major fire

our house was destroyed on wednesday. more details to follow.

Leia Mais…

Using $100 Artillery Shells to Save Money.

But if you are just using simple artillery shells, you are committing yourself to a strategy that sacrifices accuracy, depends on multiple launchers for the shells, and increases the instances of accidental fratricide & collateral damage. That single smart bomb may cost $50,000, but it also requires less manpower to place into combat, is accurate to within feet, and dramatically lowers fratricide & collateral damage.

Plus, the laser guided munition is a one shot to effectiveness weapon. A mass of artillery could be as high as a 50:1 shot effectiveness.

Weapons development runs in terms of decades. Existing systems may be adequate for the most recent combats. And often, these weapons systems will remain a superior technology for many years. The reality however is that militaries that have not innovated weapons technologies often find themselves behind the 8 ball when combat erupts.

It is very rare that a weapons system is developed that is so superior that it can remain the preeminent technology choice for tactical combat use. For example, the B-52 is a system that has undergone continuous modifications to enable it to maintain its tactical value. But while the B-52 program is decades old, oter systems which took decades to deploy have fallen by the wayside. B-36, B-47, B-57, B-58, & B-70 projects all took millions of dollars to develop ( in today's dollars all were billion + projects. Most saw service, and most were withdrawn from service when their tactical benefits were outweighed by expected combat realities.

In some cases prevailing technologies simply made packages obsolete. Eg the B-36. In other cases the expected role for a weapons system vanished. EG B-47 & B-57. Or in some cases the expected need for a system became so remote that keeping the system on program became the equivalent of making sure you had a sledgehammer for every mosquito. Eg. B-70, B-1, and to some extent the B-2 since the intended number of airframes and general missions for the plane were dramatically scaled back.

The costs with the changes can be mind boggling. For example the B-36 was originally developed to replace the then in service B-29, But even though it took half a decade to deploy the B-36 as originally designed, jet propulsion had become necessary for strategic/tactical bombers. The B-52, B-47, & B-49 were in varying phases of development, but were not ready to deploy. To fill the expected mission need, the B-36's were all retrofitted with tandem engine pods which, lead to the description of the B-36 as "Four burning-Six Turning" plane. Four turbojet engines & six turboprop engines being the source of said power for the plane.

The thing is that the development of plane systems sometimes forces such measures. The B-47 was first started in 1945, didn't get fully deployed until 1960, and was withdrawn in 1965 because it was already obsolete. The B-49 of course took years to develop first as a turbo-prop driven bomber. Then it was changed to turbojet powerplants. And then when the B-52 was judged to be "good enough" to do both strategic and tactical bombing- all the B-49 planes were cut up for scrap.

But consider that on average most plane based systems take at least 15 years to move from request for design to an actual flying system. In the case of the B-2, it was first requested in 1981, had its first test flight in 1989, & had its first delivered operation plane in 1994. That is fourteen years from request to delivery. And like the B-52, the system's original role became different by the time it deployed. The expected 100+ airframes wound up being cut to less than 30. And its nuclear only role was changed to both nuclear and conventional strategic/tactical roles.

The cost of a system like the B-2 is assuredly fantastic. But if you are intending to provide your military with the most tactically flexible and effective weapons platforms, you will need a lot of time to make such systems available. In the passage of time, the expected combat reality may change so much that detrimental things can happen. Such as the need for the system no longer exists as happened to the B-49. The combat effectiveness of a system gets over taken making the system ineffectual as happened to the B-47. The costs associated with the system become to excessive to maintain compared to the tactical advantage offered by the system, as happened to the B-70, B-1 & B-2- resulting in outright cancellations or order reductions.

But however you want to look at it, these programs have a very good track record of offering our military systems that were the best at the time. It may be cheaper to build a single system and then simply maintain that system in quantity to offset the effective combat quality decline. The Soviets did that with their Tupolov bomber systems. They were on par with the B-36 in the 1940's. Were already obsolete by the 1950's compared to any American bomber or interceptor aircraft. And while the Russians are still flying the same original design today, no one realistically expects that those bombers could complete a combat mission unless their mission was taking place in an environment of zero air opposition.

Is the Russian bomber better because it has existed for over half a century? Probably not. But the Tupolov bomber sure did save money for the Russian tax payer. But if the Russians needed to use their current bombers in anger, would they be combat effective and sustainable as a weapons platform? Not a chance.

