Locals wave and take photos as a ship passes through the Miraflores locks on the Panama Canal in January this year

+17

Attraction: Locals wave and take photos as a ship passes through the Miraflores locks on the Panama Canal in January this year

The construction of the 48-mile ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama a century ago transformed international trade, greatly reducing travel time between the Atlantic and the Pacific by eliminating the need for ships to go around the tip of South America.

The construction claimed the lives of an estimated 30,000 workers, many from diseases like malaria and yellow fever.

As part of the £3billion expansion project, wider locks with mechanical gates will reduce congestion and be able accommodate post-Panamex vessels, which are as long as three football fields and have the capacity to carry about 2.5 times the number of containers than held by ships currently using the canal.

Canal administrator Jorge Quijano acknowledges he would have liked to finish the expansion in time for Friday's centennial. 'But we knew from the beginning a project as complex as this wouldn't necessarily be done on time', he said.

However, not everyone is as understanding. Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou complained about the delays during a recent visit to Panama, saying they affect his country's trade with the United States.

Rivalry: A Chinese firm was recently awarded a contract to build a $40billion (£23billion) waterway through Nicaragua, around 420 miles north of the Panama Canal

+17

Rivalry: A Chinese firm was recently awarded a contract to build a $40billion (£23billion) waterway through Nicaragua, around 420 miles north of the Panama Canal

The country is currently undertaking a massive canal expansion project, with hopes of having an additional traffic lane completed in 14 months

+17

A century old: Panama is currently undertaking a massive canal expansion project, with hopes of having an additional traffic lane completed in 14 months

The opening of the Panama Canal, August 15, 1914

+17

The opening of the Panama Canal, August 15, 1914

+17

Grand opening: The canal, which links the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and revolutionised maritime travel and trade, first opened on August 15, 1914

Two major cargo shippers, Denmark's Maersk and Taiwan's Evergreen, have already rerouted part of their operations, depriving the canal of about $80 million a year, Quijano says.

When funding for the expansion was approved by a referendum in 2006, its completion was envisioned as a coming out party for Panama, a chance to showcase the country's pro-business credentials and role as a linchpin of global commerce.

But competition is lurking. In addition to the proposed waterway through Nicaragua, Egypt is embarking on an expansion of the Suez Canal.

Reflecting the more subdued mood, President Juan Carlos Varela opposed suggestions that the centennial be declared a national holiday. 'The anniversary is best celebrated by working,' he told journalists recently. 'Panama already has plenty of free days.'

Varela didn't attend a low-key ceremony held at the Miraflores locks Friday morning. About 100 people, including canal workers, showed up to wave flags and greet cargo ships as they passed by, while a school band played patriotic songs.

Think big: Panama has even toyed with the idea of developing a fourth set of mechanical locks, which would further increase the canal's travel capacity

+17

Think big: Panama has even toyed with the idea of developing a fourth set of mechanical locks, which would further increase the canal's travel capacity

Early days: During construction, French workers used dredging machines to dig. The canal's expansion will allow for dredging boats to now travel the waterway

+17

Early days: During construction, French workers used dredging machines to dig. The canal's expansion will allow for dredging boats to now travel the waterway

Panamanians will celebrate their canal's anniversary with an evening of fireworks and a free concert by salsa crooner Ruben Blades, before a 500-pound cake will be served to hundreds of VIPs.

Descendants of French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps, the canal's flamboyant first developer, are expected to attend.

So are relatives of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, whose enthusiasm for the 'big ditch"'spurred the isthmus to proclaim its independence from Colombia in 1903 and sign a treaty granting perpetual control of the future waterway and adjacent 550-square mile canal zone to the United States.

Nostalgia for those earlier days runs deep in Paraiso, or Paradise in English, a village on the canal's Pacific Ocean entrance where blue U.S. mailboxes recall a vibrant, bygone era when it was part of the canal zone.

While Panama has prospered in the past decade, taxi driver Carlos Bennett said the benefits haven't been shared widely. Like many Panamanians, he's counting on the canal expansion to lift the nation's welfare but is concerned that the recent stumbles could backfire.

Malaria and yellow fever ran rampant during construction with nearly 30,000 workers losing their lives on the project

+17

Malaria and yellow fever ran rampant during construction with nearly 30,000 workers losing their lives on the project

In 1942, a new set of locks were added near Panama City, where the bulk of the 100th anniversary celebrations will take place

+17

In 1942, a new set of locks were added near Panama City, where the bulk of the 100th anniversary celebrations will take place

'The anniversary should've been the moment to celebrate the expansion project, that all of Panama needs urgently,' said Mr Bennett, the grandson of a canal worker who emigrated from the British Virgin Islands.

'We can't afford the luxury of looking like we're incapable to the rest of the world.'

Linking the Isthmus of Panama, the canal eliminated the need for ships to go around the dangerous waters along South America's tip, reducing fuel costs and travel times.

Despite the subdued anniversary, each Saturday in August, 'Magical Nights at the Panama Canal,' will open to the public from 6 to 10pm and will include fireworks, live music, and dancing, as well as historical costumed characters.

 

 

photo

Panama Canal  ship passing through the Panama Canal late 1930s

photo


This  December 31st, 2011 will mark the most expensive giveaway that the American taxpayer has ever footed the bill on. The handover which gives free and clear title of the Panama Canal to the government of Panama was pushed through during the Carter administration in the late 1970's. Americans should be outraged at this treaty and here is why.

There were three key issues expressed during political debates by Congressional leaders in Congress on the Panama Canal, but, none involving the amount of money the United States has spent since building the canal in 1903.

The political maneuvers of leading Congressional figures during the debates to ratify the treaty managed to keep this real issue hidden from the American taxpayer as they normally do.

Informational statistics listed in the U.S. Department of Historical Statistics list the expenditures that the American taxpayer has been hit with since the building of the canal. The amounts are shocking and staggering. This is a summary of those statistics. In 1903, the U.S., i.e. the American taxpayer paid ten million dollars to the Panama government for the land acquired in building the canal. This was suppose to be clear purchase and title to this land forever. In today's spending dollars, that ten million is the equivalent to 100 million dollars. Keep in mind these today dollars terms because this is suppose to be an "asset" of the United States. The U.S., i.e. the American taxpayer also paid for the construction costs of the canal from 1898 to 1921 to the tune of 380 million dollars. Today's term in dollars, over 2 trillion dollars. This is in addition to purchasing the land, mostly from political figure heads in power within the Panama government at the time.

In addition, from 1903 to 1936, the United States still had to pay $250,000 dollars annually in the form of an annuity to the Panama government. Today's dollars, over 5 million a year. In 1937, this amount was increased to $430,000 dollars annually. Today's dollars, over 10 million a year. Then again, in 1965, this amount was increased to 2 million, three hundred thousand annually. Todays' dollars, over 18 million a year. Think the buck stopped here?

In addition to the amounts previously listed, the U.S. had to pay royalties to Panama on the ships, all ships regardless of country of origin that passed through the canal. Another words, the U.S. hardly kept any of the revenue derived from ships passing through the canal. And it gets even worse.

