CV-22 Deploys "On Wing"

And maybe a few prayers?

Well the CV-22 has performed its first self-deployment. In honor of the milestone, here's a patch I got from the SPO (Test Force?- can't remember which) waaaay back when my unit supported the program. Although I don't think the stuff we tested went beyond proof-of-concept (yet)- it is good to see the AF special operators moving quietly forward.

Thinking About America's Defense

There is an OUTSTANDING new RAND publication out. An "analytical memoir" by retired Lt General Glenn Kent titled: Thinking About America's Defense.
I predict it will become a RAND classic - a philosophical guide for defense analysts and tool kit in one document. I'm only about halfway through it and so far it does not disappoint. Here's a gem with a little bit of background from page 173 for all the lightweight-fighter-mafia-as-martyrs crowd:

Soon, Maj Everest Riccioni, one of Major Boyd’s followers, was in my office with the LWF briefing in hand. After a lengthy discussion in which he presented the briefing to me, I stated that I would urge General Meyer to hear a briefing about the LWF, but not the briefing Riccioni had just shown me. “There are two distinct parts to your briefing,”

I said. “The first part states that technology marches on and the Air Force can have a fighter with impressive performance at 60 percent of the cost of an F-15. The second part of the briefing alleges that those who support the F-15 lack a basic understanding of air-to-air combat. I will recommend that General Meyer receive a briefing that sticks religiously to the first part and contains not a hint of the second part.

General Meyer supports the F-15, and he needs no instruction from you (or anyone else) about the practice of air-to-air combat. After all, he was the leading American ace in the European campaign in World War II.”

Major Riccioni protested. I pointed out that he was negotiating from jail. The easiest and least risky course for me was to tell General Meyer he should not hear the briefing. I insisted that I would only endorse a briefing that reflected my view of what was constructive, repeating that it would convey only material from part one and would not include a hint about part two. In time, Major Riccioni saw that he was in no position to argue, and together, he and my staff developed such a briefing.

I wrote a note to General Meyer and urged him to hear the briefing. He promptly made it known to me that I had failed him. “All right,” he said. “I will hear what this major has to say. But I hold you responsible for the whole affair.” A date was set.

Late in the afternoon the day before the appointed date, I was called out of town. Every instinct told me to cancel the briefing, but it was hard to get on the calendar of the vice chief, so I did not call to cancel. I did call Lt Col Larry Welch (who worked for me) and Major Riccioni to my office. “I trust you, Major,” I said. “I won’t be there but I trust that you’ll stick to the script we have developed: just part one, nothing from part two. Do not even take those other charts in your briefcase.” Major Riccioni agreed.

I told Colonel Welch that I would call him at his home when I returned the next day. When I called him I asked, “How did the briefing go?” “It was a disaster,” Larry replied.

Read more of the before and after here.

UPDATE 12/26: This analytical memoir is now on the AF Chief of Staff's 2009 Reading List.

Feh. This Ain't My First Long National Nightmare

While I really don't have time for posting at the current time, I know a very few people who might be wondering what I think of the Presidential election, given that I thought the 'O'-Man was going to win, but in the spirit of HOPE! was hoping for a less-disappointing McCain 'victory'.
I'm still PO'd at Huckabee and the Brain-Dead Branch of Southern Baptists, as well as the weak-ass Republicans, who became weak due to the pathetic state of their rival Democrats - all are root causes of this tragic turns towards Socialism. But hey! - Like the title says "this ain't my first National Nightmare": I have memories of Clinton, Carter AND Johnson. It is just this gets more tiresome the older you get and the more you know this is just SO unneccessary.
On a lighter note, here's a challenge for the world. As far as I can determine, from this POV there were only four types of reasons that people had for voting for Obama: 1. Ignorant, 2. Irrational, 3. Stupid and/or 4. Evil. See if you can come up with a reason that can't be placed into one or more of those boxes. I just hope the majority were "Ignorant" - that can often be cured in time.
To get us through these dark days, Instapundit passed along this little poster that kind of says it all:

KC-X Fiasco Update

I've been wrestling with a pig (again) in the comments at DefenseTech.org over the merits and fallout of the farcical Boeing protest and their (Boeing's)manipulation of the political process to get a do-over on the KC-X program. Its been fun to a point, but not nearly so much fun as finding out that apparently Boeing's contender only promised 'more' when it came to cost. A lot more.

