Archive for the ‘military’ Category

Oops – some writer just lost his job

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

12 very expensive F-35 jets have been grounded because the ejection seats parachutes were installed backwards. Why? Because somebody (maybe a hapless technical writer) screwed up the procedure.

They loaded the parachutes in their ejection seats in the wrong way, they were “reversed 180 degrees from design during installation,” according to Joe Dellavedova, at the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office. The reason for the incorrect loading of the parachutes was “improperly drafted packing procedures.” A one trillion dollar plane grounded by “improperly drafted packing procedures.” Let that sink for a bit.

Dellavedova argues that this “wouldn’t have prevented the pilot from ejecting and landing.” But of course, it wouldn’t be the right kind of landing and the pilots could have been injured because they would be hitting the ground in the wrong position, according to Aviation Week’s industry experts:

Are you reading this, Mr. Harper?

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

I hope someone in the prime minister’s office is reading this article about the escalating costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which our government has picked to replace the F-18.  Of course, it won’t change their minds, after all, it’s only our tax dollars they’re wasting. We can only hope the U.S. government comes to it’s senses and kills the program completely.

But that optimism proved unfounded. “This assessment shows that the F-35 program has discovered and is continuing to discover issues at a rate more typical of early design experience on previous aircraft development programs,” the panelists explained. Testing uncovered problems the computers did not predict, resulting in 725 design changes while new jets were rolling off the factory floor in Ft. Worth, Texas.

And every change takes time and costs money. To pay for the fixes, this year, the Pentagon cut its F-35 order from 42 to 30. Next year’s order dropped from 35 to 30. “It’s basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden,” Venlet said.

News of more costs and delays could not have come at a worse time for the Joint Strike Fighter. The program has already been restructured twice since 2010, each time getting stretched out and more expensive. In January, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put the Marines’ overweight F-35B variant, which is designed to take off and land vertically, on probation. If Lockheed couldn’t fix the jump jet within two years, “it should be cancelled,” Gates advised.

This is the airplane our government will spend billions on

Monday, May 30th, 2011

The Canadian (pardon me, Harper) government will be spending umpteen billions of dollars replacing Canada’s F-18s with the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Here’s a (fairly underwhelming) video of its first public appearance at an air show at Andrews Air Force Base.

Personally, I’d be happier if they’d just buy an upgraded version of the F-18. I really have my doubts about flying a single-engine jet on long intercept missions over the Canadian arctic. I wonder if anyone has queried our pilots on what they think?

U.S. becoming a surveillance state

Friday, May 20th, 2011

The New Yorker has published a long article about Thomas Drake, a government employee charged with leaking defence secrets. But there may be quite a bit more to the story than that:

The Justice Department’s indictment narrows the frame around Drake’s actions, focussing almost exclusively on his handling of what it claims are five classified documents. But Drake sees his story as a larger tale of political reprisal, one that he fears the government will never allow him to air fully in court. “I’m a target,” he said. “I’ve got a bull’s-eye on my back.” He continued, “I did not tell secrets. I am facing prison for having raised an alarm, period. I went to a reporter with a few key things: fraud, waste, and abuse, and the fact that there were legal alternatives to the Bush Administration’s ‘dark side’ ”—in particular, warrantless domestic spying by the N.S.A.

This is especially interesting – almost one percent of the people in the U.S. are now involved in the intelligence community and have top-secret clearances:

Jack Balkin, a liberal law professor at Yale, agrees that the increase in leak prosecutions is part of a larger transformation. “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state,” he says. In his view, zealous leak prosecutions are consonant with other political shifts since 9/11: the emergence of a vast new security bureaucracy, in which at least two and a half million people hold confidential, secret, or top-secret clearances; huge expenditures on electronic monitoring, along with a reinterpretation of the law in order to sanction it; and corporate partnerships with the government that have transformed the counterterrorism industry into a powerful lobbying force. Obama, Balkin says, has “systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the Bush Administration.

That’s actually more than the number of people imprisonned in the U.S., although I suppose you could argue that having a security clearance is a kind of imprisonment. In any case, when you consider the size of the security apparatus, the police forces and prison staff, and the armed forces, and you come up with a pretty large number.

Point of no return

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

The lead article in next month’s Atlantic is online now. The Point of No Return looks at the possibility of an Isreali attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. This could be profoundly destabilizing for the Middle East and the world; it’s an open question (which the article looks at in detail) whether it would be more destabilizing than Iran getting the bomb. It’s a long article, but well worth the time to read.

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

If a strike does succeed in crippling the Iranian nuclear program, however, Israel, in addition to possibly generating some combination of the various catastrophes outlined above, will have removed from its list of existential worries the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism; it may derive for itself the secret thanks (though the public condemnation) of the Middle East’s moderate Arab regimes, all of which fear an Iranian bomb with an intensity that in some instances matches Israel’s; and it will have succeeded in countering, in militant fashion, the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which is, not irrelevantly, a prime goal of the enthusiastic counter-proliferator who currently occupies the White House.

About the F-35

Monday, July 19th, 2010

The Canadian government has announced that it plans to purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace its aging fleet of F-18s. This has caused some controversy-questions have been raised as to whether we really need such a sophisticated fighter and whether a single engine plane is best suited for patrolling the vast distances over Canada’s north. If you want to see more about what the F-35 is about, check out the videos linked in this BBC article.

I think it’s crazy myself – it’s way overkill for any imaginable need. Yes, we need to “protect our sovereignty” in the north, but the F-35 isn’t the right choice. Considering the state of the Canadian deficit, spending 16 or 18 billion dollars on it right now is just wrong.