Jeff Russell’s STARSHIP DIMENSIONS
This nifty little link was sent to me some time back by my brother. It’s pretty typical of the crap that he sends me on a regular basis. It compares vehicles and starships from many different movies and televison shows.
I really had no idea that the battlestars from Battlestar Galactica were so puny. Pathetic.
While at a training session today at an automotive assembly plant in Indiana, we were told that instead of 1st shift and 2nd shift, they have a “blue crew” and a “gold crew”. We were told that the colors represented the state colors of Indiana. Although I couldn’t confirm that Indiana even has official state colors, their flag is blue and gold.
That reminded me of the practice aboard US nuclear missile subs of having a “Blue Crew” and a “Gold Crew”. Each crew is a complete boat’s complement, including two different captains. The two crews alternate patrols, one crew manning the sub for a two-month patrol while the other has some R&R and then retrains for the next patrol. I googled and came up with a page about the USS Benjamin Franklin that says
The two-crew system accomplishes several objectives. Most importantly, it enables the submarine to be at sea more than eight months during the year. This means the submarine can be kept at sea for over two thirds of its operational lifetime. An SSBN at sea and submerged is essentially invisible, and hence survivable from an enemy attack. This enables proper execution of the SSBN’s strategic deterrence mission.Second, it provides a regular program of refresher training for the “off” crew. Each crew must be ready at all times while on patrol. They must be experts on their equipment to keep it running during the long patrol. Refresher training on equipment exactly like that found on the sub keeps the “off” crew sharp. Intensive instruction serves to continually upgrade their knowledge.
This means that the crew at sea is always action ready, and means that the sub is at sea for a far greater percentage of her life. This basically allows one sub to do the work of two. At more than $1.5 Billion (not including the 24 Trident missiles) to build each Ohio-class sub, that’s significant, even if you don’t consider the operating expenses of each boat.
Our fleet of ballistic missile submarines was our greatest single deterrence weapon during the Cold War (what I call WW3) and with each of them at sea nearly 75% of the time, the Soviets had to keep throwing large numbers of attack subs out into the oceans and hope for a lucky break. Unlike our missile silos and bomber bases, for a majority of the time the Soviets just plain didn’t know where our missile subs were. If the cold war had turned hot, I don’t think many breaks would have gone their way in the sub wars.
Over at the USS Clueless Steven DenBeste also has a post on the MSNBC poll I mentioned. Although he doesn’t take issue with the headlines, he definitely makes the point that the Democrats are really clutching at staws when they play the “Bush Lied” card.
He even quoted the same passages that I did. Or rather, I quoted the same passages as he did. But, although he posted last night and I didn’t post until this morning, I swear I hadn’t read his when I wrote mine. And he also has this to say:
Never mind that the political decision for war had been made in October, when Congress (including the Senate, which was controlled by the Democrats at the time) passed an authorization for war under the War Powers Act.
Very few remember this little point.
And don’t be afraid to check out his post. It isn’t all that long. Really.
In today’s Strategy Page Infantry Section (copied completely because SP has no permalinks to indivdual posts):
The U.S. Marines are getting a new Kevlar helmet this Summer. Some 43,000 combat troops are getting the new headgear, that looks like the current helmet, but is 15 percent lighter, provides more protection and is a lot more comfortable. A new “five point retention strap” and improved interior design keeps the helmet stable when the marine is moving, and is more comfortable in general. The helmet is also a little higher in the back, eliminating the problem of the rear of the helmet bumping into body armor when the marine is prone. The new helmet is designed to stop 9mm bullets (from pistols or automatic weapons) and is better able to stop shell fragments than the older helmet. The army is working on a similar helmet, and may end up using the same one the marines are being issued.
Why is the army “working on a similar helmet”? If the Marines’ helmet is the right helmet, why can’t the army use it? If it’s not the right helmet, why are the Marines buying it? I know the answer is the military’s procurement system. But it needs to be fixed. Really. Unless there’s some reason that the Marines and Army need different helmets, they should pool development resources and get the best helmet. I’m guessing that if they worked together, 75% of the total expenditure (in time and money) would get a helmet 25% better than either the Marines or Army will eventually get.
Doubts rise on credibility of evidence for Iraq war
Under the front page link of “Doubts rise on Iraq war credibility” is a report that includes
Forty-seven percent said they believed Bush exaggerated the evidence, while 48 percent said he presented the most complete information he had.
and
But respondents faulted Democrats for making too much of the issue. More than half, 56 percent, said the Democrats were “playing politics” by accusing Bush of making misleading claims, compared with 30 percent who said the criticism was valid.
Nor has the drop in trust shaken Americans’ underlying belief that the war was proper. More than two-thirds–69 percent–continue to believe the United States “should have taken military action,” down a statistically insignificant 2 points from May.
It’s a good report on the first poll taken since Bush publicly took responsibility for including those sixteen awful words in the State of the Union speech. I just think the link and the headline are a little misleading.
I’m just saying.
The simultaneous posting of price cuts for existing Opteron processors and benchmark results for new Opteron processors has PC World wondering if the next wave of AMD server chips is coming soon. Personally, I couldn’t care less. But at the end of the piece is
AMD will release the desktop version of the Opteron, the Athlon64 chip, on September 23.
September 23 is Springsteen’s birthday. Is it even possible that’s nothing more than a wild coincidence?
I think so.
Springsteen Ticket Scalpers, Glory Days Have Passed You By
Tickets for $5? Are you kidding me?
The demand is there, but not 550,000 seats’ worth. Maybe I’ll head to Eath Rutherford.
Congress questions Defense Department’s cybersecurity plans
This PC World piece discusses potential vulnerability in our military’s computer infrastructure. Major concerns are the widespread use of off-the-shelf software which could easily be hacked, the fact that, with the same software used across many systems, one problem or successful attack could bring down significant protions of the network, and outsourcing software development to non-US companies and idividuals. It also brings up some of the upside to each concern, such as cost-savings, eased training, and quicker system-wide fixes.
But professor Eugene Spafford, director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Purdue University, dodged a question put to him while making a report to the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities.
Representative Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican, asked witnesses what would happen to the U.S. military if all computer systems were knocked out. A nuclear bomb set off in the upper atmosphere could take out most communication satellites, and Bartlett questioned whether the DOD has a backup plan for such a scenario.
‘Are we just through if our computer systems don’t work?’ he asked.
Such a scenario seems unlikely, Spafford answered. ‘Taking out all the computers would be a very difficult thing to do,’ he said.
Well. Bartlett didn’t ask how difficult it was. He asked what would happen if it did. Apparently, Spafford didn’t want to answer the question. Why could that be?
PCWorld.com – Iraq’s Most Wanted Cards 3D Screensaver
$6 shareware. $1 of each goes to the American Red Cross.
ScrappleFace: Today’s Raped-By-Uday Count Stands at Zero
Although I imagine the quote by an “unnamed Pentagon spokesman” is bogus, does this really qualify as satire?
