Archive for October, 2003
Here’s a nifty little chart that outlines the differences between pro, college, and high school football. (via One Hand Clapping)
Collection of 26 Beanie Babies from Ex-Wife
Funnyfunnyfunny. (via One Hand Clapping)
INTEL DUMP: Lawmakers push for better body armor — and the Pentagon responds
Phil Carter, who has been keeping an eye on the Interceptor body armor issue, has another post on the subject.
The Pentagon jump-started the procurement of this body armor a few months ago, and there appears to be no feasible way at this point to make the production lines move any faster. At this point, December 2003 may be the best that our military-industrial complex can do in terms of a delivery date for these pieces of equipment, and soldiers couldn’t even buy these items faster if they wanted to with a personal credit card.
The government seems to have jumped all over this, at least since the story went public. Ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking. Why didn’t they think of this during the year-long rush to war?
Apparently, on August 28th a weapon of some sort penetrated the side armor of an M1A1 tank, passed through the back of the gunner’s seat (and damaging his flak jacket), tearing through some interior systems, and damaging the opposite side of the hull.
Check the link above for an amazing series of photos.
A question: Why has this been released publicly? I’m all for open sharing of information, but it seems to me that letting this out does nothing for us and potentially gives vital feedback to the enemy that used the “mystery” weapon. Simply calling it that gives it a certain reputation that can do nothing except give heart to our foes. Just a thought.
I’m on the road again, this time to Kansas. At least we’re staying at a Drury Inn, which comes with high-speed internet access. I’ll post a bit if/when I get a chance.
In the meantime, check out some of the folks on the right. All quality stuff.
Sullivan notes the good economic news.
This is bad, bad news for the Democrats. But the really bad news is that their main policy right now is hoping for bad news.
That is really discouraging, but they don’t seem to really latch on to what I think are some of the administration’s weaknesses. The Dems keep trying to find a Lewinsky-like scandal (Plame, “imminent threat”, sixteen words, etc.) that will really capture everyone’s imagination. They don’t seem to realize that Clinton actually came out of Lewinskygate (and the Lincoln Bedroom, China connections, etc.) in decent, if not respectable, shape with the bulk of the American public.
Air-tanker plan could hurt fighter project
Naming a specific program after noting last week that buying tankers instead of leasing them might cause cuts in other programs, the Air Force’s top acquisition official says that the F/A-22 fighter program might have to be cut if the compromise plan goes through.
IMHO, that just makes buying the 767 tankers outright look even better.
As noted earlier, the F/A-22 program is budgeted for a certain dollar amount, not for a certain number of planes at a specific price. No matter how many planes we get the total bill is going to be the same. And there’s not an enemy air force in sight. I mentioned earlier today that the biggest threat most of our potential enemies can put into the sky seem to be RPG-7s.
Why the media isn’t all over this tanker debacle is beyond me. I must admit that over the past couple of weeks the number of stories has increased, but this deal almost went through without anyone really noticing.
In related news, Forbes notes a study that questions the nearly (or over) $6 billion deal that Boeing gets to maintain the new tanker fleet. Later, it mentions $6 billion for training and maintenance awarded without a competitive bidding process.
CBO concluded in a recent study that the Air Force was paying two to three times too much for the maintenance contract.
I’m not advocating automatically taking the lowest bid regardless of qualifications, but let’s not just hand out blank checks, either.
Again, I’d like to point out that nearly every story on this deal uses different figures. Not that there might not be a very legitimate reason for the discrepancies, but it certainly gives me the impression that no one is shooting straight on this one.
Also, this is very significant:
Air Force says tanker corrosion not acute
The Air Force disclosed yesterday that components in its refueling tankers have only occasionally been replaced because of age-related corrosion, an issue at the heart of debate about the urgency of replacing the tanker fleet with new aircraft from Boeing.
This is CENTRAL to the debate over new tankers. The argument goes that we cannot afford to wait until there is money in the budget to buy new tankers because the old tankers are suffering from extensive corrosion problems. That is why it makes sense to lease, even though it will cost more than purchasing them outright.
But if we don’t really need new tankers, at least not immediately, the argument falls on its face. John McCain, the leading critic of the lease plan, threatened to subpoena the information when the Air Force wouldn’t release it to him.
McCain said: “The data is very revealing. It clearly indicates (corrosion) is a negligible concern here.”The Air Force initially told Congress the information supplied yesterday had been destroyed and the people who prepared it were not available, McCain said.
He said some Air Force technicians had told congressional staff they were proud of their ability to keep age-related corrosion in the existing tankers very low, a point at odds with the contentions of top Air Force officials.
(Empahsis mine.) I’ll say it again. If we truly need new tankers, I fully support buying them. If our current tankers were falling out of the sky and our backs were against the wall in this Fourth World War, I’d even support leasing them if it was the only way to get them. But our current tankers are okay, at least for now.
Would it be nice to get new ones? Sure it would. But the big bucks could be far better spent on things like Interceptor Body Armor and other equipment for our guys in the field. Not as “sexy” as a huge new tanker program or a supersonic air supremacy fighter, maybe, but certainly a lot more valuable in our war against terror.
The Onion: ‘Well, You Try To Reconstruct Iraq,’ Says U.S. Defensive Dept.
The Onion is funny. Very funny. They’re definitely Left-leaning, but still quite humorous. This article (which was pointed out by Hell In A Handbasket) works pretty hard to poke fun at a serious issue. Which is the whole point of satire. And the best satire is well-grounded in truth.
Like this one.
WASHINGTON, ”Responding to recent criticism of reconstruction efforts in Iraq, the U.S. Defensive Department released a statement to the public Monday suggesting that perhaps they could do better, since they’re obviously so smart. “Well, it looks like you American people have figured it all out, then,” the statement read in part. “There’s no need for the old government to do anything, because the citizens know just how to handle this whole reconstruction-of-Iraq thing. Well, go ahead! If it’s so simple, and if you’re so smart, then what’s stopping you? Come on.”“Oh, gosh!” the statement continued. “Wait! It looks like Iraq is a whole big country! And it seems that someone just fought a war there, to oust a despotic regime! So, gee, this might take a while, huh?”
and
“In fact, I’ll pay for it!” said Pettibone, extending his wallet toward the assembled press corps. “Here! Here’s, let’s see, $49. Go ahead! Rebuild the infrastructure! Find the weapons of mass destruction! Keep the peace! What? This $49 isn’t enough? Do you wish you had, say, about $87 billion to use right now? Well, well, well. How quickly things change.”
and
Pettibone muttered that members of the Bush Administration happen to have a little bit of experience in matters of foreign policy.“Those working on the reconstruction effort are not just a bunch of idiots,” Pettibone said. “Many have studied Mideast policy for decades. They have extensive experience serving under past presidents. What have you done? You read an article in U.S. News & World Report!”
And the article points out that a lot of the critics don’t even vote. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Some days it’s hard to tell the difference between satire and reality.
Voyager 1 is now over 90 Astronomical Units (1 AU = distance from our Sun to the Earth) from the Earth. It’s moving at about 38,436 miles per hour.
That’s booking.
On August 19th I posted that Voyager 1 was merely 12.34 light hours away. Maybe Voyager 1 is the only ship to make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
(Yes, I know that a parsec is a measure of distance and not of time.)