Boeing's bid was over 23% more expensive for the first 68 aircraft. At the link one will find such gems as the DoD Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics quoted:

"Young said that Northrop promised earlier delivery and that its aircraft "provided more tanker capability and offload rate and was substantially cheaper to develop."

followed immediately by my favorite citation:

"Frankly," he said, Boeing's tanker "was smaller and should have been cheaper. . . . A member of the American public might conclude that Boeing sought to charge more than the Defense Department reasonably expected" to pay.

And Boeing's gambit apparently now has the added taxpayer funded feature
of Northrop Grumman/EADS being paid Termination Costs (quite rightful considering the circumstances I'd say) which should ensure they have enough in their war chest to blunt any technical improvement that Boeing may be able to make in superceding their current K767 concept -- should NG/EADS choose to continue dancing this crazy Tanker Two-Step.

Funniest (sad) quote in either link is from Boeing 'spokesman' Dan Beck:

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck declined to comment on Young's remarks but said the company "is looking to the future and is looking forward to a renewed tanker competition when the Pentagon proceeds. As we go through this interim period we're not interested in revisiting the past."

Yeah, I bet you're not Dan.

Palin: Popular vs. Populist

Dang! Beldar beat me to the punch

I've been thinking of posting on this topic for a couple of days, but Beldar nails it.

It's like the media is trying to redefine 'Populist'...or are they that ignorant?

One of the "Greats" is Gone

Had I known about this earlier, I would have found a way to make the service. Don Cornell was a one of a kind: A Golden-Armed Great Stick, who was a really nice guy and always made sure we balanced work with family life. He would have at least made full Colonel, except he thought his family needed him more.

When I first met Don, I had the strangest feeling I knew him already. Being military guys, we went down the list of where we had been, but we had never crossed paths. That déjà vu feeling never went away... until I was going through one of my old books I had picked up at Lemoore NAS in 1979: "A-7 in Action". There's a newer version out there, but in this edition, a large part of it was filled with Don Cornell, as Don was one of the few pilots who flew both the F-100 and A-7 (its replacement) in combat. Don also did a cruise as an exchange pilot with the Navy, and was known to answer a 'call the ball' in whatever he was flying when the occasion arose.

Friends and readers know I do not fawn over meat-servos as a class, but I have the deepest abiding respect for those few I've known who really deserve it. Don was a great pilot, yes. But he was so much more.

I await the day when the magnitude of his accomplishments and contributions to this great land become known to his family and the country as a whole. Today, we have only a glimpse.

Godspeed Don

A Guilty Pleasure:

Yes...I Have Always Enjoyed Moral Dilemmas.

Instapundit has what I think is a rather clever poll up at his site that could be a good conversation topic. He asks:

Which is worse?
a. A politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer, and lies about it.
or
b. A reporter or editor who covers for the politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer.

Myself? I picked 'b' without thinking twice. I admit this involved assuming there was no possible motive behind either act that could be considered morally 'acceptable'

When I did 'think twice' about it, I asked myself: What was in the nature of the two transgressions that would be the discriminator(s) of relative morality between them? Which IS the greater evil?

Well, on the one hand, 'a' involves infidelity and then compound it by being an even bigger cad by being unfaithful at a time when one should be most faithful by all standards of moral decency. On the other hand, 'b' could be seen as merely failing to perform the job that you are expected to perform by a customer (a trusting public), and some might argue that the public has very little right to expect that trust to be honored. Or, as they say, Caveat Emptor! So, on the surface, 'a' seems it should be considered much worse: 'b' seeming rather trite in comparison.

So again, why pick 'b' ?

