Ah, all things interesting once more….

From the October CPU Magazine, the opportunity to play in weightlessness, a vertiable “F” ticket ride (with an “F” ticket price tag):

The “Space Jet” conceived by EADS Astrium , a European aerospace and defense company. It has both conventional jet engines and a rocket. Takes off like a jet, heads up to about 35-40K feet and fires up the “G” maker to head up into the deep blue sky above.

Passing 60KM of altitude about 80 seconds later, the apogee will be at 100KM, with about 3 minutes of weightlessness, before heading into the atmosphere once more, using angle of descent to control the re-entry speed. 3-5 Gs will accompany this portion of the ride, with the exterior of the aircraft reaching the 250^oF range. Once low enough, the jets will be restarted and a conventional landing (hopefully) will follow a few minutes later. Total time from take-off to landing is about 2 hours….cost? Thought you’d never ask…”around” $250,000 (the price of a 1300 sq ft house in Va Beach these days).EADS is looking at a “fleet” of 20 of the Space Jets.

Captain Gustavas Conyngham
From Wikipedia:

A privateer was a private warship authorized by a country’s government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping. Strictly, a privateer was only entitled to attack enemy vessels during wartime. However, states often encouraged attacks on opposing powers while at peace, or on neutral vessels during time of war, blurring the line between privateering and piracy.

Privateers were an accepted part of naval warfare from the 16th to the 19th centuries, authorised by all significant naval powers. The costs of commissioning privateers was borne by investors hoping to gain a significant return from prize money earned from enemy merchants.
[…]

Captain Gustavas Conyngham was born in Ireland in 1744. He came to America with his father and settled in Philadelphia, PA before the Revolutionary War. He became a successful privateer captain. From the CONYNGHAM Association page:

[…]
In 1777, the merchant ship he commanded, CHARMING PEGGY, was seized and interned in Europe. He then sought and obtained a Captain’s Commission in the Continental Navy. Operating primarily in British waters, Captain Conyngham proved to be one of the most successful and audacious naval officers in the American Revolution.

His first naval command was the 100-ton cutter SURPRISE whose mission was attacking British shipping in the English Channel. After taking numerous prizes, he was given command of the cutter REVENGE which was larger and faster than SURPRISE. He continued to harass British shipping, taking more than 60 prizes in 18 months. Each ship captured was sent into a friendly port and the cargo disposed of in the interest of the revolutionary cause. Historians indicate that the proceeds from these prizes contributed materially to the operations of Benjamin Franklin and his American mission in France.

British influence finally forced the closure of French and Spanish ports to him, so he set sail for the West Indies where he convoyed American shipping in addition to continuing his task of capturing enemy merchant ships.

In 1779, Captain Conyngham returned to Philadelphia, but on his next cruise he was captured and taken prisoner as a privateer. He was interned first in New York and then in London, from where he escaped only to be recaptured while returning to America in 1780. Again, he escaped and was in France, preparing to cruise against the British, when the war ended.

Captain Conyngham returned to the merchant service and commanded the armed brig MARIA during the Quasi-War with France. Later, as a member of the common council of Philadelphia, he assisted in the defense of the city during the War of 1812. Captain Conyngham died on 27 March, 1819 and is buried in St. Peter’s Churchyard in Philadelphia.

Showing how the logistical needs of your enemy can handsomely fund your resistance obviously became a specialty for Captain Conyngham. Consider his first voyage on a 100 ton vessel, harassing British shipping right under the noses of His Royal Majesty’s finest ships and crews. Guts. Lots of them. Oh, and “Prize crews” come from your own hands on deck and ship’s officers…leaving you and the prize ships underhanded. Yet, it appears he made due somehow, probably had frequent port call credits built up in France and our eastern seaboard….

For his daring exploits and contribution to our Nation’s first war, three ships have been named for Gustavas Conyngham:

DD-58A Tucker Class Destroyer, the first USS CONYNGHAM was commissioned in January, 1916 and saw action in WWI, protecting shipping and conducting anti-submarine duties. Decommissioned in 1922.

DD-371The second USS CONYNGHAM was also a destroyer, this time of the Mahan Class. Commissioned 4 November, 1936, patrolled in the Atlantic and Med, then was sent to the Pacific Fleet. She was in Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. She became a veteran of many famous battles, being assigned aircraft carrier screening duties. Present at Midway, the Battle of Santa Cruz and Gadalcanal. Later in WWII, CONYNGHAM escorted battleships during the invasions in the Marina Islands and was also in the action in the Philippines off Leyte Gulf.She was used as a test target for “Operation Crossroads” at Bikini Atoll in 1946 and was later sunk in 1948.