From 1942, to 1990, the U.S. spent over $201 million and 940 thousand dollars for the building of 134 airfields. Yes, 134 airfields. No wonder Panama became the drug flyin capital of the world under Noreiga. They had the airfields to do it with and we paid for it. How do you like that irony. And this does not include the nine military bases the U.S. has built over the years. These figures have been hidden from public scrutiny. By the way, the Panama governments is getting all these bases also in the deal, at American taxpayer expense.

Overall these annuities, purchase of the land, cost of building the canal and airfields, royalty payments have amounted to over 18 billion and 424 million dollars that the American taxpayer has been stuck with on the Panama Canal. And the U.S. is giving it back free to the Panama government? What's wrong with this picture? In todays' dollars, this amount would be approximately over 6 trillion dollars if you adjust and count this as a piece of real estate, an "asset" that the U.S., i.e. American taxpayer invested in. The canal collects over $650 million a year in toll revenues, which the Panama mostly keeps. Why did our elected politicians give away such an important financial asset? A good question for all of us to ask our elected representatives in Washington.

the Jesuit Order was the true power behind the giveaway of the Panama Canal during the Carter Administration.  Carter’s National Security Adviser was Papal Knight, CFR-member, Trilateral Commission-member and Bilderberger, Jesuit Temporal CoadjutorZbigniew Brzezinski.  Irish American Roman Catholic, Knight of Malta, Skull and Bonesman, CFR-member and Trilateral Commission member, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor William F. Buckley, Jr., was also behind the giving of the Panama Canal to Panama which preeminent waterway would in turn be placed into the hands of the Red Chinese.  But the foremost movers and shakers during the negotiations between Panama and the United States was the Jesuit priest Xavier Gorostiaga, an overt backer of the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

And why the giveaway of the Panama Canal, an asset that could have made billions of dollars for America?  The canal, now being enlarged with a new canal to be completed in 2014-15, is to be the invasion route for the Chinese/Japanese navies when they attack the “heretic and liberal” Southern Bible Belt of the then militarily defeated 14th Amendment American Empire.

For more information, see this link.

Brother-in-Christ Maximilano Aquaisol from Argentina has forwarded to your editor the following:

It was the Jesuit priest XABIER GOROSTIAGA who take away the Panama Canal from the Americans,
and who created the first economical program of the Sandinist Nicaragua.

Xabier Gorostiaga

The Jesuit Xabier Gorostiaga died in Spain on 14 September this year (2003). A truly dear creature, was Rector of the Universidad Centroamericana UCA, and as we shall see, was always closely linked to Nicaragua.

Jesuit Priest Xabier Gorostiaga, 1970s

Influenced by his teacher in Panama, decided to do his thesis on Panama as a center for global services, including the Canal, the Colon Free Zone and the newly created Financial Center. Arrive in Panama in 1972 to do research for his thesis. Write a book on the Financial Centre, based in Panama, a branch of the CIAS, the Centre for Social Studies and Action for Panama (CEASPA), and inserted utterly, without finishing his PhD, in what will be the mission and passion of his apostolic life, apostolate from the international commitment to Central America.

During the Nationalist government, but dictatorship of General Torrijos, the Panamanian Foreign Minister, Juan Antonio Tack, a former professor at Xavier, asked to be part of the body of advisers to the negotiations between the governments of Panama and the United States in view the renegotiation of the Treaty on the Canal to get that international route. The provincial Miguel Francisco Estrada gave to him the mission. History will tell what was the contribution to the way Xabier come through, and in 1979 signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which in 2000 gave way to a channel owned and operated by Panama at the end of the School of the Americas in Panama, and exit from the Southern Command of the United States from the territory of Panama. On the same date starting his 18 years in Nicaragua.  Emilio Baltodano, a former fellow Jesuit and planning deputy, gets to be called as adviser to the Ministry of Planning, but in a few days it is Global Director of Planning.

What is sad about this situation is that many American were writing their elected officials in Washington not to give the canal away. Senate House Majority Leader, Republican Howard H. Baker back then stated in a 1978 press conference, "I am operating amidst a lot of political danger," despite the the fact that while he attended a Tennessee footbal game, nearly 20,000 of his constituents held up signs displaying, "Keep the Canal", a showing of their outcries against ratifying and giving the canal away. Even after this massive showing, in a press conference a few days later, he was asked again. His answer, "I have not made up my mind yet." Keep in mind that at the time Senator Baker was preparing his campaign machinery to reecive his party's presidential nomination. Any time the press asked questions about whether Panama was going to pay back the amount the U.S., i.e. the American taxpayer had paid in building the canal and other expenditures, not a single American politician would answer that question. It was as if they had all had suddenly become deaf. Why is is that politicians for some reason develop this loss of hearing when real issues are at hand?

The most disturbing recent news is this. In 1997, the Panama government signed an exclusive contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd to run the two major port entrances to the canal. You would think that by the name of the company that it sounds like an American company. Wrong! American owned Bechtel lost out to Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.. Who is Hutchison Whampoa Ltd? It is a China based company. Many say it is actually a front for the People's Liberation Army of China. Yes, communist China. This means that U.S. naval ships could be at the mercy of a communist controlled China company. Our ships could even be denied passage if things become "hot" between China and the U.S. This puts the U.S. in a military disadvantage in the South Pacific if naval ships are denied passage through the canal. There are some that do not believe that Hutchison which is also a publicity held firm, is an arm of the PLA. However, it manages 19 ports in Asia, Europe and the Americas. However, Japan will not let Hutchison into their country. What is it that Japan knows that we don't, or I should say are ignoring and for what reasons? Was this a bargaining chip that our government used with China for some reason?

Panama's economy is over 8% dependent on the canal revenue. What is feared is that tolls for ships passing through the canal will skyrocket. This will set off an inflation curve around the world. Higher tolls to ship goods through the canal only means higher prices for consumers. Again, the American taxpayer will be stuck paying the bill again. Presently, the canal collects over $650 million a year in toll revenues, an average of $34,000 per ship. It is feared that this could double or quadruple. Panama is cashed starved and Hutchison is getting a bigger piece of the revenue versus what the U.S. got for running the canal which was almost zero. Additional worries are Panama's economy. Unemployment in Panama is running over 13%. Columbian insurgency and rebels has spilled into Panama. Panama has no army of its' own. It has a small 13,000 police force and that is it. No match for Columbian rebels. And the newly elected President, Mireya Moscoso's has a uphill battle. She is faced with these problems, yet has hardly any support from inside the government. By the way, the name of the main gate as they call it is The Gatum Watergate. Does this sound familar? Anyone know the translation of "gatum"?

Once again, the American taxpayer have been lied to and manipulated into believing what Washington only wants Americans to hear. Those are the facts. How many times are Americans going to sit idly back and let this happen to them? When will American make politicians be accountable and present all the truths? And most importantly, insure that elected officials are truly doing what Americans want? Wake up America. You've just been given the shaft again by your own government to the tune of 6 trillion dollars. Hello, anyone out there listening? This could have paid off the U.S. National Debt of $5.4 trillion dollars if the canal had been "sold" back to Panama as a U.S. Government "Asset". A corporation that would have been owned by various governments could have financed the deal, paying back the U.S. since the Panama government couldn't buy it back.

