Vote Republican! It's like doubling your car mileage!

That should be a 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP. (Update Below)

I went down  to the Gulf coast and back yesterday for a memorial Mass and burial of my Aunt who was also my Godmother. That meant a lot of time on the road to think of many things related to the trip and life in general.

It also took two refills of the gas tank. On the second tank, it hit me that this trip would have been less than half the cost (~$50 instead of over $100) if President Obama's energy policies had never existed or if they are reversed. I don't care what his motives are, but the end result was the same.

From a consumer $ point of view, it's the same today as if my car was only getting 11-12 mpg in 2007.

From ThePeoplesCube

My line of thought was undoubtedly fed by conversations with relatives after the burial ceremony, three of whom have jobs with the oil and gas industry and another looking to get into the business.

P.S. In case someone is so inclined: Spare us the 'Peak Oil' BS.
Even so-called 'Ecologists' unreasonably fear the long term availability of oil.  Other energy sources will make sense when oil REALLY (vs. artificially) gets scarce. What scares 'Ecos' (smarter ones anyway) even more is the possibility that Western assumptions underlying oil production may not be correct.  Yet another science that is unsettled.

Update 5 May 12 for a commenter.

An Investor's Business Daily article briefly summing up the most cogent points here.

A nice graphic illustrating much of same from the Senate GOP:

If there is an unsupported assertion in these sources, prove it.

No 'Fox News' involved. I just ordered Jonah Goldberg's new book The Tyranny of Cliches . While  attempting to disparage information on the presumption that it comes from a certain source is Circumstantial Ad Hominem , the continued use of the logical fallacy should be considered rising to the 'Cliche' level. --I wonder if the 'Fox News' cliche made it into Goldberg's book?

Footnote:  I'm not against careful use of cliches. Truth told too often can become cliche as well as falsehoods. They serve as a convenient shorthand in discussions as long as those discussions do not involve an argument. But one discovers over time that while a 'true' cliche can be adequately supported by additional explanation and detail, a falsehood hiding in a cliche will be destroyed by same.  

Gun Day Monday West: Walther PPQ

Apologies to Op-For for Lifting the Title Gimmick this One Time

Friday I purchased a Walther PPQ 9mm at the Carswell JRB Base Exchange gun counter. Other than the BX makes you fill out more stupid paperwork to cover their 'hineys' than the Federal Government requires for their purposes, and having to call the base police to let them know you're leaving with a weapon, it was fast and easy. I went ahead and bought one at the BX because their price was $110 lower than the local Gibson's/ACE Hardware, and Gibson's just about always has the lowest prices that I've seen among the local civilian gun stores (and so have bought a pistol from them before). I told the counter guy at Gibson's the BX price and he didn't try to beat it, just gave a look of surprise.

I didn't get to shoot it this weekend because of family commitments, so I took advantage after work of having just enough time to put 30 rounds downrange before dinner was ready, just to get a feel for the weapon. The initial impression is...

Outstanding! 

I shot 10 rounds each (in 5 shot groups) at 3, 9 6, and 15 yard distances, using 115 grain FMJ rounds loaded by the range's gun shop and using 'Police Match' targets.

3 yds 

At the three yard mark my first round barely cut the 9 ring on the right side with my aim at dead center of the bullseye. OK. It obviously needs windage adjustment before I bring it back to the range. But for the rest of this trip, I just offset my aimpoint to the left. Second shot at 10 3 yds was an 'almost' bullseye, so I aimed a little more left. Next 8 rounds were all 'in the black'. The trigger, grip and recoil, and ease if control was everything I'd hope it would be and it really was hard to slow down the rate of fire as Hickock45 had remarked previously. Magazine release will take some getting used to, but in a good way. As a Lefty, it is kind of nice to grip the pistol with sufficient force without worrying about  inadvertently dropping the magazine. Score at 3 yards:98/100.

6 yds

Aiming at the left side of the bullseye, and slowing down the rate of fire a bit, I managed to hit the bullseye every time and 9 of 10 shots were inside/cut the inner 1 3/4" ring. The rounds were still hitting a little right of center, so I mentally moved my aimpoint for the next round at 15 yds even further left. Score at 6 yards: 100/100.

15 yds

OK, I admit it. at 15 yards, I let the giddiness from doing so well at 6 yards get to me and rushed my shots a tad. Combine that with the imaginary aimpoint I was using well left of the bullseye and I only hit center 6 times, was inside the 'nine' three times, and had a 'wild' one inside the 7 ring. One thing I'm going to have to get used to is the ambidextrous slide lock. I am so used to having to use my pointer finger to release the slide on my other weapons, I had to keep reminding myself I could use my thumb just like the common folk (rightys) with this pistol.  Score at 15 yards: 94/100.

Conclusion

I think I am a 'pretty good' shot, but am in no way one of these 'sub-MOA' shooters that seem to be in the majority everywhere on the web boards. But I will also say that I think this weapon is going to make me look gooood when I get used to it (and get it sighted in).

P.S. I like the takedown procedure for this pistol as well.

Functional AR Project: IOC Achieved

The hunting optics arrived today, so the Varminter/Pig Sticker is fully operational.
Took a little less than 7 months to build. Most of the time spent either deciding what I wanted, or finding wanted parts available, or waiting for parts.  With the Magpul rail covers and three point set up this way, I like the way this setup works so I've decided to forgo the forward grip for now.

Since I've discovered that an AR is never 'finished', I'm taking the opportunity to declare it 'baselined' and achieved IOC status.

New scope: AIM 2.5-10x40 with red/green illuminated reticle and green laser. Surprisingly well made, especially for the price at Combat Optical.