Well. on the 'third thought', we must ask ourselves what are the consequences/impact of the transgressions? As I see it, 'a' can ruin a marriage and destroy at least one, maybe two families. Would it be true to state that 'b' can facilitate the behavior found in 'a', and thus promote opportunities for many such 'a' situations? Or would to so state be an exaggeration? I think not. Why not?

Let's ask ourselves what the reverse of the 'b' would mean. It would mean that anyone engaging in 'a' would run a much higher risk of being found out. While this (or even a herd of wild horses in some cases) would never completely stop some subset of a population from engaging in 'a' behaviors, it would serve to dampen the occurence of 'a' behaviors.

The absence of situation 'a' prevents harm to a specific group of people.
the absence of 'b' situation prevents harm to a much larger group of people.

Thus, while either is bad, 'b' is worse.
Or......

Any thoughts out there?



Forgot to mention: the poll results at the time I voted were running about 2 to 1 for 'b'.

Boeing on 'Offshoring': Good For Me But Not For Thee

Steven Trimble's DEW Line wonders if Boeing's minions (he's a nice guy: he calls them 'supporters') will reign in their protectionist rants now that Boeing is shown to win defense contracts in part by offshoring defense work that would have been done in the U.S. if it had gone to a competitor (coincidentally Northrop Grumman was on the losing side in this one).

I have no problem with Boeing subcontracting A-10 wing panels to Korea; Aerospace is truly international nowadays. It's just that it is also sweet to think that Dicks, Murray and Tihart (D-M-T) might have to be a little more careful with the truth: lest they get called out to explain themselves. After all, 49 states will have money flowing into them over if this contract goes to the KC-45, and the D-M-T team only represent interests in two states. Yes...Sweet.

WOW! American History....

...with a pop-culture twist

Q: What famous actress is named after an airplane?
A: See Former Spook's post at In From The Cold for the answer.

Teaser: it's not just any airplane either.

Full story at the link.

About that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" So-Called 'Study'

It was a 'study group' of retired senior zeros. THEY CONDUCTED SURVEYS OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. I'll get to the so-called 'bipartisan' bit in a minute.

I recently told a late commenter to an earlier post of mine:

I believe one should always argue the data and judge the source by the data, not the data by the source.

The 'study' report gives no REAL data that supports the repeal of the DADT, but that doesn't stop them from asserting that it should be repealed because there is no real data (as they see it) that supports its continuance. This report is at the very least a mere issue advocacy PR release. Is it something else? Let's see.

Now having judged the 'data' (what the source had to say) let us look at the source a little more closely and with some earned skepticism.

I've never heard of the source of the study before: The Palm Center. Nice, friendly, name....What is it?

From their website:

The Palm Center, formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Our data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high quality information is available.

The Center promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces by forging a community of scholars, creating a forum for information exchange and debate, offering itself as a launching point for researchers who need access to data and scholarly networks, and supporting graduate student training.

The Center's ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell Project’ will continue to be its first priority under its new name – The Michael D. Palm Center. The goal of the DADT Project is to improve the quality of information available to public deliberations about the military policy.

So, the center's whole reason for its existence is to promote this kind of s*** as science (I love the hilarious claim of 'rigorous social science' - who says engineers don't have a sense of humor?). All the while hiding behind the 'bipartisan' disclaimer. How much press would this tripe have received if it the press release read "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military Study Calls For the End of DADT"?

George Carlin once said something to the effect of: "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

That sounds about right. Oh, and unless study techniques and data are forthcoming very quickly, I will have to call this BS 'study' PROPAGANDA!

Update 9Jun08 @2300Hrs: I've been commenting on this topic over at Box Turtle Bulletin, and have been waiting patiently for someone to pick up on the ramifications of my asserting the 'study' has a propaganda stink. Why? Because I am OF the surveyed population, and am a part of it at least as much if not more than a lot of retired generals: I am still close to my once-2lts who are now approaching flag rank, my Son is now on a base in Japan, and another significant other (don't know if this is still sensitive info and so will not reveal the relationship at this time) is headed for Afghanistan very soon. Are my opinions and reasons for them a form of bigotry? Hardly. I assert that the insistence that I must think other than I do under some PC mandate could be viewed as a form of fascism. (thank you, Jonah Goldberg). Oh, and as anyone who has read this blog for any length of time is well aware, some of my thoughts on DADT can be found here.

