| Tuesday,
February 24, 2009 ============
My brother teaches in a predominantly black public
high school. He believes that 70% of the students could master high school
material and actually want to. However, 30% of the students are incapable
of doing so and/or don't want to, and their presence in the classroom is
extraordinarily disruptive. The 30% have been denied an education
appropriate to their abilities, making them virtually unemployable when
they finally drop out, and the other 70% have also been prevented from
reaching their own potential owing to the disruption and the dumbed-down
curriculum.
R
==================
Continuing the air power
discussion:
Fighter Discussion
Dear Jerry,
"As a strike guy myself, I am confident that if the
question was simply can our fighters beat the other guy’s fighters, we
could continue to do so with new-build F-15s. But that’s not even close to
the full problem set. An F-15 can survive going in to protect strike
packages or simply do air sweeps against previous-generation SAMs
(SA-2/3/6/8) but once you toss in SA-10 and later air defenses, the F-15s
would be on a suicide mission even if they’re going up against 3rd or 4th
generation fighters."
S articulated a very important thought there. I had
the same but didn't put it down. Namely, the "Suppression of Enemy Air
Defenses (SEAD, Wild Weasel) mission is what's critical in attack mode.
Friendly fighter vs enemy fighter is merely a subset of the total SEAD
mission. Are there other ways to achieve this result? Let us not forget the
other important USAF mission. This is to keep enemy bombs from falling on
friendly soldiers and Marines. And also on friendly civilians.
"Not necessarily true and it misses the forest for
the trees. The “fighter vs. fighter” question is not even half of the
question."
Absolutely. Recall, I suggested that in future the air
superiority machine might be a wide body jet carrying heavy lasers. I don't
belong to any family of the fighter mafia. So I'm not bought into fighters
that way. However, "fighter vs fighter" is certainly how USAF & DoD have the
F-22 vs F-35 question framed. If forests are being missed it's the current
experts who are doing so.
"Remember, the F-35 is little more than a front/side
aspect stealthy F-16."
More symptoms of F-16 Syndrome. I didn't think I was
overly friendly to F-35 earlier to be honest. I said F-16 was second best -
by design concept - and that F-35 appeared to be its replacement.
"It’s single engine alone ensures a higher loss
rate, reducing somewhat the cost effectiveness of not having to buy two
engines per plane up front…"
No argument here. This is why the Army stopped buying
helos with only one engine in the 1970s.
If F-22 is what we need, then how do we get costs down
to the point we can afford meaningful numbers of them? And what is F-22's
true critical mission? Performing SEAD to escort attack forces in and out?
If so, how does it perform SEAD? Attack enemy ground based air defenses at
low level or swat enemy fighters in the wild blue yonder? It won't do first
class jobs at both.
M
p.s. I wasn't impressed with the published combat
radii for either F-22 or F-35. Both seemed pretty short legged to me.
First note: I usually do not publish messages in
this format. I am no fan of the chop and chat kind of "discussion". I
prefer a reference to the original document; the short comment format is
adequately represented on the web, just not here. I made an exception in
this case in part so I could say this as a reminder.
Second comment: sound force structure planning
depends on a sound analysis of the missions for the force. In the Billy
Mitchell days the Army did not understand many of the problems of the Air
Corps, and the pilots argued, eventually successfully, for an Independent
Air Force which would be allowed to select its targets, plan its missions,
run its own bases, and conduct its own training and promotion programs. It
got all that, and then "discovered" that it didn't want one of the primary
missions of the Army Air Corps, namely close support of the field army.
Moreover, analysis of the results of World War II were at best ambiguous
on the effectiveness of strategic bombing in Europe; it is arguable that
had the kind of resourced devoted to strategic bombing been put instead
into support for the field army, the war in Europe would have ended six
months earlier with a lot less civilian population and economic
destruction (which had to be rebuilt).
Without strategic air strikes on Japan including
the fire raids on civilian residential areas -- over 100,000 civilians
died in one firebombing raid -- the war in the Pacific would have taken
longer, but would also have had a different character, as one might expect
given that it was after all a Naval war.
The Marines have not forgotten that the purpose
of air power is to support the Fleet and the field Marines. The Air Force
has never learned this lesson.