The F-35 and the “Confused” Stephen Saideman

At first I thought Stephen Saideman’s blog post titled Lies, Damn Lies, and Gov't Statistics on his blog was merely more solid evidence that ‘Political Science’ involves little math and zero critical thought.
In the post, he linked to a CBC news web article titled “Competing cost estimates add to F-35 confusion”with this chart on it:

A Useless F-35 Cost Comparison,  Source: CBC News Website

There was, of course, some rather unsatisfying journalistic distortion in the text, and there was also this chart:

A Useless F-35 3-way Cost Comparison, Source: CBC News Website

He seems to now have doubled-down on the idea that Canadians were purposefully fed sunshine and butterflies on cost questions by writing an editorial for the Globe and Mail.

So to recap the story so far:
A ‘Political Scientist’ reads a rather dim news article (with some un-illuminating graphics claiming government ‘sourcing’ spicing up the page) pushing the idea that F-35 cost numbers being thrown about are ‘confusing’. He then blogs about same in a post titled “Lies, Damn Lies, and Gov’t Accounting”. Said Political Scientist then proceeds to write an editorial for the Globe and Mail titled “Unlike our allies, we glossed over the F-35's costs” .--And he did it all apparently based upon a rather limited awareness of the topic at hand.

Ahhh, Research!
Now, we can’t prove or disprove my earlier concerns as to demands for math and critical thinking in PolySci, but I do think we have justification to suspect a deficit of research skills and/or reading comprehension at the root of the Professor’s confusion. For you see, if the good Professor had bothered to go just one step (literally one click) further to attempt to disambiguate the numbers, he would have had a good start on gaining insight into that which befuddled him. (See red arrow on graphic to left) 


For IF the “Canada Research Chair in international security and ethnic conflict, Department of Political Science, McGill University” had bothered to click on a link provided at the first article he blogged about, he would have been taken to an official Canadian Defense forces website where he could view and download a more detailed breakdown of the high and low estimates floating around at the moment.
In the breakdown of costs at the link, he would have found such gems as the high ‘Parliamentary’ estimate for ‘Production’ costs has such problems as :

1. Uses top down, parametric estimate
2. Primarily based on historical costs of fighter aircraft per pound/kilogram
3. Historical data not provided
4. Does not factor economies of scale due to high annual production rate
5. Assumes average unit cost of 2478 aircraft at $128.8M USD using their costing model
6. Based on a learning curve model with only three data points including unsubstantiated average unit cost
7. No evidence of model validation
8. $1.5B error in the calculation of the learning curve which represents $200M in the calculation of the cost for sustainment

My favorite discrepancy between the two estimates has to be under the ‘Maintenance’ heading and I advise everyone to read it at the source.
Professor Saideman, who from what I can tell has been been a denizen of the Academic Ivory Tower (Social Scientists wing) his entire adult life, other than a stint at the Pentagon on essentially a one-year ‘career broadening’ tour as “Politico-Military Planner, Balkans Branch, Central and East Europe Division, Strategic Planning and Policy Directorate". Given his limited practical experience, it is unsurprising that he would find complex program defense acquisition and sustainment cost estimates confusing. Sadly it is also equally unsurprising that lack of consequential knowledge Aerospace or Defense Acquisition does not seem to provide him any inhibitions in giving in to impulses to proffer commentary on same to the general public.
Update: The professor has now posted another bit related to comments he’s received over at the Globe and Mail. Sounds like he’s getting heat from all quarters for his little ‘drive-by’. He has a nice little hand-waving at the end of it:

Anyhow, I am pleased that folks are interested in the topic and in my views on it, but I also realize that the folks commenting already have strong beliefs and see in my op-ed what they want to see. Not the first nor last we will be encountering our frenemy known as confirmation bias

Heh. “Confirmation bias”?

‘Project’ much?

Note: I did not even bother to deal with Professor Saideman's factual errors, such as claims that Japan has cut their F-35 order, because such errors are trivial in light of what is noted above. (Blogger paste errors corrected 4/19 in the AM.)

The B-52 Turns 60: What IF? (Part 3)

(To Start at Part 1: 1946-47 Click Here)

Introduction:

It has been written that “What If?” is historian’s “favorite secret question”. Would the B-52 have become the venerable icon of airpower that it is ‘then’, if American communications and norms had been different?

What if’ 1946-1952 was anything like 2006-2012?

(All persons and institutions are fictional, Any resemblance of characters cited within to persons living or dead is pure serendipity ).

1950

XB-52 (Model 464-67), Source: Boeing

In November 1949, convinced that the inadequate range of the Model 464-49 could seriously jeopardize the future of the entire project, Boeing undertook an effort to improve the range. As an answer, Boeing offered a heaver version known as the Model 464-67. The wing remained the same, but the length of the fuselage was increased to 152 feet 8 inches, offering more space for fuel. Gross weight was estimated at 390,000 pounds. Combat radius was estimated at 3500 miles. The Model 464-67 was looked upon favorably by SAC personnel, including General LeMay. On January 26, 1950, a conference was held at USAF Headquarters to consider once again the future of the B-52. Alternatives were considered once again, including new proposals from Douglas and Republic, Fairchild Aircraft Corporation's idea for a rail-launched flying wing, the swept-wing Convair YB-60, a Rand turboprop aircraft, two new designs based on the B-47, plus several missile aircraft. Although the meeting adjourned without reaching any firm decision, General LeMay still backed the B-52 as providing the best solution for SAC's strategic mission. In February 1950 the Air Staff requested performance and cost data for all the strategic vehicles so far proposed. In the same month, however, General LeMay asked the Board of Senior Officers to accept the Boeing 464-67 in lieu of the Model 464-49. This choice was approved by the Board on March 24, 1950, but there was still no definitive commitment to production. --Origins of the B-52

--Peacenik Objectors Gone Overboard (POGO) 1950 Press Release

Air Force Leadership Suppresses Competition At Taxpayer’s Expense

The Air Force, in a move indicative of the utter contempt for the American taxpayers has killed the possibility of holding any meaningful competition to fulfill the requirement for a new heavy bomber. With the problems found with the new newly fielded B-50 and B-36, the Air Force should be exerting its energies in fixing existing problems rather than seeking to field even more advanced technology. The Air Force is now openly speaking of the new B-50s and B-36s as ‘interim’ designs whose hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of dollars in development costs will now have been wasted fielding aircraft that will only fly for a few short years if the Air Force has its way. Congress should act now to force the military to clean up their existing messes before they are allowed to proceed with production of their newest unneeded weapon.

