<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>U.S.Category: R&#38;D &#124; U.S. &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nation.time.com/category/rd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nation.time.com</link>
	<description>News, Headlines, Stories, Video from Around the Nation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 02:49:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='nation.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://nation.time.com/osd.xml" title="U.S." />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://nation.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Making All Our Troops Bulletproof</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/22/making-all-our-troops-bulletproof/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/22/making-all-our-troops-bulletproof/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rep. Niki Tsongas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=89912</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shoot, move, communicate. This was the clear, succinct analysis given by an Army major when asked to describe the key components of a military mission. In three words, the major illustrated the reality of modern war theatres &#8212; one in which a soldier’s safety and success relies as much on mobility as it does on strength. Clearly-drawn front lines have become a thing of the past, due to complex locations with ubiquitous enemy threats. In places like Afghanistan, the line is barely visible at all. Constant and pervasive danger makes agile movement a high priority for all soldiers, whether they are assigned directly to combat or not. It is surprising then that one of a soldier’s most basic and necessary pieces of equipment – body armor – can sometimes work in direct contradiction to that basic need. Several years ago during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked a young sergeant if he were ever tempted to take off his protective gear. He hesitated and glanced sheepishly at the general sitting nearby before giving a confident reply: “Yes, ma’am.” He explained the armor was cumbersome, heavy and that sometimes it was just easier to maneuver without it. A visit to Afghanistan amplified the sergeant’s concerns. There, I met with a colonel who heaved off his armor and, rubbing his sore knees, spoke of the burden the gear’s weight put on his joints. Soldiers deployed to Afghanistan are outfitted with body armor that weighs as much as 40 pounds. When combined with the gear that troops must carry in the field, the total weight our soldiers carry can exceed 120 pounds. It can lead to long term muscular skeletal injuries and an elevated risk that armor may be removed in the field. Lightened body armor, which the military has made progress on, would mean increased safety and reduced risk for soldiers like the sergeant and the colonel. But for the major, the task of shoot, move, communicate is made even more difficult by the fact that the armor does not<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=89912&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/10/22/making-all-our-troops-bulletproof/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Military Personnel</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/military-personnel/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fba-pic.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fba-pic.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fba-pic.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">fba pic</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rand-chart.png" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">rand chart</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unmanned Jet Headed to Carriers</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/unmanned-jet-headed-to-carriers/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/unmanned-jet-headed-to-carriers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:27:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=83765</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Young boys of a couple of generations ago loved to get dizzy, flying their yellow Cox PT-19 with its buzzing .049 Babe Bee engine in endless circles. The “pilot” was connected to the plane via a pair of control lines that allowed the model planes to climb and dive&#8230;and occasionally crash. That’s why the X-47B is so exciting. It’s a lot bigger and faster, and is truly unmanned. This video shows some of the highlights of the Northrop Grumman aircraft’s test flights last summer. Sometime next year the X-47B is slated to make its first landing on an aircraft carrier. An F-18 has already repeatedly landed on the USS Harry S Truman &#8212; with a pilot in the cockpit but his hands off the controls. That&#8217;s confidence in your machine.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=83765&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/unmanned-jet-headed-to-carriers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Navy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/navy-2/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Good Are Acts of War If You Don’t Get Credit For Them?</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/29/what-good-are-acts-of-war-if-you-dont-get-credit-for-them/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/29/what-good-are-acts-of-war-if-you-dont-get-credit-for-them/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=82849</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big-thought-thinker Martin Libicki has long focused his attention on cyber warfare. But now the Rand Corp. senior scientist is studying what he calls non-obvious warfare, of which cyberwar is only one part: Innovations, both technological and organizational, over the last few decades have created a potential for non-obvious warfare, in which the identity of the warring side and even the very fact of warfare are completely ambiguous. …Libicki writes in the fall issue of the Air Force’s Strategic Studies Quarterly. The Stuxnet computer virus, which crippled hundreds of centrifuges in Iran&#8217;s nuclear-development program, is perhaps the most recent example of non-obvious warfare. Others, in addition to such cyber war efforts, include space warfare, electronic warfare, drone warfare and the always exciting “sabotage, special operations, assassins, and mines” catch-all category. “Non-obvious warfare stands starkly in contrast to, say, a tank invasion across the German-Polish border, an event unlikely to spur questions such as whose tanks are those…and why are they here?” he writes. Libicki chalks up the pluses and minuses of such anonymous ways of waging war and argues that “such techniques corrode both military values and diplomatic norms.” By definition, they have to be carried out by small, secretive groups, and are better-suited to authoritarian states than democracies. Libicki concludes: Nations would react (even more than they do now) to suspicions rather than actual substance; attackers might be credited/blamed for far more than they actually merit. In too many countries, anything that seems askew is blamed on the United States (or Israel) and their ubiquitous and omnipotent intelligence agencies. Part of their polities’ maturity entails improvements in their ability to distinguish fact from fantasy; evidence that such fantasy had a kernel of truth behind it would hardly facilitate the maturation process.” Nonetheless, that Stuxnet bug &#8212; which David Sanger of the New York Times reported in June was a joint U.S.