The history of the Panama Canal goes back to 16th century. After realizing the riches of Peru, Ecuador, and Asia, and counting the time it took the gold to reach the ports of Spain, it was suggested c.1524 to Charles V, that by cutting out a piece of land somewhere in Panama, the trips would be made shorter and the risk of taking the treasures through the isthmus would justify such an enterprise. A survey of the isthmus was ordered and subsequently a working plan for a canal was drawn up in 1529. The wars in Europe and the thirsts for the control of kingdoms in the Mediterranean Sea simply put the project on permanent hold.

In 1534 a Spanish official suggested a canal route close to that of the now present canal. Later, several other plans for a canal were suggested, but no action was taken. The Spanish government subsequently abandoned its interest in the canal.

In the early 19th century the books of the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt revived interest in the project, and in 1819 the Spanish government formally authorized the construction of a canal and the creation of a company to build it. The discovery of gold in California in 1848 and the rush of would-be miners stimulated Americas interest in digging the canal

Various surveys were made between 1850 and 1875 showed that only two routes were practical, the one across Panama and another across Nicaragua. In 1876 an international company was organized; two years later it obtained a concession from the Colombian government to dig a canal across the isthmus. The international company failed, and in 1880 a French company was organized by Ferdinand Marie de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal.

In 1879, de Lesseps proposed a sea level canal through Panama. With the success he had with the construction of the Suez Canal in Egypt just ten years earlier, de Lesseps was confident he would complete the water circle around the world.

Time and mileage would be dramatically reduced when travelling from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean or vice versa. For example, it would save a total of 18,000 miles on a trip from New York to San Francisco.

Although de Lesseps was not an engineer, he was appointed chairman for the construction of the Panama Canal. Upon taking charge, he organized an International Congress to discuss several schemes for constructing a ship canal. De Lesseps opted for a sea-level canal based on the construction of the Suez Canal. He believed that if a sea-level canal worked when constructing the Suez Canal, it must work for the Panama Canal.

In 1899 the US Congress created an Isthmian Canal Commission to examine the possibilities of a Central American canal and to recommend a route. The commission first decided on a route through Nicaragua, but later reversed its decision. The Lesseps company offered its assets to the United States at a price of $40 million. The United States and the new state of Panama signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty, by which the United States guaranteed the independence of Panama and secured a perpetual lease on a 10-mile strip for the canal. Panama was to be compensated by an initial payment of $10 million and an annuity of $250,000, beginning in 1913. This strip is now known as the Canal Zone.

The Construction

The length of the Panama Canal is approximately 51 miles. A trip along the canal from its Atlantic entrance would take you through a 7 mile dredged channel in Limón Bay. The canal then proceeds for a distance of 11.5 miles to the Gatun Locks. This series of three locks raise ships 26 metres to Gatun Lake. It continues south through a channel in Gatun Lake for 32 miles to Gamboa, where the Culebra Cut begins. This channel through the cut is 8 miles long and 150 metres wide. At the end of this cut are the locks at Pedro Miguel. The Pedro Miguel locks lower ships 9.4 metres to a lake which then takes you to the Miraflores Locks which lower ships 16 metres to sea level at the canals Pacific terminus in the bay of Panama. A pictorial view of the canals route can be seen below.

The Panama Canal was constructed in two stages. The first between 1881 and 1888, being the work carried out by the French company headed by de Lessop and secondly the work by the Americans which eventually completed the canals construction between 1904 and 1914.

The contract for the canals construction was signed on March 12th, 1881, and it was agreed the work would be carried out for 512 million French francs, but the contract was conditional in the sense it was not to become binding until two years had elapsed.

During 1882 the excavation of the Culebra Cut was started, but due to the lack of organization there were no tracks available to remove the spoil that the excavators were producing. After the problems had been overcome, the highest peaks of the cut were attacked. As work proceeded, the worry of landslides and what slope should be adopted to avoid them became a major concern.

In 1883 it was realised there was a tidal range of 20 feet at the Pacific, whereas, the Atlantic range was only about 1 foot. It was concluded that this difference in levels would be a danger to navigation. It was proposed that a tidal lock should be constructed at Panama to preserve the level from there to Colon. This plan would save about 10 million cubic metres of excavation.

The French company started to run into financial difficulties during 1885 and even applied to the French government to issue lottery bonds, as this had been successful during the construction of the Suez canal when that project was at the point of failure through lack of money. Rumours of these difficulties caused increased interest within the American government.

A report made by the Americans in 1886 noted that housing for the workforce was under construction and a great deal of plant was available. Unfortunately the plant required to construct the canal was is in short supply, there were too few dredgers, the French excavators were too light and were stopped by large boulders and too much work was being done by hand. The turnover of the labour force was immense, as the men wanted to return home to spend the savings they had accumulated and because of the inadequate medical care that was available.

It was realised that the solution to all the problems encountered, was that the construction of a high-level lock canal would reduce an enormous volume of excavation and prevent the landslides.

The abandonment of the scheme at this stage would cause financial ruin for all the investors and a severe blow to the French. It was suggested that the original plan should be modified and the lock system should be employed.

Eventually, in 1899 the French attempt at constructing the Panama Canal was seen to be a failure. However, they had excavated a total of 59.75 million cubic metres which included 14.255 million cubic metres from the Culebra Cut. This lowered the peak by 102 metres. The value of work completed by the French was about $ 25 million. When the French left, they left behind a considerable amount of machinery housing and a hospital. The reasons behind the French failing to complete the project were due to disease carrying mosquitos and the inadequacy of their machinery.

The construction of the canal was recommenced by the Americans in 1904. The first step on the agenda was to improve the standard of living and ensure ill health would be a thing of the past.

The first American steam shovel started work on the Culebra cut on 11th November 1904. By December 1905 there were 2,600 men at work in the Culebra cut.

Sidings and tracks for the spoil wagons had been laid, the dredging at both the Atlantic and Pacific portions of the canal were being carried out and a survey of the area for the largest dam along the canal had been started.

It wasn't until June 1906 that the decision on type of canal was decided. It was to be a lock canal. This would enable the river Chagres to form a lake.

Peak excavation within the Culebra cut exceeded 512,500 cubic metres of material in the first three months of 1907 and the total workforce exceeded 39,000. The rock was broken up by dynamite, of which up to 4,535,000 killogrammes were used every year.

The plant used in the Culebra cut included in excess of 100 Bucyrus steam shovels each capable of excavating approximately 920 cubic metres in an eight-hour day, a picture of a typical steam shovel is shown below.

More than 4,000 wagons were used for the removal of the excavated material. Each wagon was capable of carrying 15 cubic metres of material. These wagons were hauled by 160 locomotives and unloaded by 30 Lidgerwood unloaders.