‘Wheels’ Wincelow: Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) Press Release

The Bomber Forces ‘Death Spiral’

The Air Force now plans to retire their entire fleets of B-50s and B-36s with new bloated bomber program. It is alleged that General Lemay has stated he fears the costs of the new bomber could prevent acquisition of more than 100 aircraft. This new, overly complex and overly ambitious bomber design bought in such small quantities cannot match the capabilities of the more than 700 B-50s and B-36s now delivered or planned could provide.

Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks)

The design of the Air Force’s new bomber, now identified as the XB-52 is STILL changing. If this plane is ever fielded (doubtful), expect it to be many years from now and in even smaller quantities than the 100 currently feared as unit costs will undoubtedly continue to skyrocket.

1951

Final Design Evolution to Production Configuration

On January 9, 1951, USAF Chief of Staff General Hoyt S. Vandenberg approved a proposal that the B-52 be acquired as a replacement for the B-36. Letter Contract AF33(038)-21096, signed on February 14, 1951, was the first contract authorizing production. It called for an initial batch of 13 B-52As (with serials 52-001/013), with first delivery slated for April of 1953. Still more controversy broke out among the USAF hierarchy as to whether the B-52 would be better employed as a bomber or a reconnaissance aircraft. SAC wanted a dual-role aircraft which could accommodate a pod-mounted set of reconnaissance sensors that were easily remov[e]able so that the aircraft could quickly be reconfigured as a straightforward bomber. USAF Headquarters wanted the B-52 to concentrate on the reconnaissance role with the exclusion of everything else. In October of 1951, the Air Staff issued an order that all aircraft would be RB-52 reconnaissance aircraft. This directive was actually misleading, since it was agreed that the aircraft would retain the ability to be converted for bombardment operations. Early in 1951, General LeMay told Boeing that he thought that the tandem seating arrangement featured by the XB-52 mockup was poor. General LeMay believed that side-by-side seating of pilot and copilot was superior, since it allowed more room for flight instrumentation and permitted the co-pilot to be a better assistant to the pilot. In August 1951, it was decided that the Air Force would adopt the side-by-side arrangement, but that some of the early production B-52s would still retain the tandem seating arrangement. This was later amended to stipulate that only the two prototypes would retain the tandem seating arrangement, with all production machines having side-by side seating for pilot and co-pilot. --Origins of the B-52

Derek Palmetto – Letters to the Editor, Sydney Daily Herald

Well, the Americans have decided to waste hundreds of millions of US Dollars not only fielding an unnecessary bomber, but the first batch aren’t even representative of the production standard, and later versions will be incorporating fixes to shortcomings already known to exist, These ‘mistake jets’ will have to be fixed later, or more likely retired early further adding to the magnitude of wasted taxpayer dollars. The early retirement of the B-36, which it has been announced that the B-52 will be replacing, means many of the dollars and much of the effort to produce the Peacemakers have been wasted as well.

Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks)

The Air Force has much explaining to do as to why their nearly-new bomber fleet already needs replacement, if claims justifying the B-52 are REAL that is. We note that the Air Force has changed their tune as to the B-52’s purpose. Is its mission ‘reconnaissance’ or ‘strategic bombing’? What else will the Air Force claim its new plaything can do, if Congress doesn’t bite on their rationale this time around?

‘Wheels’ Wincelow: Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) Press Release

"Overkill: Too Many Nukes" Congress should trim the Air Force’s plans to acquire potentially several hundred B-52 Bombers. With the B-52’s massive payload and the ever-shrinking packaging of Atomic weapons, surely we will reach the practical upper limit of weaponry required to act as a deterrence and fielding more than the required number will only make other nations suspect us of ulterior motives. Please forget that ‘Death Spiral’ thing I mentioned earlier. I’ll let you know when we’re really serious about using it again.

“Oh, the Controversy!”--Title of Stranger Room column, Dave Axiom, ‘Mired’ magazine

1952


1. The XB-52 and YB-52 take to the skies,
2. Some B-52A orders are converted to B-52Bs,
3. Critics yammer on….

The B-52 Turns 60: What IF? (Part 2)

(Part 1: 1946-47 Here)

B-52D at Edwards AFB Museum, Source: SMSgt Mac

Introduction:

It has been written that “What If?” is historian’s “favorite secret question”. Would the B-52 have become the venerable icon of airpower that it is ‘then’, if American communications and norms had been different?

What if’ 1946-1952 was anything like 2006-2012?
(All persons and institutions are fictional, Any resemblance of characters cited within to persons living or dead is pure serendipity ).

1948

Boeing Model 464-39, Source: Mandeles

The year 1948 began under a dark cloud for AMC’s B-52 program managers. Air Staff officers succeeded in canceling, not simply Boeing Model 464-29, but the entire Boeing heavy bomber program due to doubts about the B-52’s ability to achieve the required range and speed….