-Israeli creation – turned out to be pretty nifty.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=82849&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/29/what-good-are-acts-of-war-if-you-dont-get-credit-for-them/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/129834072.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/129834072.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/129834072.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">129834072</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Drones Can Reinforce Failure</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/20/how-drones-reinforce-failure/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/20/how-drones-reinforce-failure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Spinney</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=81512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gaeta, Italy &#8212; This report by independent journalist Gareth Porter is extremely important.  Porter, one of our finest investigative journalists, highlights one of the central problems in drone warfare:  how its imperfect feedback loops drive our perceptions of effectiveness, and thereby distort our decisions regarding the follow-on strike operations in the drone campaigns now underway in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. The result is a self-referencing phenomenon known among Pentagon reformers as incestuous amplification.  The process is quite simple: imperfect feedback distorts the Observations flowing into the Orientation of the Observation &#8211; Orientation &#8211; Decision &#8211; Action (OODA) loops of the strategists and decision makers who are making the tactical and strategic decisions regarding future drone strikes. This disconnects the entire decision process from reality, because Orientation is the analytic/synthetic activity in the mind that makes sense out of the Observations, including the feedback on a strike&#8217;s effectiveness.  The disconnect of Observations from Reality allows preconceptions and belief systems  to hijack the synthetic function of Orientation. This produces a kind of ideologically-based self-delusion that biases the analyses leading to tactical and strategic decisions.  Put bluntly, the decision maker sees what he or she &#8220;wants&#8221; to see rather than &#8220;what is,&#8221; and acts accordingly.  The decision-making result is almost always a decision to do &#8220;more of the same,&#8221; thereby amplifying the mismatch further. Without explicitly saying so, Porter has provided us a case study on how the entire strategic decision process has folded inward on itself, and in so doing, has disconnected the flow of decisions from the unfolding reality. But there is more.   Porter describes how that disconnect has flowed out of the White House, the CIA, and Pentagon into the Orientation of the think tanks and the mass media, and by implication, into the collective mind of the population at large.  The delusional power of this incestuously amplifying OODA Loop is one reason why apparachiks in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon are telling reporters that drone warfare is the &#8220;only game in town.&#8221;  They literally cannot think of anything<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=81512&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/20/how-drones-reinforce-failure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/pred.png?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/pred.png?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/pred.png?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">pred</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6c4f54db387d0b39948b47a0914b9c5d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">chuckspinney2</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ooda.png?w=600" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ooda</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Planning for SNAFUS</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/15/planning-for-snafus/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/15/planning-for-snafus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Snafus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=80954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Air Force spent a lot of time and money a generation ago when it designed its C-17 cargo airplane to take off and land at short, unimproved runways around the world – “austere” was the word of choice. But it couldn’t imagine that capability would be needed because a pilot would someday err and land at the tiny Davis Islands airport near Tampa, Fla., instead of the huge MacDill Air Force Base nearby. The Air Force has remained mum on the embarrassing July 20 mishap, saying it remains under investigation. &#8220;They weren&#8217;t on our frequency,” Deric Dymerski, who runs the company that manages ground operations at the smaller airport, told the Tampa Bay Times. “They just showed up.”<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=80954&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/15/planning-for-snafus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Air Force</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/air-force-2/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/tampamap.png" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">tampamap</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Betting Against a Drone Arms Race</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/13/betting-against-a-drone-arms-race/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/13/betting-against-a-drone-arms-race/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Singh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nation.time.com/?p=80725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bold predictions of a coming drones arms race are all the rage since the uptake in their deployment under the Obama Administration. Noel Sharkey, for example, argues in an August 3 op-ed for the Guardian that rapidly developing drone technology &#8212; coupled with minimal military risk &#8212; portends an era in which states will become increasingly aggressive in their use of drones. As drones develop the ability to fly completely autonomously, Sharkey predicts a proliferation of their use that will set dangerous precedents, seemingly inviting hostile nations to use drones against one another. Yet, the narrow applications of current drone technology coupled with what we know about state behavior in the international system lend no credence to these ominous warnings. Indeed, critics seem overly-focused on the domestic implications of drone use. In a June piece for the Financial Times, Michael Ignatieff writes that “virtual technologies make it easier for democracies to wage war because they eliminate the risk of blood sacrifice that once forced democratic peoples to be prudent.” Significant public support for the Obama Administration’s increasing deployment of drones would also seem to legitimate this claim. Yet, there remain equally serious diplomatic and political costs that emanate from beyond a fickle electorate, which will prevent the likes of the increased drone aggression predicted by both Ignatieff and Sharkey. Most recently, the serious diplomatic scuffle instigated by Syria’s downing a Turkish reconnaissance plane in June illustrated the very serious risks of operating any aircraft in foreign territory. States launching drones must still weigh the diplomatic and political costs of their actions, which make the calculation surrounding their use no fundamentally different to any other aerial engagement. This recent bout also illustrated a salient point regarding drone technology: most states maintain at least minimal air defenses that can quickly detect and take down drones, as the U.S. discovered when it employed drones at the onset of the Iraq invasion, while Saddam Hussein’s surface-to-air missiles were still active. What the U.S. also learned, however, was that drones constitute an effective military tool<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=80725&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/08/13/betting-against-a-drone-arms-race/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/081131-f-7734q-001.