The full extent of the excavations carried out by both the French and Americans is shown in a longitudinal section from the Atlantic to Pacific oceans is shown below.

Problems at the Culebra Cut

When the canal was first designed, the problem of landslides had been ignored. Slides of earth and more importantly rock, increased the amount of excavation within Culebra. The cross section of the canal was constantly being changed to accommodate for the landslides. The slides caused the upper edge of the cut to be taken back beyond their original lines. The original design for the banks comprised a series of narrow benches which acted as rock catchers, alternating with short steep slopes. It was first decided by the International Board of Consulting Engineers that the rock would be stable at a slope of 1 in 1.5, it was also stated the rock had the strength to stand at a height of 73.5 metres at 1 in 1.5. In fact the rock began to collapse from that slope at a height of only 19.5 metres.

Numerous test borings had been carried out and samples of the rock were taken, therefore, the quality of the rock was known. The reason for the misjudgement of the strength was due to the underlying strata which contained bands of clay and iron pyrites. The iron pyrites seemed to cause the problems, as it is liable to oxidize when exposed to the air and moisture, with the result that the rock would disintegrate. Therefore, when the overlying material had been removed, rainwater precipitated through to the lower strata which included the pyrites, whereby rapid deterioration occurred.

The first major slide occurred in 1907 at Cucaracha. The initial crack was first noted on October 4th, 1907, then without warning approximately 382,000 cubic metres of clay, moved more than 4 metres in 24 hours. This slide caused many people to suggest the construction of the Panama Canal would be impossible. The clay was too soft to be excavated by the steam shovels and was eventually removed by sluicing with water from a high level.

The Cucuracha slide was to become a problem again in 1913, when it crossed the cut until it reached the opposite bank. The steam shovels excavated the slide as it was moving and eventually won the battle. A picture of the Cucaracha slide is shown in figure 4 below.

Further movements were experienced at the base of the cut, including the sudden upheaval of the ground at the middle and a sinking of the ground in other areas. These movements were caused by the pressure of the rock, which seemed to flow as soil and not having the typical behaviour of rock. This problem was overcome by removing material from the upper levels of the cut thus, reducing the pressure.

As a direct result of all the slides and upheavals encountered, excavation increased by 15.3 million cubic metres. This was about 25% of the total estimated amount of earth moved.

The slides which were encountered didn't cause any delay in the progress of the canal, as this was determined by the speed at which the locks were constructed.

Many projects to enhance and widen the channels have been carried out since the opening of the canal. The main area to receive these works has been the Culebra Cut as numerous landslides have occurred and the need for two ships to pass.

The Locks

Along the route of the canal there is a series of 3 sets of locks, the Gatun, Pedro Miguel and the Miraflores locks.

At Gatun there are 2 parallel sets of locks each consisting of 3 flights. This set of locks lift ships a total of 26 metres. The locks are constructed from concrete from which the aggregate originated from the excavated rock at Culebra. The excavated rock was crushed and then used as aggregate. In excess of 1.53 million cubic metres of concrete was used in the construction of the Gatun locks alone.

Initially the locks at Gatun had been designed as 28.5 metres wide. In 1908 the United States Navy requested that the locks should be increased to have a width of at least 36 metres. This would allow for the passage of US naval ships. Eventually a compromise was made and the locks were to be constructed to a width of 33 metres. Each lock is 300 metres long with the walls ranging in thickness from 15 metres at the base to 3 metres at the top. The central wall between the parallel locks at Gatun has a thickness of 18 metres and stands in excess of 24 metres in height. The lock gates are made from steel and measures an average of 2 metres thick, 19.5 metres in length and stand 20 metres in height.

When Colonel Geothals the American designer of the Panama Canal visited the Kiel Canal in 1912 he was told the canal should have been built 36 metres in width, but by then it was too late. The locks can be seen during construction below. A general picture of the Gatun locks can be seen below.

The smallest set of locks along the Panama Canal are at Pedro Miguel and have one flight which raise or lower ships 10 metres. The Miraflores locks have two flights with a combined lift or decent of 16.5 metres.

Both the single flight of locks at Pedro Miguel and the twin flights at Miraflores are constructed and operated in a similar method as the Gatun locks, but with differing dimensions.

The Dams

Many engineering aspects of the Panama Canal point out the concern for the protection of the environment and natural resources.

As the excavations were being carried out, an enormous amount of excess soil was produced. The French initially hauled the soil to an adjacent valley where the soil was dumped and allowed to build up. This itself caused many problems during the rainy season and was the cause behind many of the landslides.

When the Americans started work on the canal, the engineers decided to reuse this soil for the building of the Gatun dam. This dam held back the water from the Chagres river and thus creating the Gatun lake. As time passed, the soil would continue to settle thus, increasing the strength of the dam.

The dam itself is 1.5 miles in length and is nearly 0.5 mile wide at its base. The construction of the dam involved constructing 2 walls along its length using the excavated rock from the Culebra cut. The space between these 2 walls was then built up with impervious clay. This clay gradually dried and hardened into a solid mass almost equal to concrete in its water-resistant properties. This dam contains 16.9 million cubic metres of rock and clay, equivalent too about one tenth of the entire excavation of the canal.

The dams at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores are small in comparison to Gatun. Their foundations are on solid rock and are subjected to a head of water of 12 metres, whereas the Gatun dam is subjected to a 24 metre head.

The dam at Pedro Miguel is an earth dam approximately 300 metres in length with a concrete core wall.

At Miraflores there are two dams forming a small lake with an area of about 2 square miles. One of the dams is constructed of earth and is 210 metres in length. The second of the dams at Miraflores is 150 metres in length and is made from concrete.

The Future

The ships for which the canal was designed are now long gone. Modern shipping has increased the size of ships. The increase in the tonnage in which can be carried has thus caused problems for the canal. The canal can only accommodate ships carrying up to 65,000 tons of cargo, but recently ships which are able to carry 300,000 tons have been introduced.

The problem of the ever-increasing size in ships has caused discussion into the construction of a new canal joining the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. There have been discussions on three alternative routes for a new canal, through; Columbia, Mexico and Nicaragua. The Columbian and Mexican routes would allow for the construction of a sea level canal, whereas the Nicaraguan route would require a lock system.

If a replacement canal were to be constructed, the economic effect on the Republic of Panama would be a great concern as the present canal employs 14,000 people, of which 4,000 are Panamanians. It has been suggested that, if a new canal were to be built, the existing canal could be converted to a hydroelectric power station at a relatively small cost. As Panama has no iron-ore deposits and lacks oil, natural gas resources or skilled labour, there is no real need for a new source of cheap power.

The capacity of the existing canal could be increased by converting it to a sea level passage. This would be carried out by the dredging of more than 765 million cubic metres of earth and rock which could be carried out without interfering with existing canal traffic. Water retaining structures would be constructed to maintain the canal levels during excavation. When excavation had been completed, the water retaining structure would be demolished by blasting them into deep pits. The lowering of the canals level would take place over a seven day period and would be the only time traffic would be disrupted.