Update 2, 20Jul08, 2107hrs. Visited the Box Turtle Bulletin to see if any more comments of interest had materialized. Saw only one worth replying to. Saw another one from some swell guy(?) calling himself 'Ben in Oakland' who went off on a long tirade about something. I think he's upset just because I and other heterosexuals in the military don't want to sleep with him. Evidently that makes guys like me evil.

America Can't Drive 55!

Or: "One More Reason Why I Am a Conservative First, Republican (Leaning Independent) Second" (H/T Instapundit)

I've been waiting (like a lot of folks, I know) for the first bonehead in Congress to raise the spectre of the double-nickle speed limit. Little did I expect it would come from a Republican. But then I'm a wide-open spaces Westerner, and often forget there is the Feeble-Minded East Coast Establishment GOP out there hanging on and dragging the rest of the party down? Hey Senator Warner! What Would Reagan Do?

Golly, I hate small-minded people whose first instinct is to 'contract', 'withdrawal', 'scale back', 'settle for less', etc. I hate them when they are in positions of power even more.

Prof. Reynolds also linked to an article he wrote at TCS back in 2005.

First They Came For My Hat

Subtitle: No One Expects the Yorkshire Jackboots!

Fascist Yorkshire? This story just begs a good mocking. Hmmm...I wonder what 'Yorkshire Fascists' look like?

(H/T Instapundit)

Mastectomies: Insurance Companies Only Know What is Best For Their Bottom Line

If you haven't already, go to Lifetime's website and sign the petition supporting the prevention of "drive-through" mastectomies.

The only people who should be involved in deciding how long a post-op hospital stay should be is the patient, or their representatives and the caregiver. Anyone else will bring with them motives not related to what is best for the patient.

If the idea of "drive-through" mastectomies is troubling to you, Nationalized Health Care (socialized medicine) must scare the bejeezus out of you.

Not everyone thinks highly of the petition, like whoever does Fast Company's weblog, who seems to forget the maxim: 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough'. (I think the article at the link is caviling). I'm not a big fan of estrogen-laden Lifetime, and think far to little attention is paid to other cancers (like prostate) because of breast cancer's prominance in the fund-raising parade, but I CAN get behind this petition.

Air Force's KC-45 Legal Brief

The GAO's role in the tanker protest is still suspect. With what I'm reading, the GAO doesn't look any better or seem any more credible.

I'm reading the redacted-for-public-consumption version of the Air Force's legal brief (.PDF file at link) submitted after the GAO 'hearing'. The link to the brief was sent to me and who knows how many others on a mailing list by NG, but the AF would have had to give its imprimatur and make the release. This link was sent just before the GAO dropped the turd in the punchbowl, and I imagine NG is marshalling its forces to respond.

Interesting stuff, with very few surprises -- and very few holes we can't fill in ourselves or get the gist of from the surrounding test.

I like what I'm reading so far. I especially enjoy how the AF cites past GAO rulings and other precedents supporting their decision.

Update 2215 Hrs Central: First bombshell in the brief (to me anyway) comes around pages 86-90. In this part the AF shows how it in fact DID accept Boeing cost data, but also how Boeing did not provide other data that was requested of it, and how the AF made it clear all along that Boeing was NOT complying with the data requirement.

I Agree

When people watch a man stomp an infant/toddler to death, it is beyond disheartening.

I agree with Blackfive. (link probably not worksafe)

Pussies!

(I believe our PC society and twisted legal system contributes more to this than the innuring effects of video games or bad movie fare, BTW)

I am offended by the implication I or most people wouldn't have done better in the same situation. Sounds like Pussy-talk to me.