DDG-17The third USS CONYNGHAM was a guided missile destroyer of the Charles F. Adams Class. Commissioned 13 June, 1963. Making 15 Med deployments, she spent her career in the Atlantic Fleet. Present to help evacuated Americans from Cypress in 1964 and 1974, she also was present in the Med for the Yom-Kippur War in 1973 and helped evacuate Beruit in 1976. She was at Grenada in 1983, and later did numerous drug interdiction patrols.In 1987, USS CONYNGHAM was the second ship to arrive after the USS STARK (FFG-31) was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles. CONYNGHAM remained nearby, providing men and supplies to help the damage control efforts to save STARK. I discussed some of my remembrances of that day in this post, which, was found by the then Executive Officer of CONYNGHAM, who left a comment.USS CONYNGHAM (DDG-17) was decommissioned 20 October, 1990, and later sold for scrap.

I sailed in company with USS CONYNGHAM (DDG-17), and my neighbor across the hall at my first apartment, ENS Tom Brubaker, was an officer aboard her. They certainly were a can do ship, with a hard charging captain. From my vantage point on the “fat ship,” I recalled them departing our starbaord side, having just taken three rigs (two fuel, one stores) and within 20 minutes announcing they were ready to take the VERTREP (helicopter delivered vertical replenishment) deliveries. It looked like an ant’s nest of frenzied activity over there, but they had the “git ‘er done” mentality working for them, long before we had heard of Larry the Cable Guy. We often commiserated together about the cost of such a reputation on the crew, but he lived and went on to a career as a civil engineer for the Navy, and I believe he ended up with the SEABEEs. We sailed on a deployment to the Med in 1978, which had both our ships in the Med when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. The USS CONYNGHAM (DDG-17) was also discussed in my post about breakaway music last year.

Before you head of to read this post and scramble to set your recorders, drop by Sunday Ship History covering the strategic surprise landing at Inchon, Korea this week in 1950 by Eagle1!

I caught the show before, but I saw last night it will be on again, Friday, Sept 21st @ 10PM (EDT) on the Science Channel.

The “Build It Bigger” series has an episode “Super Fast Warship” where Danny Forrester goes aboard the USS DONALD COOK (DDG-75)” on sea trials and gets the big nickel tour. He tours the 5″ magazines and loads powders and projectiles in the gun’s hoist. They do “PAC” (pre-action calibration fires) for the 5″/62 cal and the Mk 15 CIWS mounts, as well as showing helo ops and vertical launch missile video. Danny also crawls inside one of the LM-2500 Gas Turbine modules, and fires “air slugs” for the MK 32 triple tube Mk-46/50 torpedo mounts. In addition to this and taking a ride in the RHIB in the ocean off the coast of Maine, the host also goes into the yards of Bath Iron Works (Where America Builds destroyers!) and show some of the processes used to take raw materials and produce an incredibly advanced and complex warship in 4 years.Worth a watch. Some great detail shots and superb discussions of fabricating major parts, then putting them together with some of the biggest cranes in the world.Oh, yes, you can go to the Discovery Channel show listings and set it up for en email reminder, too!

Update 09/15/2007: Welcome, LIzards and thanks to Charles for his most excellent forums and open threads! Browse around a bit, if you have any interest in naval hisotry and current events…

Back to your regularly scheduled blog post.

I think it’s nothing more than shear jealousy, pettiness and hoping people will forget how low their ratings are.

My evidence? Well, first consider the current political environment, with the Democrats having had control of Congress since January this year. From CBS Polls “High Hopes for New congress” story:

[…]
Sixty-eight percent of those polled said they had optimistic feelings about the 110th Congress, which will be led by Democrats for the first time in 12 years. Just 25 percent said they were pessimistic.

Nearly half expect that this Congress will accomplish more than usual over the next two years.
[…]

By June, they had rated lowest in confidence of major American institutions (19%). That’s one of the parts of the explanation, but the coupling with the fact from the same Gallup Poll that the Military rated highest of the institution (69%), I believe puts the story in context.By verbally assaulting the top military commander in the war, they get to take a swipe the “the Military” in general, complete with the cameras and sound endless blathering bites, for the record.As reported on 9/5/2007, the Gallup data shows people are frustrated with the inaction from Congress:

Congress is returning from its summer recess at a time when the public is highly dissatisfied with the job it is doing. Last month, Congress’ approval rating was 18% — matching the lowest Gallup has measured since it first asked the question in 1974. To gain more insight as to why Americans are so displeased with Congress, an Aug. 23-26, 2007, Gallup Panel survey asked Americans to explain in their own words why they hold the view they do about Congress.