It was suggested during the 1960's that the canal could be increased in size by the use of nuclear explosives and would cost less than one third, and take about half the time than using conventional excavation methods. It is now obvious that this would cause a great deal of concern for all anti-nuclear groups.

The Panama Canals administration will be under the control of Panama in 1999.

Conclusion

What makes the Panama Canal remarkable is its self sufficiency. The dam at Gatun, is able to generate the electricity to run all the motors which operate the canal as well as the locomotives in charge of towing the ships through the canal. No force is required to adjust the water level between the locks except gravity. As the lock operates, the water simply flows into the locks from the lakes or flows out to the sea level channels. The canal also relies on the overabundant rainfall of the area to compensate for the loss of the 52 million gallons of fresh water consumed during each crossing.

Despite the limit in ship size, the canal is still one of the most highly travelled waterways in the world, handling over 12,000 ships per year. The 51-mile crossing takes about nine hours to complete, an immense time saving when compared with rounding the tip of South America.

Until the early 1970's the Panama Canal Company made considerable profits. After a period of nearly 60 years the loss in profit required the increase of tolls 3 times in 4 years. Much of the equipment, some of which dates back too 1914, now requires expensive modifications, simply to continue moving its present rate of traffic.

 

 

THE ECONOMY OF WAR: US Army's new 'superchopper'

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Yep...Then dare Mini- nukes er just a conspiracy theory"Thus, when we get into absurd dialogs with various half-baked "sniffer" types, by our estimation "tasked" with burning up our time as "they" exist for no other purpose than to prevent broad efforts at delegitimization, we simply demonstrate the level they have to attain.

Thus far, they fail miserably.  You see, "Nuclear 9/11" is a proven fact, long an official finding of the US government and, over the past months, re-proven with dialogs such as this.  Enjoy this for what it is, a rare opportunity to sit at the big kid's table. ]

_______________________________

The discussion below is a rare glimpse into the world of modern warfare and weapons design. The participants are the author and one or more members of America’s advanced weapon research facilities. We begin our discussion examining potential elements used to replace plutonium in both reactors and weapons as well.

Below is the unclassified part of a discussion covering subjects that may well define not only warfare but human survival as well as seen from inside the advanced weapons research community.

_____________________________

Q: Shouldn’t we be replacing Plutonium in our weapons and fuel programs now that America’s production capability is declining?

155mm nuclear munition

155mm nuclear munition

A: We have so much PU already in storage. Why break something that is not broke? This is the same argument that the Thorium people are claiming.

Yes Thorium will work in a reactor but why. Its efficiency is too low. You still need uranium to get it started, just less. Neptunium will work but why?

It takes at least twice as much and production rates would be one tenth as much. Why build a new breeder reactor just to make more radioactive fuel and waste when we have over 100 tons of PU already made and in storage.

The other issue is testing. NO new weapons can be made or tested. End of story, PU works and it is cheaper. This is just another physics test.

Q: America is losing its capability of maintaining the “big bomb” inventory that is the basis of the START agreements from back in 1991.

A: Nuclear criticality designs up until now have all been based on these big bomb concepts. Today it’s the micro nuke. How small can you make it? 911 was the demo for what small nukes can do. The clock cannot be reset. This was called a fizzle back in the 1950′s and 60′s but a fizzle still goes bang. It is just a much smaller bang. So they ignored it. Today the war fighting doctrine has changed.

Q: How does this fit into our smaller military concept?

A: We are out of troops and a jet fighter costs 65 million dollars each. So the emphasis is on drones, cruise missiles and robots to do the fighting for you. A 3 kiloton nuke weighing 100 lbs. replaces 20 B-52 bombers. Do the math, which one is cheaper? And the PU is paid for, it’s free. We don’t have to make it we already have it in stock.

Micro nukes can be mass produced fast and cheap when needed. Just assemble and test. Cruise missiles weighing less than 1,000 lbs., not 4,000 lbs. Any plane can drop one. Even a Cessna 150 can be turned into a drone. Mortars and tanks can shoot the rounds. Man-pad / RPG micro nukes are just around the corner. Nuclear tipped hand grenades and 36 mm rounds are next.

Q: What kind of small nuclear weapons are in the pipeline?

A: Even a blob of PU-239 the size of a quarter (250 grams) will go bang if compress properly and adequate neutron reflection is used in the design. That’s enough PU to make a minimum 25 plus ton bang. Remember even if the fizzle rate is equal to 1 kilogram of PU, it makes a 1 kiloton bang. So 1gram of PU is equal to 1 ton of TNT.

Q: What can you tell us about working in these micro nuke programs?

A: Even at Sandia the biggest fear is PU Flakes going off by accident during machining of PU-239. If it is improperly compressed; it will make a very small explosion. If you fill a glass vile with PU-239 oxide flakes add some acid and compress it properly you will get a small nuclear chain reaction in the single ton range.

It is called a nuclear Co-hearer, Detonator, Trigger or “Red Mercury.” Put that into a 40mm grenade launcher and it will drop a small building or take out any bunker ETC. PU in a liquid state is more dangerous than in a solid state. It only takes 480 grams of PU in a liquid state to form a critical mass.

Q: We have a lot of conflicting information about “critical mass” in the design and operation of “after 2nd generation” weapons. What can you tell us?

A: Critical mass is bases on surface area, density and compression size of the PU. This effects how efficient the neutron reproduction process will be. If it is too small you lose too many neutrons. But with a proper neutron reflector that problem can be eliminated. The only problem is in how small you can physically compress the PU and how well.

Q: In earlier discussion we went over why W54 warheads were used for 9/11 and how oblong pits had been remachined. How critical is shape and design of pits?

A: They do not have to be perfectly spherical in order to go off. That only effects efficiency of the design. It will still detonate. Before 2000 this was called a fizzle design. Today it is called a micro nuke.

Q: What are the current applications for these technologies?

A: Before 911 nobody wanted it, just like the Neutron bomb. Today after Iraq and Afghanistan it is all the rage. Every battle field commander wants them. It is the perfect force multiplier. If we had that in WW2 the losses that we suffered at Normandy, Iwo Jima and Tarawa would never had happened.

Q: What will these weapons look like in the future?

A: Plastic injected molded mass produce missiles, mortars and drones that are tipped with micro nukes will be all of the rage in the next major conflict. This makes everything big obsolete. 1980′s era Tanks, Artillery, bombers and ships are all just junk waiting to be scraped, blown up or sunk.

Q: Based on what you are saying, the US has made irreversible strategic blunders in defense planning.

A: Thanks to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, we are now stuck with 1980′s technology based weapons that no longer work as designed. They are cold war era weapons systems designed to fight cold war era weapons. Those days are over. The B-52 can’t get thru. SAM’s have to be mobile. Fire finder radar finds artillery so it has to shoot and scoot. An RPG can take out any tank now.