…Rapid progress on an acceptable heavy bomber design then was stalled in the early months of 1948 while Boeing president William M. Allen and AMC officers lobbied Air Force Secretary Symington and headquarters officers to reinstate Boeing’s contract. During this period, despite the cancellation, Boeing and AMC engineers continued their discussions and research on heavy bomber design. This activity led to the Boeing proposal for Model 464-35 after Symington and, Air Force Undersecretary Arthur S. Barrows reestablished the Boeing contract. While several compromises in military characteristics were made to give Model 464-35 a better chance of meeting Air Force needs (e.g., reduced required range), technical shortcomings in the fire control system, landing gear, engine nacelle design, and aircraft configuration still made achievement of military characteristics dubious. (Mandeles, Pg 49**)

Early 1948…

Brochure at Peacenik Objectors Gone Overboard (POGO) fundraising event for donors

“POGO’s investigations into the new troubled bomber program played key role in successfully bringing scrutiny that resulted in the program’s termination.”

Wheels’ Wincelow: Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) Press Release

‘Military Contractors Brazenly Lobby For Your Tax Dollars to Continue Failed Program. Bomber contractor Boeing Doesn’t take ‘no’ for an answer. That is why we find top Pentagon officials bombarded with inappropriate pressure from Boeing and ‘collaborators’ in the Air Material Command to reinstate Boeing’s failed bomber program.

Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks)

“Bomber program cancelled. See, I told you so. I saw this coming. I was right.  ”

Dave Axiom of Stranger Room

Controversial Bomber Cancelled Amid Controversy

Later in 1948…

Peacenik Objectors Gone Overboard (POGO) Brochure at Fundraising Event for Donors

Reinstated Bomber program highlights Collusion of Military and Industry. The two entities form an interwoven ‘complex’ that is no harmless cliché’. No, really! That's why your contributions to POGO are more important than ever! 

Wheels’ Wincelow: Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) Writing in ‘Babbleland’ column of Thyme Magazine

“Cozy Relationship Between Boeing and Air Force Revives Failed Bomber Program and Will Cost Taxpayers Dearly.

Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks)

Bomber program was cancelled. I told you so. I was right. I did see it coming. So what if it wasn’t the final decision, I was right on that one point. It WAS cancelled. I was right.

Dave Axiom of Stranger Room

Controversial Un-Cancelling of Controversial Bomber: Controversy Continues

1949

Boeing Model 464-35, Source: Mandeles

Within the Air Force, secrecy concerning the stockpile and technical characteristics of the weapons complicated the design of a nuclear-capable force. The Air Force wanted light weapons, but the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) did not release specific information about weight. Hence, the B-52 bomb bay design remained open throughout 1948 to provide for the possibility of a 15,000-pound bomb instead of a 10,000-pound bomb. The design bomb weight was not reduced to 10,000 pounds officially until mid-January 1949. In the meantime, the additional 5,000 pounds reduced the B-52’s projected range and raised the possibility of costly changes in bomb bay configuration. (Mandeles, Pg 37-38**)

Dave Axiom, Stranger Room columnist, ‘Mired’ magazine 'Controversial Bomber Cheats: Meets Controversial Specifications'.

Sure, the revived new bomber can carry the payload it needs to carry, but it can’t carry what it WAS expected to carry, before the Air Force knew what it was going to HAVE to carry – which it turns out to be what it CAN carry. Bummer. I still think that’s cheating.

Peacenik Objectors Gone Overboard (POGO) Press Release

Department of Defense fudges requirements numbers to get new Bomber to meet specifications so they can reinstate a failed program. This over-the-top development only represents tip of the iceberg that reaches down into the depths of depraved corruption that runs throughout the Department. We will have many other mixed metaphors to be revealed from POGO’s ongoing investigation, as soon as we can find someone depressed enough to be willing to talk to us.

‘Wheels’ Wincelow: Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) 1949 Press Release

Payload ‘Death Spiral’ Only by Making the Payload Smaller can Air Force Get Its New Bomber Over the Target. CDI believes the Air Force should pause their design effort until their bomber can carry 5000 more pounds of dead weight to meet original specifications. It’s a Death Spiral we say!You know things are bad because we capitalized ‘Death Spiral’.

Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks)

You know, everyone is talking about this current weight/payload weight thing, and I know that is has been the standard measure by which weight has been traditionally been viewed while systems are in development, but that's a ruse to keep the public off the scent of the real issue: mature system weight, I want to highlight that at the current rate of weight growth this bomber will weigh a gazillion pounds by 1952 if the current trend continues. I'm sure that is a bad thing. So bad that it will dog the program until it's cancelled...again. Soon I bet.

Boeing Model 464-40, Source: Mandeles

Boeing Model 464-49, Created Oct 1948, Adopted 1949, Source: Mandeles

 

Part 3 

The B-52 Turns 60: What IF?

As the “BUFF” enters a long planned twilight, how might things played out if the era had been different?

B-52D on Display at Dyess AFB (SMSgt Mac Photo)

The B-52 is a beautiful over-engineered-by-slide-rule beast first flown on April 15, 1952 that has now flown for 60 years. The newest airframe is now over 50 years old. The 50+ operational life of the B-52 began with it being a high altitude penetrating bomber, painfully transitioning to a low altitude penetrating bomber, and then finally to its current primary role as a standoff weapons launch platform.
    

The Value of History: Perspective

Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems. -J. R. Pierce

It has been written that “What If?” is historian’s “favorite secret question”. Would the B-52 have become the venerable icon of airpower that it is ‘then’, if American communications and norms had been different?

What if’ 1946-1952 was anything like 2006-2012?
(All persons and institutions are fictional, Any resemblance of characters cited within to persons living or dead is pure serendipity ).