The poll results make clear that Americans who disapprove of the job Congress is doing are frustrated with perceived inaction — either in general or in regards to specific issues such as the Iraq war, illegal immigration, or serving the needs of the people. There is also a widely held perception that there is too much bickering and party politics in Congress.
[…]

I’m not sure why Gallup characterized some of the respondents answers as “perceived,” for it does appear not much, except real bickering has happened. We still don’t even have a Defense Authorization Bill, which was to have been done even before the IraqiAmerican Congress took their vacation in August.

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that people so hell bent on using polls before deciding what to say at any given moment might take the time to mentally digest what this one tells them…and maybe, consider getting to work and stopping the bickering…

Now, add some fuel to the fire: While Democrats from Congress were posturing for the “We have a staked goat, and you’re it” tactics of the hearings, the American people (using Gallup Poll data) said they have confidence in General Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as reported on September 10th:

As Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, prepares to testify before Congress on the situation in Iraq, it is unclear to what extent his report will change American minds on the war. A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that while a majority of Americans are confident in Petraeus’ recommendations about what to do next in Iraq, most expect that rather than being an objective assessment of the situation in Iraq, the report will be biased to reflect what the Bush administration wants the public to believe. Only about one-third of Americans say the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is making the situation there better, and most continue to favor a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Trust in Petraeus

According to the Sept. 7-8 poll, the public has more trust in Petraeus’ recommendations for what to do next in Iraq than it does in other key leaders involved in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq. Sixty-three percent of Americans say they have a great deal (27%) or a fair amount (36%) of confidence in Petraeus’ recommendations. Fifty-eight percent have confidence in what the “Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military leaders at the Pentagon” would recommend.

Americans have far less trust in political leaders than in military leaders when it comes to Iraq policy.
[…]

Think about it: If you’re stupid, you get send to fight a war in Iraq, but the man who made this egregious statement (oh, yes, he served in Vietnam), is part of an institution the people have almost no confidence in, and the ones who are fighting the war, wearing a uniform are trusted by more than a simple majority of the populace, to plan a course for the current conflict. My, my, my. I would hope this would make jfk stay awake at night, trying to figure out if Al Gore can help him get his remarks stricken from the Internet.

Did they do it consciously? I’m beginning to think they didn’t. Had they brought this approach up in a strategic planning session, that someone would have spoken up and said what a stupid move it would be because of the massive backlash from the people. But, as I’ve commented on before, this very type of behavior is never questioned, for the Democrat Party leadership is effectively devoid of anyone with any significant military service time, and schooling in sure matters.

I believe both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as the most likely front runners for the Presidency have lost votes they were counting on. While many Americans don’t like the war, I’m not certain they will consider voting in vindictive, petty politicians, who take pleasure, for their personal power gain, to say to the world “I don’t trust my military to speak truth” in so many words.

On the other hand, General Petraeus’ calm demeanor is the outcome of being a man who has seen combat. Words from these people cannot harm him. I thought of the talk of two WWII armor officers, who served under Patton, one in particular, who talked about being the the MSM after the War and having people threaten them. They laughed, knowing full well words were no threat to their lives…I cast General Petraeus in the same role now, as that newspaper editor was in in the 50s and 60s.

The Democrats made a big mis-step these past two weeks. Not only did they appear foolish, they have provided a lot of working material to Republican strategists.

Tracked back @: SteelJaw Scribe

For a long time, I have had my eyes be attracted to earth bound transportation that have the looks of fighter planes.

Thanks to CPU Magazine, I found one more:

It’s the “alé” from Fuel Vapor Cars:

The “alé” features a unique 3-wheeled configuration: 2 in the front, and one in the rear. The front wheels drive and steer the vehicle. This design enables the car to perform at a superb level, particularly in cornering, with the car easily pulling 1.7 g’s in corners during track testing on street tires. The three-wheeled automotive platform also aid in improving fuel efficiency and aerodynamics.

Honda mill, swallowing a highly vaporized fuel mixture, getting 92 MPG on gasoline! Runs lean, low emissions, 1/4 mi in the low 12s, measures side forces of 1.7G in the corners….

But…IT LOOKS LIKE THE BUSINESS END OF A FIGHTER!

Added benefit (IMHO): One seater, so I don’t have to fight over listening to talk radio while I’m driving…Might be in limited production next year, in the $75-100K range. Just consider the pent up frustration those of us with bad eyes can purge ourselves of, especially when they go into mass production.

