Wednesday, May 18, 2011
David's after a stealth Chinook now!
Interesting read....
Since the officials confirmed that 3 Chinooks were involved and given that a mixed formation of stealth and non-stealth helos would have rendered the entire formation clearly visible on radars and audible from distance, I believe that there must be also a modified MH-47 flying with the 160 SOAR. Unlike the Black Hawk, we have no photographic evidences of it, but I think that their existence is somehow confirmed by the fact that the officers admitted their presence on the scene. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that the sources are trying to deceive the public opinion when they say to the AP journalist that:Read it all here. I don't quite buy it but ...
CSI's Mountain Lion.
Thanks Jonathan for sending me this! Much appreciated.
Looks like CSI is trying to step up there game. A few month ago when I wrote asking for specifications on the "Mountain Lion" they were quite closed lipped. Polite, but politely refusing to give me any info. Now they have out front for the whole world to see. Refreshing if a little late.
NOTE:
Looks like this product has undergone a few design changes since the last time I saw pics of it. Probably just cosmetic but changes never the less. I'll try and find the pics.
ML
Looks like CSI is trying to step up there game. A few month ago when I wrote asking for specifications on the "Mountain Lion" they were quite closed lipped. Polite, but politely refusing to give me any info. Now they have out front for the whole world to see. Refreshing if a little late.
NOTE:
Looks like this product has undergone a few design changes since the last time I saw pics of it. Probably just cosmetic but changes never the less. I'll try and find the pics.
ML
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Special Forces Descend on Camp Atterbury
All photos by Staff Sgt D. Bruce.
The US Navy has lost its freaking mind.
From the USNI Blog...
My opposition to this is definitely not racial. Its not about not wanting to honor a person that some consider a civil rights leader and a union activist.
Its about not naming a naval vessel after a controversial figure. What if an extremely conservative President is elected and he wants to name a ship after David Duke?
Sounds extreme but we're opening up the door with nonsense like this. Time to set some kind of limit on this. Unless the person was killed in combat then he must be dead for at least 100 years before he can be honored this way.
Something has to give on this stupidity!
But whats worse is that this smacks of using the Navy in an overtly political way.
How can I say that you ask? Because the President's support among Hispanics is ebbing. He's delivered a speech to them and received no bounce in his support. Am I off the mark when I suspect that this is a bone tossed to a valued constituency?
“The last of the 14 Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that General Dynamics NASSCO is building in San Diego will be named after Cesar Chavez, the late civil rights and labor leader. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will visit NASSCO on Tuesday afternoon to make the formal announcement. Some members of the Chavez family are expected to be in attendance, says NASSCO, which recently laid the keel of the ship.”http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/16/navy-ship-be-named-after-cesar-chavez/
My opposition to this is definitely not racial. Its not about not wanting to honor a person that some consider a civil rights leader and a union activist.
Its about not naming a naval vessel after a controversial figure. What if an extremely conservative President is elected and he wants to name a ship after David Duke?
Sounds extreme but we're opening up the door with nonsense like this. Time to set some kind of limit on this. Unless the person was killed in combat then he must be dead for at least 100 years before he can be honored this way.
Something has to give on this stupidity!
But whats worse is that this smacks of using the Navy in an overtly political way.
How can I say that you ask? Because the President's support among Hispanics is ebbing. He's delivered a speech to them and received no bounce in his support. Am I off the mark when I suspect that this is a bone tossed to a valued constituency?
Pic of the day. May 17, 2011.
Thompson muscles in on the F-35 cost debate...
Loren Thompson, never one to miss a good fight, adds his two cents to the current debate on F-35 costs. Read it below...
Wow.Pentagon Planning To Spend $25 Billion On Music Bands
Actually, this posting is about the F-35 fighter. But the headline is correct -- the nation's military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years. In fact, if you add inflation and indirect costs like retirement benefits, the "then-year" cost of military bands is more like $50 billion. But here's the catch: I'm talking about the cumulative cost for military bands between now and the year 2065.
Ridiculous, right? By the time we get to 2065, the bands will probably be unmanned (robotic) anyway. But that hasn't stopped various news organizations from reporting that the after-inflation "life-cycle cost" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter through 2065 has risen above a trillion dollars. The story generated a lot of buzz, mainly because few of the reporters who cover the Pentagon know anything about economics. If they did, they'd realize that in the 1970s you could buy a new Mustang convertible for less than $5,000 and half a century is a very long time in economic terms.
I imagine a few grizzled editors actually did know this, but they just couldn't resist attaching a trillion-dollar pricetag to the F-35 because it was a sure-fire way of attracting readers. So how come they never apply the same bogus methodology to other government expenditures -- like music bands? Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post on September 6, 2010 that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines were spending around $500 million annually on bands. Multiply that number by 50 years and then add in a modest inflation factor -- say 2.5 percent per year, compounded -- and half a century later you're talking real money, as the late Senator Everett Dirkson might have put it. Many tens of billions of dollars, it turns out.
It's hard to measure the benefit of spending so much money on music, but the stakes in the F-35 debate are a bit clearer. If the joint force doesn't field a more survivable fighter sometime soon, we can forget about operating our aircraft over places like Iran and North Korea in the future. And the fact that no U.S. soldier has been killed by an enemy aircraft since the Korean War will be a thing of the past. Air superiority is one of those things that is hard to fully appreciate until you've lost it, and then you really, really miss it. So maybe we should set aside all the imaginative ways that pundits dream up to try to discredit a plane that actually won't cost much more to own than current fighters, and just do what we need to do to stay on top.
Incidentally, did I mention that the "then-year" cost of illegal drugs in the U.S. through 2065 is likely to be around $20 trillion?
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
The issue of the F-35's costs is getting pounded harder than a thief caught trying to break into a police station.
F-35 critics...you want answers? You've been given the answer-- something tells me you can't handle the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)