One cannot structure the force until one has an
understanding of missions. Protection of the field army is a major part of
the mission; but so is support of the field army once air supremacy has
been established. The Air Force has always understood air supremacy as the
first mission; but it hasn't always understood what to do with it once
achieved.
The P-47 was not designed to be a recce/strike
aircraft; but it turned out to be excellent for that purpose, and the
interdiction missions it flew were highly effective in support of the
battle army. P-47 train busting was decisive in some of the campaigns
toward the end.
==
Re: the future of air combat
You write: "In some of my future stories -- set at the
end of a very long logistics line -- surface to air missiles have developed
to such an extent that air power scarcely exists. "
See also David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" and Steve
Jackson's "Ogre".
Indeed, there's some nasty conspiracy theories going
around about the surprising lack of funding for the thus-far-successful
Airborne Laser program. Once lasers get rolling, combat aircraft suddenly
become a LOT less viable...
Indeed, it's worth remembering that the initial
generation of air-to-air missiles were given "F-for-Fighter" designation
numbers...and, when you look at the degree of automation, the supersonic
interceptors of the 1960s and 1970s were really just manned reusable
boosters for long-range antiaircraft missiles.
-- Mike T. Powers
==
Latest F-22 News
http://www.f22-raptor.com/
The website tracks recent headlines.
To summarize...
1. Secretary Gates says it isn't needed for Third
World Wars. True. And neither is the F-35. 2. USAF says its needed for
China. 3. High unit costs dominate the discussion throughout.
This is instructive:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/
bal-bz.hancock18feb18,0,2821507.column
"The project takes 25,000 workers at 1,000 suppliers
in 44 states, Lockheed says, which is why it's hard to find anybody in
Congress against it."
This is also a prime reason why it's impossible to
impose meaningful cost reductions over time, whether on F-22 or anything
else touched by DoD and the US Government. Based on the above Lockheed
statistics, we can say with reasonably certainty the following minimum
personnel are "working" on the F-22 program:
--- At least 1,000 lawyers with expertise in
government procurement and contracting law. The real number is probably
closer to 3,000.
--- 1,000 Certified Public Accountants and probably
1,000 more tax attorneys.
--- 1,000 EO/EEO compliance specialists.
--- 1,000 OSHA compliance specialists.
--- 1,000 EPA compliance specialists. Add the cost of
contracts to many hundreds of environmental attorneys and engineers (some
will have multiple contractor clients) to prepare environmental impact
statements.
Lockheed will have its own vast parallel bureaucracy
of lawyers, engineers, technical specialists, inspectors, freight expeditors
and clerical personnel dedicated to managing this supplier chain. And it
will have quality control specialists to inspect (again) all parts received
from sub-contractors.
This cited 1,000 suppliers/25,000 workers works out to
25 workers per supplier. Many suppliers have far fewer employees. Sometimes
just one (1) expert machinist. A friend of mine personally made all the
hinge sets for the A-10. Either aileron or rudder. I forget which. He had
frequent inspectors coming to his small one man shop to inspect. Translate:
plane tickets, rental cars, hotel accommodations and per diem plus base
salary.
Add in packaging specialists (and the cost of
packaging) to prepare everything for repeated cross-country shipment. Look
at the semi rigs barreling down the interstates... Most Americans have
probably seen some F-22 roll through their town.
$138 million per copy is very believable given this
methodology.
M
I once pointed out that I could probably put up a
Lunar Base for about $4 billion; the Air Force or Navy could do it for
about $8 billion if allowed to do it black without conformity to the Armed
Services Procurement Regulations; it would cost $16 billion if done by the
usual procurement process; and NASA had already said they could not do it
for $80 billion. That was twenty years ago. The numbers have changed
somewhat but the ratios have changed even more. I could probably still do
it for $4 billion (by "I can do it" I mean that those who can would be
willing to work for me), but double all the other numbers.
Our procurement system is badly broken, and no
one seems interested in fixing it.