If, however, you’re more into open cockpits, bugs in the teeth type of pseudo flying experience, and have a “green” streak in your genes:

Then there’s the “Killacycle” (Hot chick not included, void where prohibited, not available if you can’t get your own, and not legal in all 50 states anyhow), the battery powered motorcycle. 8.168 in the qtr mile makes it really fast…but it uses over 1000 batteries to make that happen.

There you are: Today’s gleaned technology news, selected because I think it’s cool stuff.

The Soviets, and their parred down left overs, the Russians, have a bad habit of copying “stuff” we design, test and produce. Side Note: We’re not above doing a little ourselves, but that can be a whole series of posts unto itself….

So, we made the “Mother of All Bombs,” the Massive Ordnance Air Burst bomb in 1993. weighing in at 21,000 lbs, it is 6K lbs heavier than the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter” used since the Vietnam War. The weapon relies upon it’s “FAE” (fuel air explosive) characteristics to make a point when it detonates.So, the Russians, after a decade and a few years, have managed to make what they call the “Father of All Bombs.”

Russia’s military yesterday announced that it had successfully tested a lethal new air-delivered bomb, which it described as the world’s most powerful non-nuclear weapon.

In what appears to be the Kremlin’s latest display of military might, officials said Moscow had developed a new thermobaric bomb to add to its already potent nuclear arsenal.

Russia’s state-run Channel One television said the new ordnance – dubbed the Father of all Bombs – is four times more powerful than the US’s Mother of all Bombs.
[…]

According to the article, the FOAB is delivered by the TU-160 “Blackjack” strategic bomber (oh, BTW, a knock off of the B-1 Lancer), reported to have a payload 88,220 lbs, which, would square with the “four times” as big claim….The Guardian, where I found this report, can’t manage to stick to reporting, but has to blame this new weapons on President Bush’s plan to locate ABM systems in Europe:

[…]
The development of this latest device appears to be another response to the Bush administration’s plans to site elements of its missile defence system in central Europe. Mr Putin has denounced the plan, arguing that it upsets Europe’s strategic balance, and has vowed to respond.
[…]

My comment: What buffons! Weaponry such as this didn’t begin their development on June 7th (or 8th, if you want to to think the leadership slept on the decision to order the development), 2007. Besides, from a tactical standpoint, you wouldn’t need an “almost a nuke” to render ABM sites combat ineffective. No, the Russians made it, because they want to have a “big bang” in their pocket, and can say with a straight face, “nope, that’s sure not a nuke we got here, boys!” at the negotiation table.

Anyhow, We’re gonna have to make a bigger bomber if we’re gonna compete in the “who can make the Grand-Pappy” of all bombs race…

Update 09/14/2007: Major John (USAF) of OpFor sez we got a bomb with more bang than the new one the Russians built…and oh, yea, it goes deep and then goes “BOOM!” The Russian FOAB isn’t a penetrator…ya’ll paying attention Iran?

Certainly these days try a mental capacity. Between the anniversary of 9/11 and the reports to Congress…I’m digging deep for something to write about…

My first trip to the wonderful garden spot of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to spend some time with my soon to be new friends from Fleet Training Group was sometime in late 1977. Still a wet behind the ears Ensign at the time, I had several months of “Mac-inizing” to my credit and junior officer upbringing, so some basic philosophical foundations were already solidifying.

I was the Combat Information Center Officer (CICO), and therefore played a major part of the daily details of the events. Between being the RADAR Navigation Piloting Officer for entering and exiting port and anchorage, the “war” that virtually happened around our fine vessel was recorded, evaluated and disseminated from my little domain of CIC. Much of the pretend world, fondly called “scenarios” for us big boys playing, had to be acquiesced to by myself and my crew, and a little ad-libbing had to be inserted at times, just so there was a bit of consistency in the reporting of the things that most likely would have occurred in the real world, had we been i a real shoot ’em up.

I recall a Coast Guardsman, an RD1 by rate (equivalent to the now Operations Specialist (OS) rating in the Navy), was assigned as the chief observer for our world. There was something, and I’m not sure what, that caused me to have to “make some s— up” for the story to hold together, and I guess I, having had a number of long, hard days already, decided to make it good, much to the exasperation of the RD1, USCG in our midst (the master of our grades for the Division), and he requested a meeting with me on the weather deck, outside of CIC.

I think it was a compliment, but he didn’t have that sort of look on his face when he said: “You know what your problem is, Ensign? You play too real!” I actually had visions of if I could toss his short little form clear of the kingpost for the STREAM rig, leaving only the impact with the water about 40 feet below to leave any marks…for I was a little upset, not fully appreciating I was being accused of getting into the game more throughly than the instructors themselves.