Nobody wants to lose a battleship or the Kaiser will be upset, just like in WW1. You could not afford to lose it because it cost too much. The B-1, the F-22, the F-35, the M1 Abrams tank, the 155 self-propelled howitzer, the Trident sub and the super-carrier are the classic examples of this kind of thinking. Big everything equals big profit for Boeing ETC.

Q: How did America let itself be outmaneuvered like this?

A: While we have been living off 1980′s Space Shuttle technology the world caught up. Now the Space Shuttle is scrap and we have nothing to replace it with, why? The microchip replaced the typewriter and internal guidance systems and the laser replace the M-16 and dumb artillery. Saddam lost because he bought the wrong weapons systems.

We lost Vietnam and Korea for the same reasons. The two biggest feared weapons of WW2 were the German MG-42 machine gun and the German 88 mm howitzer, not the Tiger tank or the Me-262. Those two weapons killed more men than any other weapons system. With the Jap’s it was the 40 mm tree mortar. In Korea it was the Chinese 82mm mortars that did us in.

In Vietnam it was cheap rockets, booby traps and ambushes. In Iraqi it was the IED. In WW1 it was the Maxim machine gun. Technology changes with time and we are stuck in a 1980′s mentality. Everybody else just simply watched us, studied our systems and tactics, then they simply bypassed us.

Q: What should a nation with too much heavy hardware do?

A: Look at the Germans and the French today, they are dumping all of their heavy tanks, artillery and jets for smaller, lighter, cheaper and meaner weapons systems that are new. We are still stuck with weapons designs from the 1980′s. Nobody goes to war using Enfield rifles or M-1 Garand’s any more. The bull-pup is all the rage.

The m-16 is so 1960′s and the AK is so 1950′s… We need new weapons to fit the modern battlefield and not more 1980′s junk. The F-22 and F-35 were technology demonstrations that failed. Scrap them now. The B-58 supersonic bomber, the B-2 stealth bomber and the F-117 stealth attack bomber; Well they only worked for a short period of time then they became obsolete. How much did we waste on them? Why? Who profited?

Now we have junk Trident subs with no replacement warheads that work. Why? We had to withdrawal the M-1 tank due to improvements in RPG technology. The F-22 was assigned to national guard units, just like the F-102 was. Why? Because it doesn’t work. Just replace them with a stealth version of the F-16 and the F-18; they work. This is what Japan and South Korea are doing.  You just make a stealth version of the F-5 / F-20 in both the manned and un-manned (Drone) versions. Cheap effective and affordable.

It could become the US Army's new 'superchopper' - able to transport troops, carry heavy goods and be fitted out as a flying gunship.

This futuristic helicopter from Texas firm AVX is the frontrunner to win a $100bn contract from the Pentagon for the next generation of attack helicopter.

It uses two rotors to create lift, while fans propel it forward to reach 230 knots.

Scroll down for video

The AVX chopper entry is what¿s called a compound coaxial helicopter. It has a pair of rotors spinning in opposite directions on top of the carbon-fiber fuselage to lift it, and two fans at its rear end to push it.

+4

The AVX chopper entry is what¿s called a compound coaxial helicopter. It has a pair of rotors spinning in opposite directions on top of the carbon-fiber fuselage to lift it, and two fans at its rear end to push it.

HOW IT WORKS

The AVX design is made up of counter rotating rotors on top and twin ducted-fans in the rear of the aircraft, which eliminates the necessity for a tail rotor.

The coaxial-rotors creates lift, while the fans provide forward thrust to reach the 230 knots require by the U.S. Army for the Blackhawk replacement.

The concept also has small wings in the front of the aircraft that create additional lift. 

'The AVX design offers the capabilities the Army wants for the future fleet of utility and attack aircraft at a very attractive price,' the firm, also called AVX, says.

'The AVX JMR aircraft has entry doors on both sides of the fuselage as well as a large rear ramp for easy cargo handling. 'Additionally it has retractable landing gear and the attack variant (see below) carries all armaments stored inside until needed which provides a “clean” aerodynamic design.

AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR/FVL design.

'The teaming concept has allowed AVX to keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft.'

The firm is among four vying for a $100bn contract for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator, and the firms are expected to begin a 'flyoff' contest in 2017.

The AVX chopper will come in several configurations, carrying cargo, troops and the injured

+4

The AVX chopper will come in several configurations, carrying cargo, troops and the injured

The design will replace the Black Hawk, shown here

+4

The design will replace the Black Hawk, shown here

With this signing, the Army has taken a large step toward developing a new family of aircraft referred to as.

'This is a critical risk reducing effort for the Future Vertical Lift Family of Systems,' said Maj. Gen. William Crosby, Program Executive Officer for Aviation.

'The operational benefits and changes will depend on the capabilities we can deliver to the war fighter with FVL.

'Improved speed, range, reliability, and survivability are critical goals that we will target.'

The AVX, which could replace the Blackhawk, is what's known as a compact coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan concept.

It is made up of counter rotating rotors on top and twin ducted-fans in the rear of the aircraft, which eliminates the necessity of a tail rotor.

The coaxial-rotors creates lift, while the fans provide forward thrust to reach the 230 knots require by the U.S. Army for the Blackhawk replacement.

The concept also has small wings in the front of the aircraft that create additional lift. 

The aircraft will weight 27,000lb (12,000kg), lift 13,000lb (5.900kg), and carry 12 combat troops plus 4 crew members.

The superchopper can also be fitted with advanced weapons and missile systems

+4

The superchopper can also be fitted with advanced weapons and missile systems

According to DefenceTalk, the AVX design is the frontrunner for the contest.

'AVX’s coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan concept increases efficiency in all aspects of flight, while reducing vibration,' it said.

'Out of all JMR concepts presented by the competing parties, none look as complete, practical, futuristic, and ready as AVX’s aircraft.

'It is thrilling to see how new ideas broad by a startup aircraft company, few people ever heard before, will stack-up against the arrogance of the U.S. defense establishment.'

 

 

It is the end product of the most expensive weapons programme in U.S. history, set back by glitches and overspending, but today marked the first time an F-35C fighter landed on a carrier ship.

This video shows the F-35C Lightning II stealth fighter, which has cost the government nearly $400billion so far, touching down on the deck of the USS Nimitz off the coast of San Diego.

The operation is being hailed by the Pentagon as a major step forward in the race to get the aircraft operational, after the entire American fleet was grounded earlier this year following an engine fire.

Scroll down for video

This is the moment the F-35C fighter landed on the deck of the USS Nimitz for the first time, hailed by the pentagon as a 'landmark moment' in developing the aircraft

+10

This is the moment the F-35C fighter landed on the deck of the USS Nimitz for the first time, hailed by the pentagon as a 'landmark moment' in developing the aircraft

The fighter has cost $400billion to develop - the largest weapons programme in U.S. military history - and has been hampered by engine problems and overspending

+10

The fighter has cost $400billion to develop - the largest weapons programme in U.S. military history - and has been hampered by engine problems and overspending

The plane landed using the tailhook system - a large metal hook which grapples on to a cable laid across the carrier's deck - which has had to be redesigned several times due to problems in development

+10

The plane landed using the tailhook system - a large metal hook which grapples on to a cable laid across the carrier's deck - which has had to be redesigned several times due to problems in development

Watch the F-35C fighter jet's FIRST aircraft carrier landing

The F-35 will form the backbone of the US airforce once it is operational, and will also be bought by NATO allies including the UK, Italy, Australia, Canada and Turkey.