1946

Boeing Model 462, Source: Mandeles

The tremendous growth of the Air Corps during World War II created a plethora of offices with overlapping concerns-the organizational conditions for the establishment of a multiorganizational system that ultimately influenced the postwar formulation of operational requirements for jet-propelled strategic bombers. Peacetime, however, brought large cuts in personnel, budget, and orders to aircraft manufacturers and-against the background of great uncertainty and strife in the defense establishment-many doubts surfaced during the first 13 months of the new heavy bomber program. The first bomber configuration, Model 462, was accepted in mid-1946. Within three months, this version was subjected to much criticism by the Air Staff. Boeing proposed an entirely different configuration, Model 464, to answer Air Staff doubts. Over the course of several years, the profusion of offices having overlapping functions regarding the development of new aircraft promoted a useful pattern of proposal, criticism, and change. (Mandeles, Pg 48**)

**Page numbers: electronic version online

Boeing Model 464-17, Source: Mandeles

‘Wheels’ Wincelow, "Pentagon Waste Proliferates in Bureaucratic Redundancy", Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) 1946 Press Release:

The War Department’s latest folly involves not one, not two, but THREE new and unnecessary bomber programs. By far the worst of the three has to be the new and as yet undefined ‘Heavy Bomber’ program. Already it is reported that the first design attempt has failed and the contractor has happily gone back to the drawing board no doubt with more of the public’s money in its pockets. The conflicted decision and review process of this program is being carried out through a bloated, redundant, and ponderous bureaucracy that will no doubt generate tremendous waste of the taxpayer’s dollars in an effort doomed to fail under the weight of its own inertia.

Peacenik Objectors Gone Overboard (POGO) Testimony before the House Whines and Memes Committee:

In this time of hard-won peace and enduring economic uncertainty, the United States enjoys primacy as the world’s exclusive nuclear power, the United States should not be pursuing another long range bomber aircraft and should scrap development of the overly complex and expensive medium and heavy bombers now in development. We strongly recommend substituting more B-29s and the new B-50s for half of planned buys of the recently announced B-47 and ongoing B-36 development programs and cancelling the rest, and to cease the wasteful development of these unnecessary and unproven weapons technology. With a planned total buy in excess of 2000 aircraft, these bomber programs are among the Department of War’s largest weapon procurement efforts and will (for a decade or more) drain the Treasury of funds needed to strengthen peaceful international relations and pay for domestic programs . This option would buy half as many simpler, cheaper aircraft, purchasing instead more of the current generation of bombers at a fraction of the cost to develop, field and support the new gold-plated aircraft with all their extraneous bells and whistles. The rationale for this change would be that DOD does not need even more new bombers as the new B-50, an advanced development of the B-29 that has yet to fly. This option might also allow the War Department to upgrade their bomber fleets faster than possible with the newer unproven aircraft designs which will undoubtedly experience delays related to additional technical problems driven by their unnecessary complexity.

Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks):

"This new bomber program is in trouble already and it hasn’t even been active two years. Will it EVER be fielded?"  

 Dave Axiom Headline ('Stranger Room' Column, 'Mired' Magazine):

‘Controversial’ New Bomber Controversially Struggles Early in Controversy,

 Title of General Accountants Office Report:

"New Bomber’s Unstable Design and Concurrency Creates Excessive Risk"

1947

Yet, Air Materiel Command constituted a useful “redundancy of calculation” for the assistant chiefs, and functioned as an element of a nascent multiorganizational system. AMC staff often criticized the bas[i]s and assumptions of headquarters’ B-52 decisions. A June 1947 memorandum from the Aircraft Laboratory argued that AC / AS staff (1) misunderstood the relation between military requirements and aircraft size, (2) misunderstood how difficult it would be to design an aircraft capable of 5,000-mile radius, (3) did not appreciate how well balanced the B-52 design was, and (4) misunderstood how technical setbacks should be expected but could be solved in later versions of the aircraft. In July AMC’s Maj Gen Laurence C. Craigie, arguing on the basis of technical studies conducted in the Engineering Division, suggested that AC / AS officers should refrain from proposing either the all-wing or delta wing as alternatives to the B-52. He emphasized, in response to misgivings about B-52 range, that design deficiencies could be rectified in the aircraft’s life cycle. (Mandeles, Pg 47**)

‘Wheels’ Wincelow: Pursuit of Unobtainable ‘Perfect’ Bomber Solution Highlights Complexity Problems, Centre of Defense Disinformation (CDI) 1947 Press Release:

"Well here it is a year later and one design attempt after another has fallen barren. The bloated bureaucracy inherited by the new Air Force continues to generate tremendous waste of the taxpayer’s dollars through incompetence and inefficiency chasing unnecessarily complex weapon systems. It is still a program destined for certain failure."

Dave Axiom of Stranger Room (while trying to look really, really, serious) :

New Controversial Bomber Still Controversially Struggles in Ongoing Controversy: “They’re claiming their new designs meet specifications but are having to cheat by changing the specifications. Those cheating cheaters!” 

 Peacenik Objectors Gone Overboard (POGO) 1947 Press Release:

Pentagon suppressing dissent in ranks over New Bomber Designs:  "Scandal grows as faults and failures in design process and poor management are being covered up by the new Air Force’s leadership". POGO calls for Congressional investigations

 From Gonzo Accounting Office (GAO) 1947 Report: “New Bomber’s Unstable Design, Division of Effort and Concurrency Creates Excessive Risk”:

To summarize, the Army Air Force’s focus, needed to ensure that this program will succeed appears to be hampered by priorities given to the current Department of War reorganization plans. It is doubtful that the many parallel bomber programs now in varying stages of development will allow sufficient attention will be given to this new bomber program. The GAO recommends termination of this program and the newly-organized Department of Defense should seriously reconsider current plans and delay fielding the current programs of record until the threat driving the need for the B-36 emerges and until the technology for the B-47 is considerably more mature.

 Phil Sweetham (Aviation Leaks):

The newly created Air Force has been no more able to nail down exactly what this fancy new bomber of theirs is expected to do (or what it will even look like) than their Army Air Force progenitors. Whatever plans these new ‘princes’ of the sky have for their new toy must solidify before they can proceed, and there is no indication of any set plan materializing as of this writing. One must also wonder about how much additional cost is buried in the Air Force’s plans to fix inherent “design deficiencies” that will “be rectified in the aircraft’s life cycle”. The probability of this program coming to fruition is becoming even more unlikely and surely increased Congressional scrutiny must be imminent.