==
The problem with UCAVs of all types
Dr. Pournelle,
I’ll try to be short… People are discussing the
technical aspect of UCAVs in the air to air arena, but the discussion is
once again missing the crux of the problem. ROE adherence and enemy ID is in
many cases the toughest part of air combat. A new Lt can manage the aircraft
systems and “dogfight” passably well after less than 100 hours in the plane,
but to be worth more to the flight than merely clearing his lead’s 6, he
must master the art of adhering to complex ROE and enemy ID criteria. That’s
HARD. Really hard. As in some people never really do it very well even after
years of flying fighters. It’s so hard that sometimes a visual ID pass must
be made to ensure you don’t shoot the wrong guy.
It’s the same reason why we still have a man in the
loop with air to surface armed UAVs flying today, and why we always will.
It’s also their greatest vulnerability… Loft a 50 gal drum full of BBs in
the path of our comm. satellites and suddenly that MQ-9 can’t engage because
the man is taken out of the loop.
That is (I think) the biggest barrier to air to air
UCAV employment… Not the technical nature of the task but ROE adherence and
enemy ID criteria. That’s tough even with someone right there on scene, it
would be difficult to impossible from a chair in Nevada without being able
to see paint schemes or read tail flashes, and could be impossible without a
man in the loop.
S (not the other “S”)
My scenario for the beginning of any major new
war begins with the other guy knocking out our satellites and
communications. On the other hand, there are many military operations that
we continue to do that don't need those. Again, it depends on our missions
and objectives. How dominant do we want to be, and over what areas?
=========================
new service academy
Sir:
I thought this might be of interest to you:
"The U.S. Public Service Academy will be the civilian
counterpart to the military service academies, a flagship institution
designed to build a 'more perfect union' by developing leaders of skill and
character dedicated to service in the public sector."
http://uspublicserviceacademy.org/
I see the Iron Law writ large.
Richard
Yet one more new elite, who will have to be paid;
how to manufacture an aristocracy. I suspect Harvard and Princeton will
oppose this since they already have their own ring knockers...
=============
On Miracle Cleaners
Miracle Cleaner
Jerry,
Quote from the article cited:
It turns out that zapping salt water with
low-voltage electricity creates a couple of powerful yet nontoxic cleaning
agents. Sodium ions are converted into sodium hydroxide, an alkaline
liquid that cleans and degreases like detergent, but without the scrubbing
bubbles. Chloride ions become hypochlorous acid, a potent disinfectant
known as acid water.
So the process consists of making sodium hypochlorite
in situ. That is precisely what Clorox is, minus the perfume to partially
cover the chlorine odor. The difference is that this material is a weaker
solution than Clorox (5% hyprochlorite, if I remember).
“It’s 10 times more effective than bleach in killing
bacteria,” said Yen-Con Hung, a professor of food science at the
University of Georgia-Griffin, who has been researching electrolyzed water
for more than a decade. “And it’s safe.”
This statement is gibberish. The solution IS bleach.
Because of concentration it's probably LESS effective than bleach in killing
microbes. If this quote is accurate, the quotee would be typical of food
scientists I've run into, even from schools like MIT.
Best wishes on your continuing recovery,
Bob Doherty (Chemistry PhD and 34 years at USDA in
human nutrition research)
==
"Magic Cleaning Elixer"
Don't be too impressed. All they are doing is
generating a weak bleach solution.
"It's 10 times more effective than bleach in killing
bacteria," said Yen-Con Hung, a professor of food science at the
University of Georgia-Griffin, who has been researching electrolyzed water
for more than a decade. "And it's safe."
The above "professor" is an idiot, Because the
solution IS bleach----sodium hypochlorite. That and sodium hydroxide are
what you get when you electrolyze a salt solution in a cell with no
diaphragm separating the anode and cathode. That was the founding chemistry
of the Dow chemical company over a century ago The only difference is in the
pH of the solution. At high pH you have sodium hypochlorite, at lower pH you
have a mixture of sodium hypochlorite and hypochlorous acid. Drop the pH
still more, and you end up with a mix of hypochlorous acid and free
chlorine. Drop it further yet, and you have a solution saturated with
gaseous chlorine. And when you add chlorine gas to water, you make
hypochlorous acid (which is what happens in your city water treatment
plant).
Duane
As usual, things that seem too good to be true
usually are. I can see how the stuff can be useful in come places, but I
was myself puzzled at how it would be more effective than bleach; I
suspect misquotation. One wonders what the professor actually said.