There are three variants - the standard F-35A, designed for conventional takeoff, the F-35B for short take off and vertical landing, and the F-35C which is designed for use on carriers.

F-35 FIGHTER PROFILE

Aircrew: One

Max speed: 1.6Mach (1,217.3mph)

Length: 51ft

Wingspan: 35ft

Max. altitude: 50,000ft

Today marks the first time an F-35C has been landed on a carrier using the tail-hook system, where a large metal hook hanging from the back of the aircraft snags on a cable laid across the deck of the carrier, slowing it down very quickly.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 joint program office, said the landing was part of a two-week sea-based test that runs until November 17. 

The sea testing of the plane will give officials key data about the ship's performance on a carrier, and allow any adjustments needed to keep the program on track for initial use by the fleet in 2018.

+10

The latest exercises are part of an extensive array of sea tests as the aircraft enters the final phase of its development ahead of an expected 2018 deployment

In video footage the plane can be seen using a tail-hook to land - grappling on to a wire laid across the deck

+10

In video footage the plane can be seen using a tail-hook to land - grappling on to a wire laid across the deck

The F-35 has three variants - the F-35A, designed for conventional runway takeoff, the F-35B, designed for short landing and vertical takeoff, and the F-35C, designed for use on aircraft carriers

+10

The F-35 has three variants - the F-35A, designed for conventional runway takeoff, the F-35B, designed for short landing and vertical takeoff, and the F-35C, designed for use on aircraft carriers

Navy test pilot Commander Tony Wilson, who landed the CF-03 aircraft on the Nimitz flight deck just after noon, called it a 'landmark event.'

Vice Admiral David Buss, commander of Naval Air Forces, said the landing was 'historic,' noting that it begins 'the integration of the next generation of warfighting capability into our carrier-based wings.'

The jet, and a second due to arrive later Monday or Tuesday, will carry out two weeks of testing at sea, the first of three testing phases planned for the carrier variant of the F-35.

The jets will perform operational manoeuvres, including various catapult takeoffs and arrested landings using a tailhook that had be redesigned after early test problems on land.

The F-35 and its two variants will form the backbone of the U.S. airforce, while NATO partners such as the UK, Canada, Turkey and Italy also expected to buy the aircraft

+10

The F-35 and its two variants will form the backbone of the U.S. airforce, while NATO partners such as the UK, Canada, Turkey and Italy also expected to buy the aircraft

The fighter is designed to be invisible to radar and can travel at up to 1.6Mach, more than one and a half times the speed of sound 

+10

The fighter is designed to be invisible to radar and can travel at up to 1.6Mach, more than one and a half times the speed of sound

The entire fleet of American planes had to be grounded earlier this year following the discovery of a cracked rotor blade in one of the engines, and an engine fire

+10

The entire fleet of American planes had to be grounded earlier this year following the discovery of a cracked rotor blade in one of the engines, and an engine fire

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who runs the program for the Pentagon, said the Navy, Pentagon and contractors had been preparing for the testing for months.

The high-tech fighter allows the pilot to fly at up to 1.6 times the speed of sound while being completely invisible to radar.

The fighter's helmet contains a display which maps the battlefield below and will even map underneath the plane - allowing the pilot to effectively see through the floor.

Graphics projected directly onto the visor inside the helmet give a 360-degree view, with icons representing threats and friendly forces for miles around the aircraft.

Two touchscreens display all of the pilot's information, and allow him to immediately share data with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground.

The jet, and a second due to arrive later Monday or Tuesday, will carry out two weeks of testing at sea, the first of three testing phases

+10

The jet, and a second due to arrive later Monday or Tuesday, will carry out two weeks of testing at sea, the first of three testing phases

 

 

 

 

The research arm of the Pentagon announced a technological breakthrough  releasing footage that shows successful tests of self-guided .50 caliber bullets, claimed to be the first of its kind.

According to a news release by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program recently conducted it's first successful live test of the bullets.

The video released by the agency shows a live test-fire of the bullet, which was shot at a path pointed away from its intended target. In the more recent firing of the bullet, dated April 21, 2014, it is shown curving back towards its target, hitting the mark.

Scroll Down for Video

The successful testing of EXACTO was announced by the Pentagon this week

+1

The successful testing of EXACTO was announced by the Pentagon this week

DARPA's prototype model of EXACTO, which will increased the distance away from a target snipers can successful shoot

DARPA's prototype model of EXACTO, which will increased the distance away from a target snipers can successful shoot

According to the video, EXACTO is being developed by Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, with funding from DARPA. Teledyne is a research and development firm based in Thousand Oaks, California.

Teledyne was awarded a contract worth $25 million in 2010 to develop EXACTO.

According to DARPA's release, 'EXACTO’s specially designed ammunition and real-time optical guidance system help track and direct projectiles to their targets by compensating for weather, wind, target movement and other factors that could impede successful hits.'

DARPA says that the bullet created by the project will improve the range of snipers, and improve troop safety as they will be able to shoot and neutralize a target from further away. Currently, US Snipers are expected to be able to hit a target 600 meters away, 90 per cent of the time. With the advent of EXACTO, an increased range to 2,000 meters is promised.

Despite DARPA's claim that EXACTO is the first bullet of it's kind, in 2012, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin named Sandia National Laboratories, which does research and development with the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, claimed to be developing their own self-guided bullet.

Snipers will now be able to hit their targets without interference from unfavorable weather conditions

Snipers will now be able to hit their targets without interference from unfavorable weather conditions

EXACTO is not the only kind of self-guiding bullet in development and funded by the US government. Another company in California is also working on a prototype for a bullet guided by lasers

EXACTO is not the only kind of self-guiding bullet in development and funded by the US government. Another company in California is also working on a prototype for a bullet guided by lasers

Sandia's bullet uses lasers for guidance, as opposed to EXACTO's onboard computer system (the specific working of EXACTO are classified.)

According to Sandia's website, additional development is needed before a full prototype or test can be performed. However, unlike EXACTO, Sandia plans to make their bullets available to law enforcement in addition to the military.

According to DARPA, the next phase of the development of EXACTO is to refine the accuracy and performance of the technology.

The future of tanks: US military reveal small 'off road' vehicles with smart armour are set to replace bulky vehicles

  • Small vehicles set to be 100% faster and 50% lighter than current tanks
  • Smaller footprint will enable 'stealth' mode

By

The US Army has revealed plans to replace tanks with small, 'off road' vehicles covered in smart armour.

Military bosses says the current tanks are hindering soldier's ability to get into battle.

The GXV-T could replace current tanks. It is far lighter, and designed to be faster and tackle off road terrain better.

+5

The GXV-T could replace current tanks. It is far lighter, and designed to be faster and tackle off road terrain better.