 Part 2 (1948-1949)

Model 1894 Swedish Mauser Project

Resurrection NOT Restoration

I've pretty much completed the AR project. That is to say, it is about as 'complete' as I can ever call it same (except for optics -maybe next week). This means I've got time to start resurrecting Grandma's elk rifle: a 1906 issue of the M94 Swedish Mauser Carbine. I decided to get all the hardware in hand before I specify a 'sporter' stock for it because I didn't want to lay out the cash for what I wanted, only to find out I didn't have a working action to put in it.

Untouched... since about 1960 

The rifle has not been updated since Granddad built it around 1960, when Mausers were like AK clones are today. Yesterday I received in the mail a new (really!) trigger guard with catch release and a new (really!) floor plate that I ordered last week. I'm pretty sure they are from later Swede models as they are interchangeable among the 'small ring' Mausers and the later models are more available, but they are 'new' -- the floorplate was still in preservative from sometime before the 1940s. Markings for the new parts are also appropriate for a Swede, but as you see in the photo below, I had to give up hope of maintaining matching numbers because Granddad ground down the part of the trigger guard with the floorplate latch and serial number on it when he cut down the magazine walls. I acquired the floorplate in case I needed it, but I will be able to keep the original

Close examination, reflections on my late-Father's stories about the weapon and my knowledge of Granddad tells me that he probably never had the original rifle - just the complete action. An ultimately pragmatic man, I doubt cutting down a rifle by sectioning the 'lower' and the trigger would have occurred to Granddad if it had come with usable furniture.  I suspect the stock that was on it when I was given the rifle began life as a stock for a .22 caliber rifle that he already had in hand. Add the fact that he was building it for Grandma, a petite woman, and the mix of factors probably triggered the idea in him to cut it down.

The Family and the Swede

This rifle was built 'as is' for one thing: So a small woman could lug a high power rifle all over Eastern Oregon to take Wapiti. Granddad was also on the smaller side, so I think that's why it became his favorite over time as well. It was always referred to as "Grandma's Elk Gun", but Granddad probably used it more by virtue of the fact he went hunting quite a bit without Grandma and Grandma never went hunting without him. It was hunted with almost every year for twenty-five years, and it took elk (usually two or more) more years than not-- and Mule Deer from time to time as well. Upon Granddad's death (at 91 in 1991), his rifle passed to my Father, who passed it to me. I took it hunting once about three years ago, but didn't see anything suitable for taking.

The Swede's Needs

Taking the Swede into the field did give me some insight into what I might have to do to make it a solid hunting rifle again, and one that was perhaps tailored to Texas hunting conditions. First, the Swede shoots flatter than my .30-06 out to at least 200 yds and I suspect farther.  I found out that the original scope simply did not have enough light gathering capability, so a new one will be in order. Practice firing it immediately told me the gun was too powerful for the stock. Though it has an excellent (and substantial) recoil pad, my first thought after shooting it just once was: "Dang! I thought Grandpa liked Grandma!"

The 6.5 x 55 is a lot of round to mount on an itty-bitty stock. It fits in nicely in a crowd of larger calibers. The round puts lots of powder behind a long narrow projectile spun up to high stability .

Source: Wikipedia

The 6.5 x 55 Swedish is second from the right in the picture above, between the .308 (far right) and the 8 x 57 Mauser (third from right)

Baby Steps Ahead

After test fitting the 'new' lower and 'old' floorplate, and keeping the same follower and follower spring, last night I ordered new fore and aft guard screws (old ones were 'cut down') and a new military trigger. I really like the standard two stage trigger of the Swede and as long as the mechanism behind the lever is sturdy (it is) I see no reason to go to an aftermarket trigger. After I get these parts I'll decide upon a low-profile safety: the current one is an original modified 50+ years ago by Granddad to 'work around' a scope and it looks like it needs more metal to keep it from cracking off at the wrong time and I already don't like the way it feels now.

No 'Bubbas' in These Parts

Granddad was an outdoorsman his whole life, and we were raised with the now somewhat quaint idea that firearms were weapons and 'weapons = tools' --- Tools that were to be used and not merely conversation pieces fondled every so often. In preparing to resurrect the family treasure (for that is all it will ever be -- Granddad engraved "Mc" on the receiver and barrel) I did enough research to discover there is a whole corner of the virtual world filled with keyboard commandos who denigrate anyone who builds a Mauser, especially the rarer of the type such as the 1894 Swede, in any other configuration than 'restored'. They often refer to treatment of weapons in other than their 'approved' manner as being 'Bubba'd". 

They can pound sand.

If they believe vintage Mausers should be restored perhaps they should buy them all and restore the weapons themselves. Their opinions of what others do with their property is of no consequence. This rifle was, IMHO not a prime example of type when Granddad probably rescued it from the scrap pile. It has now been a functional no-frills hunting rifle most of its life. THAT is the heritage of this weapon that I intend to faithfully honor. (Well, maybe a 'frill' or two).


        

File under: “For He So Loved the World”

Sustained by Faith...

This is totally ripped off from my favorite Photostream and posted here because it deserves better commentary (which would include ‘none’) than the comment it got out right out of the gate from some crass 'Putz' at the source.   (original size)

Happy Easter to all

Still An Optimist About Cuba's Future

I just wish Cuba's better days were coming faster.



I hadn't updated my Blogger avatar this year until now, because I couldn't find the original source file to update in the time I had available for searching (probably a terrabyte + on multiple drives), but the situation has been rectified.