Still, having a plentiful supply of disinfection
plus cleaner is a good thing, and I can think of institutions that could
use it profitably. Maybe more dispensers of the stuff would help hospitals
control the growing threat of staph infections?
==
electrolyzed water
Hi Jerry,
You echoed an LA Times article by Marla Dickerson on
industrial cleaning with "magicked water".
For 2 years I've been using the $150 Lotus system from
Tersano.com . It seems to work.
"Water is pumped through an arc" they say. A little
extra oxygen exists in the bowl of water for 15 minutes. During the spinach
scare I started putting raw vegetables through this process, then rinsing
and spinning off the ozone tasting water.
Then I moved up to putting a more intense output from
the unit into a spray floor mop. No detergents, but the floors get clean,
benefiting from the microfiber mop head.
This brings something like the technology described
into the home at a price that allows casual experimentation.
Joe O'Laughlin
This is the first I have heard of that. We use
vinegar and peroxide fairly often for a general cleaner/disinfectant. And
I use a Swiffer mop on my part of the house, largely because it's
convenient but it does seem to work well. I just use the Swiffer bottled
stuff.
=============
Qualifications for public office
Jerry,
I've actually been thinking back to Mr. Heinlein. Put
a ten-question multiple choice exam on each printed ballot form. Four
general questions on the Constitution (or as appropriate to the election,
the State Constitution or City/County charter), six questions presenting
quotations by the candidates and asking the voter to identify which
candidate made the comment. It is necessary to answer at least six of the
ten questions correctly for the ballot to be counted.
Alternatively, only people who make a net positive
payment to the government are permitted to vote.
J
At one time only taxpayers could vote in property
tax elections. That was held to be unconstitutional. Guess what happened
to property taxes...
Hereditary aristocracies look more attractive all
the time. You can't fire them but you can't fire any of our masters now;
and with the aristocrats there is always the memory of the guillotine.
============
Subject: Worth reading
Jerry,
The March '09 issue of Wired has a couple of articles
worth looking at:
"Recipe for Disaster: The Formula that Destroyed Wall
Street" >
http://www.wired.com/
techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant
The author explains, in a clear and understandable
way, how a mathematical "innovation" related to modeling of default risk for
a mortgage pool was widely misused, and thus brought our financial system to
the brink of collapse. The misjudgment made by senior managers who relied on
this bit of financial wizardry is just breathtaking....
"The Netbook Effect: How Cheap Little Laptops Hit the
Big Time" >
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/
wireless/magazine/17-03/mf_netbooks
The author makes the case that the growing popularity
of netbooks is a sign that we are seeing a major change in the way that the
PC market functions. According to him, robust sales of netbooks show that
people now understand that most of what they use a computer for does not
require much computational power. That understanding will make it harder and
harder for PC vendors to rake in profits from fully loaded machines built
around the latest technology. What they will pay for is instant access to
the internet, wireless anywhere connectivity (e.g., the iphone costs $200,
the wireless contract costs costs a lot more).
CP, Connecticut
I will probably repeat this in the Chaos Manor
Reviews mailbag; it's worth discussion. Also courtesy of a reader I have a
new netbook but I haven't had a chance to do much with it. It runs Ubuntu.
===========
Smashwords - ROBOT DREAMS,
Chapter One - A book by Francis Hamit
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/899
Dear Mike:
That link above is to something new I am trying. A
novel written specifically for cell phones and e-readers, designed to be
read in short bites (or is that "bytes"?). The novel itself is about a squad
of homicide detectives in a dystopian setting a few decades in the future.
In this first episode a new man arrives, except he's not really a man, or is
he? Because of the short length and the experimental nature of the work I am
using the "Set your own price" option at Smashwords.com, which means, yes,
that can be zero. But naturally I hope it won't be. Not to pull a Stephen
King here or anything, but the pace of delivery on future chapters will be
accelerated by the amount of money each previous chapter earns.
Sincerely,
Francis Hamit
Obviously. Not a path I intend to follow, but I
remain interested. The paperback market is collapsing; something will
replace it but we don't know -- at least I certainly don't know -- what
will replace it. In my case subscriptions
have made an enormous difference.