So a lot of people complain about these systems as being too costly, ineffectual, or unneeded for current threats. The reality is that maintaining the superior tactical and strategic advantage is a lot cheaper than showing up with a weapons system that isn't up to the circumstances of the combat it finds itself deployed against.

Leia Mais…

Clinton's Gaff?

The context- they asked why she is still in the race. She answered that historically it isn't over until all the votes are in and a candidate gets nominated. She used two examples her husband not getting the nod until june and RFK seemingly coasting to a nomination that didn't happen.

It is a very valid point in a political context. Depending on who is doing the counting, Clinton has the popular vote. If that alone has been the factor for Democrats to whine on about how the "election" has been stolen in 2000 &2004- imagine how whiney they would be if the top vote getter in the party is forced out by party functionaries before the convention?

She really didn't say anything wrong at all. It was a statement of political reality. She shouldn't just drop out because it is inconvenient to Howard Dean.

I absolutely loath Hillary Clinton to degrees that are hard to express. I have actively sought to not even see her on the TV or read about her during this campaign. I would like nothing better than for her and the Clinton machine to falter and disappear from national politics. To me anything that keeps her out of the White House is a blessing.

Except if she isn't being given a fair shake.

And in this case- she certainly isn't. She was asked a fair question and gave the only answer that makes logical sense. She is in it because it isn't over, and history has shown repeatedly that the candidates really are not finalized until June in contested nominations. It is unfortunate for the DNC that in an otherwise perfect storm for the Republicans, the Democrats still have a contested race between two nearly equal candidates. Obama needed a short primary season because he really has only won caucus states and states that have motivated majority young voters. He hasn't played well in the big states. He hasn't played well in older populations. Meaning he really is only where he is because he correctly judged that Super Tuesday would attract a lot of first time voters who wanted to cast a novelty vote for a black man. He knew that a strong showing- even if he didn't win- would place him on the same tier as Clinton and allow him to exploit the one weakness Clinton had- an almost skeletal caucus resource.

Obama had the caucus forces ready to go if he survived Super Tuesday. Clinton didn't. Obama strung together a string of minor caucus states into a seemingly unstoppable wave. Point is, Clinton kept winning the big states and capturing the core of the Democratic party. Obama got the college kids, first time young voters, intelligentsia, and blacks. Clinton captured everyone else- including those voters most likely to vote in the general election. In a very real sense Clinton is indeed the stronger candidate. She has more physical votes, she has more victories in primaries, and her only weakness was she really SNAFU'd the caucuses.

When it gets to the convention, and the closed door smoke starts flowing, a lot of DNC leaders are going to be faced with the fact that Obama is primarily the presumptive candidate based on poor Clinton campaign practices following Super Tuesday. And a lot of them are going to look at the polls amongst Democrats who voted for Clinton that show they will either not vote for Obama or vote for McCain in the general election.

It isn't much of a stretch at all for Clinton to really think she has a realistic chance at walking out of the convention with the nomination. So when some local newspaper editorial board asks the question "WTF are you still running?" and she answers "Because history has repeatedly shown the nomination isn't a done deal until its off the convention floor" it isn't an offensive insult or gaff.

It is the truth.

Ted Kennedy almost walked out of the 1980 convention with the nomination. He was clearly the more electable compared to Carter. But for some unknown reason, Kennedy suddenly agreed behind closed doors that for the sake of party unity, there wouldn't be a floor fight. Instead of giving his speech while still seeking the nomination, he announced he was throwing it all behind Carter.

He then gave the single best political speech I have ever heard. The people on the floor- including Carter's supporters- attempted to vote by acclaim to make Ted Kennedy the nominee of the Democratic Party. He came out on the podium with Carter and pushed Carter to the mike.

Incidentally, the speech Kennedy gave after he agreed to drop out was the same one he had been prepared to give as a candidate seeking the nomination. Had he not conceded for the sake of unity and per the DNC leaders who were desperate to get the general campaign initiated infomercial style during the convention coverage, Kennedy would have been the nominee and Reagan would have flamed out in November of 1980.

So, if Clinton telling some newspaper editors that she is in it until the nominee is determined for whatever reason- be it a landslide comeback slaughter as her Husband did in the last primaries or an assassin's bullet as happened to RFK- is a gaff, then politics has been defaulted to the least logical and educated value that can be imagined.

If the Kennedy's weren't offended by the statement of fact- its pretty sorry that the media and those below Obama himself in his campaign have been all too willing to script it as such.

As a Clinton despiser, I would be more than happy to jump on any valid criticism bandwagon aimed at her. But this is really wishful propaganda being spun against her.

Leia Mais…