I still maintain a positive view towards Cuba's future.
Screw the Big Media BS proffered as an 'Arab Spring'. there's nothing good that will come of it IMHO. I'm looking forward to a transformation in certain quarters of the Western Hemisphere to begin when the World's Oldest, Longest Ruling, Living Dictator assumes room temperature. Oh sure, his little dog Raul is running things these days, but how long will the 'brains' of the regime survive without the cachet of the 'personality'? My gut feeling is the answer will be 'not long', even if Raul is just as (or more!) ruthless than THE 'Commandante'.

I'll also take good news where I find it. The Clown of Caracas isn't doing too well either, and his 'Boyz' seem to be also getting desperate.

Army Discovers Gators... in Libya?

Heh.
This post by Steve Trimble has a section that should have been subtitled: "The Army Figures out WTF the Marines have been telling them all along".

[Picture: PO (Phot) Ray Jones, Crown Copyright/MOD 2012]

Nature Fakers (Enviros)

They've been around longer than most people realize.
I was just telling someone this week why, as a lifelong Conservationist, I hate Nature-Faking  'Environmentalism'. In the future, I'll just refer them to the link.

UAV Strikes in Pakistan Aren't Targeting Civilians

So they're not killing very many either.
When the evidence gets looked at closely we find Unmanned Air Vehicle strikes don't kill nearly as many civilians as collateral damage as the political opportunists in Pakistan or emoters in the United States try to lead us to believe.  There's a shocker for you (not).

There's nothing 'Sterile' about it.
Even the improper use of the descriptor 'Drone', which has now come into common usage as a label for all unmanned air vehicles seems to promote the 'thoughtlessness' meme. They are Unmanned Air Vehicles. I submit the human thought and decision process that go into deciding to launch a Hellfire missile off a Predator UAV are far more involved and rigorous than launching one off any other type of platform. People who carp about the 'sterility' of such strikes had ancestors who carried swords and lances and b*tched about the appearance of the longbow on the battlefield. No matter how far removed from the battle, combat involvment is not 'sterile' for the operator. Physically safer? Yes. Sterile and unthinking? NO.

Spare us the "Not One More Dead Child" bleating.
Civilian deaths are a burden our military and intelligence operators and decision-makers bear heavily. The only true unfortunates in this situation are innocent children and (most of) the women. They are the collateral damage that we can only mitigate but never eliminate when the perverse values in a primitive 'culture' prioritizes 'family' relationships over the fact that your relative is terrorist scum.  We work to minimize the collateral damage but some people seem to be unaware that "WAR!" isn't very nice.

AR Project: A Functional Device

I have been scouring the web, several catalogs, and near weekly editions of Shotgun News these past few months trying to find a really 'good deal' to tip the balance either way in deciding to buy or build my 'upper'. I've also been picking the brains of a co-worker that has experience building up ARs in trying to decide the final approach and configuration.
I finally decided that I would go with a built up upper instead of piece parts, and that for the type of shooting I will be doing I should go for a 16" barrel in other than the full-bull stainless steel variety. There were several reasons on the barrel decision, not the least of which is that for the kind of light conditions in which I plan to use this weapon, I really wanted a flash suppressor-- and that the heavy stainless barrels that would fill the bill were either way too expensive or on perennial back-order.

I went to Cheaper Than Dirt today looking for one particular A3 Upper but found that the retail store had 2 of another model I had considered, but had not selected before, because the model had been listed as 'out of stock' according to the online catalog. I bought one.

It is a DPMS 5.56, 16" light barrel assembly with A2 flash hider, low profile single rail gas block, and complete with bolt/carrier assembly and charging handle. The in-store price was a little steeper than the catalog price, but still par for other sources, and as far as upper assemblies go, the main lesson I've learned in this project is the 'bird in the hand' maxim is in effect.

This build needs only the few bells and whistles I still want. Some of them I would have tried to pick up today if CTD hadn't been such a freaking zoo (the checkout lady told me that it was always this way on 'rainy' Saturdays).  

Remaining Checklist Items: Free Float Quad Rails, Flip-up sights, Sling (type TBD, leaning towards 3 point), Optics/laser (TBD), and possibly a vertical foregrip and ambidextrous charging handle.

So close.....

Han Shot First

Culture Wars? It's On!

     Bill Whittle on PJTV

Excellent Afterburner video from PJTV up at You Tube right now.

While the 'Evil Child-like Socialists' in power, their codependent Hollyweird sycophants, and the 'entitled' parasites falsely claiming to be "the 99%" are waging open war against American civilization, it is nice to see some 'push back'.

Bill Whittle, once again, does not disappoint, and while I generally agree with Solomon at SNAFU! about the downsides of 'Act Of Valor',Whittle points out a 'positive' for the movie that cannot be denied. His observations about the making of 'Act of Valor' may not be precisely 'correct' but they are forgivable in the greater scheme of things.

I may get one of those 'Han Shot First t-shirts myself.
 

Airpower is Developed, Sustained, and Provided by an "Air Force"

Composite Photo of a Aerospace Power Dead End, a.k.a. A-10 N/AW

In thread over at SNAFU!, we find one commenter 'Lane" advocating the wet dream of 'Army über alles' types everywhere, i.e. the disbandment of the Air Force. I've invited him to read a couple of my older posts Space Force? and Space Coast Guard?  and have posted this to give him an opportunity to make his case a little better than he did over at Solomon's.

Thoughtful arguments (beyond 'because', 'because I say so', and 'there was this one time in band camp' please) for disbanding the AF are welcome, but will be countered even more thoughtfully. I predict and forewarn that IF I get any response, my most common references in countering will involve "Goldwater-Nichols" and the words 'Train and Equip'.

Oh!.. and please leave the 'we have x number Air Forces' B.S. for use as sound bites on some space limited I-hate-AF thread. The Army has trains and it isn't a railroad, and some say it has more floating assets than the Navy and no one claims it is a 'Navy'.  

If serious discussion on Airpower isn't your thing, then I refer you to a light-hearted romp on the subject of service roles and missions. See Harry Harrison's "Navy Day" ..........