===========
Re: Letter from James W
Crawford
Hi Jerry,
Why does Mr. Crawford think that the rumored health
care rationing embedded in the stimulus package is any different (or at
least significantly different) from how HMOs handle health care now? HMOs do
not provide an infinite level of health care. HMOs "ration" healthcare by
only covering medically necessary care. You want a facelift? Pay for it
yourself. You broke your leg? We cover that ... go and get your cast. The
argument for the government being better at doing this is that they aren't
trying to turn a profit. The argument for the HMO doing a better job is that
they will be constantly trying to improve efficiency. Government is never
efficient. Government will create yet another bureaucracy and the Iron Law
will kick in.
Mr. Crawford also mentions that "socialized medicine
will be an effective end to advances in medical technology". I might be
inclined to agree that all _pharmaceutical_ developments now come from the
US, but that is more likely because the majority of large pharmaceutical
companies are US-based, and their research is naturally focused on what they
can make a profit on. We cannot count on pharmaceutical companies to either
a) improve older medications where the patent is either almost done or is
already done OR b) invest in research on anything that isn't about
pharmaceuticals. Let's face it, their focus is not on improving medical
care, it is on selling drugs and making a profit.
Most advances in medicine come from university-based
hospitals, and have little do with socialized medicine. In both Canada and
the US, there is a large network of these hospitals, and they produce many,
many medical breakthroughs.
Here are some prime examples of world-firsts developed
at University hospitals:
1950 Introduction of lumpectomy for treatment of
breast cancer. Lumpectomy is a surgical procedure designed to remove a
discrete lump (usually a tumour, benign or otherwise) from an affected woman
or man's breast.
1950 Use of total body cooling as a method of making
heart surgery safer.
1950 First neuro-surgical treatment of epilepsy
performed.
1958 World first surgical treatment on cerebral
aneurysms.
1961 Discovery of blood-forming stem cells enabling
bone marrow transplants.
1963 The first widely successful surgery to correct
the birth defect known as "Blue Babies" is performed. Before this procedure,
this condition used to kill 9 out of 10 patients in their first year.
1969 Discovery of a carcino-embryonic antigen, a
tumour marker for cancer.
1975 Development of software used worldwide for 20
years to control radiation therapy.
1979 Invention of a radically different ventilator
(now used worldwide) that gently "shakes" oxygen into the lungs of children
with severe lung disease, sparing many of them painful lung bypass
procedures.
1983 Successful single lung transplant. Lung
transplants extend life expectancy and enhance the quality of life for
end-stage pulmonary patients.
1987 First aortic valve replacement in the world using
the Toronto Heart Valve, which is now used worldwide.
1989 Development of the first oral treatment for
hepatitis B, resulting in the drug Lamivudine.
1993 Researchers demonstrate that mouse embryonic stem
cells are capable of supporting the entire embryonic development and in fact
creating completely cell cultured derived mice.
1994 World's first three-dimensional (3-D)
ultrasound-guided cryosurgery.
1995 First physical map of the human genome created.
1999 World's first closed chest robotic-assisted
beating heart coronary artery bypass graft conducted.
2003 Developed a genetically modified vaccine that can
completely prevent the recurrence of metastatic breast cancer through
genetically altered cells that only destroy cancer cells.
I've only listed maybe 10% of those published in 2007
http://acaho.org/docs_new/
ACAHO%20Policy%20Documents/
Moving%20at%20the%20Speed
%20of%20Discovery/MATSDFina
l%20Nov%202707.pdf
Oh, and those are just from the Canadian hospitals.
The US hospitals have their own list of breakthroughs.
Glenn Hunt
============
London Police Preparing for Summer of Middle Class
Rioting
I'm not quite sure what to make of this: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/cjw7k2
>
-- Harry Erwin, PhD,
Program Leader, MSc Information Systems Security,
University of Sunderland. <http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw>
Weblog at: <http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw/blog/index.php>
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for
western civilization as it commits suicide. Not only are the barbarians
inside the gates, but we have given them the keys to our houses and
command of the guard forces.
================w
f
g
For a PDF copy of A Step Farther Out:
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