Must have been the rapid fire questions to force him to fill in the blanks to keep things going….

Chief Mac and I laughed about it all later.

He deserves to be recognized for his lifelong dedication to serving those humans he lived among, finally giving his life on 9/11/2001, yet saving the employees for the firm he worked for. Why? Because he knew, because he prepared, because he was courageous beyond what I can imagine across decades and continents, in a uniform of armed services, and in civilian clothes.

Black Five posts it again, the story of Col Rick Rescorla, USA (RET), a naturalized American, veteran of the British and US Armies. Hero on the battle fields of Vietnam, and, sadly, the last time, in the stairwells of the World Trade Center.

Read the definitive, detailed story of Rick by Greyhawk of Mudville Gazette and know people like this exist and will sacrifice themselves, not for 72 virgins in eternity, but for that person next to them.

When you’re filled with awe, get over and place your name on the petition to President Bush, requesting “Rick” Rescorla be honored by this nation with the award of the Medal of Freedom.

Last Friday, Rush got on quite a straight forward monologue, and a particular part of it got me thinking.

Over the last several years, the constant complaint from the Left has been that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. In actuality, we did so quite deliberately, rather than a spur of the moment idea. Rush was talking about this very thing and I realized the move into Iraq was brilliant. Why?

Trying to fight in Afghanistan, which is proving to be successful, is a tough proposition. Over not all that distant history, at least two major superpowers found out the hard way that taking conventional military forces into that region of the world caused disaster. The lines of communications are long, and between the sea and the mountainous country of Afghanistan are other sovereign nations, which requires diplomacy for the access or further military operations to seize and hold supply lines. We face the same thing today. Certainly, with the airlift capacity of the Air Force, we can haul lots of cargo and men, but there’s nothing that beats ships and logistics trains of trucks, trucks and more trucks. So, from a strategic logistical standpoint, fighting in Afghanistan is a too hard for a major conflict.

From a terrain standpoint, there are all sorts of issues. A lot of real estate, where the enemy can easily hide, are up at the top end of the altitude range for our ever present air mobile transports, in other words, helicopters. Add to that, the mountains make flying close air support a difficult task. Tactically, our ability to mass firepower becomes limited quickly.

From Afghanistan, troops can strategically tie down terrorist forces, and pick away at them, keeping them from the larger engagements in the GWoT. Not only can they keep them off the main field of battle, Iraq, as stated by the many communiques of al-Qaeda, but also out of our shopping malls and government buildings here at home. That, in and of itself, is a successful employment of our service personnel, and that of NATO and other allied nations to that country.

Iraq, on the other hand, while hot and sandy, has access to seaports (limited, but there is some, as well in neighboring Kuwait) and the land mass is characterized by lots of open terrain, ideally suited to bring many types of vehicles to any fight. Helos are not limited by the altitude and TACAIR isn’t in constant danger of colliding with ridges and mountains while carrying out their missions of ground support. Caves are not a prevalent attribute of the land, either.

But, let’s cut to the chase: When fighting a “stateless” enemy, with forces comprised of citizens from many countries, many whom are, at the national level, allied with us, just where do you stand to conduct the military operations? That’s the real salient point Rush got me thinking about. If not in Iraq, one at least with a basically secular and educated population, because of and in spite of Saddam’s rule, then where?

Which US citizens would provide their land within our borders to let us have the fight here, so we don’t conduct military operations on the soil of another country? My bet is tending toward none. For the Democrats, which Blue State would be first to offer their territory to serve as the staging area for the terrorists of many lands, to come and have the fight they are spoiling for? Tending towards zero again, I’d venture once more.

If the battles were to take place here, with the demonstrated ability of the terrorists to slip through our dragnets, who would actually want to risk them loose in our neighborhoods and cities? I think many would change their tunes about “freedom fighters” when they same were somewhere nearer to them than about 6,000 miles away.

Given the propensity of the Left to make this out as some sort of law enforcement effort, once the decision was made to not disturb any other country, would they want to turn the “work” over to police, sheriffs and the FBI? Something about Posse Comitatus might certainly come up, thereby depriving us of the most effective arm of the Government to take on this fight.

Fanciful, I know, the part at the end, but, if not in Iraq, as Rush alluded to, then where would we have had this war to date?

All in all, the choice or Iraq is brilliant for the full employment of our military forces, in my opinion.

Found this today following the single piece of satirical artwork posted at Little Green Footballs. Check out Red Planet Cartoons:

There’s more satire where that one came from!