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/081131-f-7734q-001.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/081131-f-7734q-001.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">081131-F-7734Q-001</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beijing Doubling-Down on Stealth Fighters</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/07/17/beijing-doubling-down-on-stealth-fighters/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/07/17/beijing-doubling-down-on-stealth-fighters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battleland.blogs.time.com/?p=78524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If a single stealth fighter is good, two must be better. The U.S. military, after all, thinks so: look at its F-22 and F-35 warplanes. And now China is apparently joining the two-stealth-birds-in-the-hand are worth lots-on-the-drawing-board. The new jet – the F-60 in Western intelligence circles – follows the J-20 as Beijing’s second fifth-generation fighter, characterized by radar-eluding stealth technology. The twin-engine jet appears to be smaller than the J-20 and perhaps intended for use aboard China’s lone aircraft carrier, the Varyag, defense analysts suggest. Bill Gertz over at the Washington Free Beacon has more details. It first surface last month on Chinese military websites and YouTube postings; in this clip, a young photographer apparently ignores orders told not to film the trailered F-60 as it passes by. A hand moves in front of her lens just after the plane passes by. Kind of makes you wonder: if Chinese authorities wanted to keep this bird secret, why did they move it in broad daylight?<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=78524&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/07/17/beijing-doubling-down-on-stealth-fighters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>China</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/china/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/china-j60-pic.png?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/china-j60-pic.png?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/china-j60-pic.png?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">china j60 pic</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Designation Resignation</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/06/18/designation-resignation/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/06/18/designation-resignation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:19:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battleland.blogs.time.com/?p=76694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Battleland was at a party this weekend where someone got the X-37B confused with the X-47B. You’d think the Air Force and the Navy would have a Joint Operating Coordination Committee on Aircraft Designation and Nomenclature to avoid fielding two new aircraft with such similar designations (but you’d be wrong: back in the early 1980s the services gave headline and caption writers, and not a few reporters and lawmakers, fits as they launched their F-16 and F-18 airplanes at the same time, pitting one against the other in arms-sales competitions around the globe). Anyway, as a public service: &#8211; The Air Force’s X-37B is an unmanned, reusable space plane. One of them just returned to Earth at California’s Edwards Air Force Base after 469 days in orbit on a secret mission. Air Force sources deny it was spying on&#8230; &#8211; The Navy’s X-47B is an armed, unmanned drone now in development for potential deployment on aircraft carriers. It just completed basic airworthiness testing at Edwards and is slated to begin carrier sea trials next year. Memory tip: the lower number – 37-vice-47 – belongs to the Air Force craft, just like the F-16/F-18 pairing.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=76694&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/06/18/designation-resignation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Procurement</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/procurement/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/100330-o-1234s-001.jpeg?w=356" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ucas_gear_up22.jpeg?w=360" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">110930-F-CX978-262</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not A Silver Drone…</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2012/06/11/not-a-silver-drone/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2012/06/11/not-a-silver-drone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:07:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Battleland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battleland.blogs.time.com/?p=76158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All this recent reporting on drones and robots might lead one to think the U.S. is nearing the sweet spot, where remote-control war clicks firmly from science fiction to reality. Not so fast, cautions Bill Roggio in an analysis over at The Long War Journal: Nine years into the drone program, it is now clear that while drones are useful in keeping al Qaeda and its affiliates off-balance, the assassination of operatives by unmanned aircraft has not led to the demise of the organization or its virulent ideology. During both the Bush and Obama administrations, US officials have been quick to declare al Qaeda defeated or &#8220;on the ropes&#8221; after killing off top leaders, only to learn later that the terror group has refused to die….Instead of being defeated, al Qaeda has metastasized beyond the Afghan-Pakistan border areas, and has cropped up in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa (including in Mali), and even in the Egyptian Sinai…What happens if al Qaeda cells become established in Cairo or Tripoli? Does the US intend to drone its way out of this problem by conducting strikes in major Arab cities? Full thing here.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nation.time.com&#038;blog=20157722&#038;post=76158&#038;subd=timemilitary&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2012/06/11/not-a-silver-drone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Weapons</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://nation.time.com/category/weapons-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/101201-f-9209c-101.jpeg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/101201-f-9209c-101.jpeg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/101201-f-9209c-101.jpeg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">MQ-1 maintenance</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/cf2658ecf5812f0fd988c6de2037c9d8?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">mt53</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