The Army had a new theme song: "Anything  you can do, we can do better!" And they meant anything, including up-to-date hornpipes!

 

Fifth-Gen Kalashnikov

Seems more of an evolutionary 'tart-up' job than revolutionary and 'next-gen'.

Though in the old days, incorporation of Picatinny rails in the design would have been considered a Counter-Revolutionary  'gulag' offense.  Oh, they would have copied them, they just would have named it something else.

Hat Tip: The Unwanted Blog

DoDBuzz Debuzzed, With A 'Major' Tool Running Amok in the Threads

I'm going hammer and tong (see comments to this article) with a poser (On Airpower & CAS in this case) going by the handle 'major.rod' over 'CAS Myths' and after I came back to the thread today I find he dropped another steaming 'pile' a  day or two ago. Suddenly DODBuzz isn't letting me respond to this guy's idiotic comments. DOD Buzz won't even let me post the following as a 'Reply' to one of my own comments:

Why The Public is So Poorly Informed...

(about on just about da** near everything)

It is the convergence of the Chump Effect with the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Providers and Consumers: there's plenty of 'blame' to go around.

H/T Instapundit.

Success! Thanks Again For Everything Brother B!

I'd like to thank the fine folks at B&L Outfitters at the Clairette Bar and Grill once again for hosting me on my hunts this season, and for setting the standards so high while providing brotherly encouragement.
A couple of old adages about hunting have certainly applied this year.

First: If you're going to hunt, Hunt! The deer don't have a schedule and nothing beats persistence and consistency. Yesterday I did the AM and PM hunts and was still exhausted at 4AM today when the alarm went off. I almost slept in based upon what happened yesterday, but today, the ebbing moon rose an hour later this morning (new moon on Christmas BTW) and there was a little more cloud cover which gave me the edge moving to the blind. Yesterday, all the deer were jumpy due to high winds. In the morning I had some of the 'local girls' show up, then a forked-horn I've come to think of as Decoy Boy would show up to chase them. The doe would run away and then come back, then Decoy Boy would come back. All through the morning hunt. They were even looping behind me and coming in from different directions. The old doe did not like my blind, and stomped and huffed a couple of times, but she was more concerned with Decoy Boy, and then it was as if she forgot about me. Afternoon session was much the same, only Decoy Boy came in first. Normally what has happened in the PM is his running-buddy, a marginally-legal, "barely-8" point (Eastern Count) would soon follow. Not last night. Last night Decoy Boy moved off quickly and was hanging in the bushes until the doe showed up, and then it was the AM session all over again, until it got too dark to shoot. I had to sit it out to keep from being busted until the Decoy Boy finally moved off. This AM was also projected to be colder and calmer, so I dragged myself out of bed, knowing full well adage number two still applied, but also knowing that the deer weren't going to parade past at midday either.

Second: They call it "hunting" and not "shooting" for a reason. It's a good thing I like the 'hunt' as much as, if not more than, the 'kill'. Because there is a whole lot of the former and little of the latter even if you are lucky AND you're doing it right. In my younger days, I tended to focus on the finish and would feel disappointed when it didn't 'happen'. This year (and the last season about three years ago), I could have and did get 'skunked' (i.e. struck out) and still felt the season was worthwhile, and worth remembering.  I saw deer almost every session, knowing there was the right one (or three-four) cruising my Brother's ranch and surrounding area. This AM, before it was really light enough to count points on an antler, a big buck came in and didn't like my blind (my setup worked better for afternoon light. I think what he REALLY didn't like was the steam of my breath rising in the still air. I could see his breath coming out of him easier than I could see him. He was traveling with two other bucks, and he feinted into the clearing a couple of times, raised a false alarm flag but didn't spook. Those three bucks slinked through the brush on the other side of the clearing and  I got one look at the big guy's head when he paused to check my way once. Perhaps longer, higher tines on his rack, but they were also lighter in color and weight.
I thought that the AM session was going to end early on that note, when 2 then 3 then 4 doe moved in front of me, coming from the same direction as the earlier bucks. They were only on the scene a short while with the old doe casting evil looks my way and being the most cautious about moving into the clearing, when out stepped.....

The Chocolate 8 Point.

He's shown up on the trail cameras quite a bit, and considering it is a drought year, he was remarkably heavy-bodied. And I've always been impressed with his rack color, weight, and shape, but the real kicker was the mass and length of his brow tines.

 Gnarly Baby! 

With all the doe and this buck present I had to be painfully careful getting into firing position. I elected to only project my barrel out of the blind and scope the buck through the blind screen (still blew a small hole in the screen though ).

I dropped him in his tracks, but still don't understand how I could have missed my aimpoint as much as I did. I sighted in the new scope on this rifle with only 9 rounds, and the last 3 holes in my target you could cover with a nickel. Some of the error could be from having a live target and my excitement, but not all of it. I think it could be due to the fact I was using a shooting stick for the very first time (but not the last!) and I didn't secure my foregrip well enough. It would bother me a lot more if my poor aim had resulted in a prolonged death of the animal, but as the shot dropped him in place, I'm extremely pleased with the result.

BTW: I also learned that field dressing a deer is not the same as learning to ride a bike. If it has been more than 2 decades, you should probably have someone on your shoulder to knock the rust off.

Update 12/25/11: After reviewing game camera films, and a snapshot my Brother's neighbor took on Dec 7th, I've determined that this buck was the same one as in the first encounter that morning, and that he had just double-backed into the field of fire once his does came up and he thought the coast was clear. I'm always amazed at how different the deer appear in different light and backgrounds. I'm also convinced now that this is the same buck I watched for 20 minutes behind some brush back on the evening of the 8th and never gave me an opportunity to take a high percentage shot.
Later Note: made some typo and grammar corrections on 28Dec11.