They say the future is a small vehicle called the GXV-T.

WHAT IT WILL DO

Darpa hopes the new vehicle will:

  • Reduce vehicle size and weight by 50 percent
  • Reduce onboard crew needed to operate vehicle by 50 percent
  • Increase vehicle speed by 100 percent
  • Access 95 percent of terrain
  • Reduce signatures that enable adversaries to detect and engage vehicles

'For the past 100 years of mechanized warfare, protection for ground-based armored fighting vehicles and their occupants has boiled down almost exclusively to a simple equation: More armor equals more protection,' Darpa said.

More...

'Weapons' ability to penetrate armor, however, has advanced faster than armor's ability to withstand penetration.

The new design will reduce vehicle size and weight by 50 percent

+5

The new design will reduce vehicle size and weight by 50 percent

'As a result, achieving even incremental improvements in crew survivability has required significant increases in vehicle mass and cost.

'The trend of increasingly heavy, less mobile and more expensive combat platforms has limited Soldiers' and Marines' ability to rapidly deploy and maneuver in theater and accomplish their missions in varied and evolving threat environments.'

The Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program, dubbed 'X-planes for tanks', is designed to develop a range of new vehicles.

The new vehicles will also be far easier to pilot, with a heads-up display are car-like controls

+5

The new vehicles will also be far easier to pilot, with a heads-up display are car-like controls

'GXV-T's goal is not just to improve or replace one particular vehicle - it's about breaking the 'more armor' paradigm and revolutionizing protection for all armored fighting vehicles,' said Kevin Massey, DARPA program manager.

'Inspired by how X-plane programs have improved aircraft capabilities over the past 60 years, we plan to pursue groundbreaking fundamental research and development to help make future armored fighting vehicles significantly more mobile, effective, safe and affordable.'

Darpa's Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program seeks to develop revolutionary technologies to enable a layered approach to protection that would use less armor more strategically. Military bosses say this would enable smaller, faster vehicles in the future.

+5

Darpa's Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program seeks to develop revolutionary technologies to enable a layered approach to protection that would use less armor more strategically. Military bosses say this would enable smaller, faster vehicles in the future.

Moreover, larger vehicles are limited to roads, require more logistical support and are more expensive to design, develop, field and replace, the agency says.

'The U.S. military is now at a point where—considering tactical mobility, strategic mobility, survivability and cost—innovative and disruptive solutions are necessary to ensure the operational viability of the next generation of armored fighting vehicles.

Darpa says that current tanks are too slow and large

+5

Darpa says that current tanks are too slow and large

'The Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program to help overcome these challenges and disrupt the current trends in mechanized warfare.'

The firm is now planning to work with outside firms to incorporate their technology into the project.

 

 

 

Bike to the future! Slick electric motorcycle cruises 125 miles on just one charge

  • Electric bike has an almost-silent motor integrated into the rear wheel
  • Tiny motor provides 14hp and a top speed of 74mph
  • Side mirrors have integrated displays showing bike’s speed and range

The uptake of electric vehicles is usually limited by how far they can travel on a single charge, with experts even coining a new term to describe the feeling of uncertainty over whether you have enough power to reach your destination; 'range anxiety'.

Now one Austrian company is hoping to tackle the problem with the introduction of the Johammer J1 - an electric bike that can travel 125 miles (200km) on a single charge.

Scroll down for video...

One Austrian company is hoping to tackle range anxiety with the introduction of the Johammer J1 - an electric bike that can travel 125 miles on a single charge

+7

One Austrian company is hoping to tackle range anxiety with the introduction of the Johammer J1 - an electric bike that can travel 125 miles on a single charge

Created by Bad Leonfelden-based group Johammer, the electric bike has an almost silent motor integrated into the rear wheel.

The 11 kilowatt hub-mounted motor provides 14 horsepower and a top speed of 74mph (119kph).

The stiff middle-frame of the electric bike is made from aluminium and has been designed to contain the battery pack

+7

The stiff middle-frame of the electric bike is made from aluminium and has been designed to contain the battery pack

Electric hub-mounted motors contain the electric motor within the wheel hub, or central part of the wheel.

To drive the wheel, the motor contains a coil which generates an electromagnetic field as power flows through it.

The field attracts the outer part of the motor, which attempts to follow its direction, and in doing so turns the connected wheel.

The hub motors eliminates the need for a heavy transmission, gear train, and axles which reduces the weight, making the electric bike far more efficient.

In place of traditional gauges, the side mirrors have high-resolution displays that show information on the bike’s speed and range.

Electric hub-mounted motors contain the electric motor within the wheel hub, or central part of the wheel. The motor is shown here on the rear wheel

+7

Electric hub-mounted motors contain the electric motor within the wheel hub, or central part of the wheel. The motor is shown here on the rear wheel

Created by Bad Leonfelden-based group Johammer, the electric bike has an almost-silent motor integrated into the rear wheel

+7

Created by Bad Leonfelden-based group Johammer, the electric bike has an almost-silent motor integrated into the rear wheel

A close-up of the front wheel on the bike. The company claims the design provides a safe driving experience. 'Steering and footpeg allow for individual adaptation,' it said

+7

A close-up of the front wheel on the bike. The company claims the design provides a safe driving experience. 'Steering and footpeg allow for individual adaptation,' it said

JOHAMMER J1 SPECIFICATIONS

J1.150 

Price: £19,000 ($31,600)

Range: 93 miles, speed: 75mph

Battery capacity: 8,3 kWh

Charge time: 80 per cent in 2.5 hours
J1.200

Price: £20,600 ($34,500)

Reach: 125 miles, speed: 75mph

Battery capacity: 12.7 kWh

Charging time: 80 per cent in 3.5 hours

‘The extreme torsion stiff middle-frame made from aluminium provides space for spring damper and battery pack,’ the group writes on their website.

‘Perfectly balanced (at 350mm mass centre height) the Johammer offers an unmatched and safe driving experience. Steering and footpeg allow for individual adaptation.’ The bike, which can be purchased from the Johammer, currently comes in silver, white, blue, yellow and green options.

The J1.150 will set you back £19,000 ($31,600) while the J1.200 will hit your wallet a bit harder at £20,600 ($34,500) in exchange for a bigger battery and longer range.

The bike, which can be purchased from the Johammer, currently comes in silver, white, blue, yellow and green options

+7

The bike, which can be purchased from the Johammer, currently comes in silver, white, blue, yellow and green options

To drive the wheel, the motor (shown on the rear wheel) contains a coil which generates an electromagnetic field as power flows through it. The field attracts the outer part of the motor, which attempts to follow its direction, and in doing so turns the connected wheel

To drive the wheel, the motor (shown on the rear wheel) contains a coil which generates an electromagnetic field as power flows through it. The field attracts the outer part of the motor, which attempts to follow its direction, and in doing so turns the connected wheel

In place of traditional gauges, the side mirrors have high-resolution displays that show information on the bike's speed and range

+7

In place of traditional gauges, the side mirrors have high-resolution displays that show information on the bike's speed and range