The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
We've mentioned things like pictures of Jesus or the Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast, or in a window reflection, or things like that.
Now it seems that more mythical characters may be involved, as this report describes.
Judging by his stern features, he looks like a bit of a chilly customer.
With what appears to be a clearly defined nose, eyes and lips, this image frozen on an icicle has led many to claim that it is Jack Frost personified. After all, he’s in his element.
Others say his beard and high forehead are the embodiment of the mythical figure Old Man Winter. Inevitably there are also those who say it is the face of Jesus.
The icicle was found dangling from a home in Lake Stevens, a city of about 40,000 in Washington state in the north-western U.S..
Jack Frost is believed to have originated from Viking mythology, and was known as Jokul Frosti, which means ‘icicle frost’. An elf-like creature, he possess an artistic streak.
Legend has it that Frost changes the colour of autumn leaves on trees. But it is in winter that his talent really shines and the intricate engraving of frost and ice on windows is his real masterwork.
His myth later became part of British folklore and Jack Frost has come to personify crisp, cold, winter weather.
I have to admit, that's a pretty spectacular likeness of a human face - so much so that I wonder if it had any 'help' in getting that way? Perhaps not, though . . . Mother Nature can do some weird things without our assistance.
America's CIA has found a novel way to gain information from fickle Afghan warlords - supplying sex-enhancing drug Viagra, a US media report says.
The Washington Post said it was one of a number of enticements being used.
In one case, a 60-year-old warlord with four wives was given four pills and four days later detailed Taleban movements in return for more.
"Whatever it takes to make friends and influence people," the Post quoted one agent as saying.
"Whether it's building a school or handing out Viagra."
The newspaper said the use of Viagra had to be handled sensitively as the drug was not always known about in rural areas.
It quoted one retired agent as saying: "You didn't hand it out to younger guys, but it could be a silver bullet to make connections to the older ones."
In the case of the 60-year-old warlord - the head of a clan in southern Afghanistan who had not co-operated - operatives saw he had four younger wives.
The pills were explained and offered. Four days later the agents returned.
"He came up to us beaming," the Post quoted an agent as saying. "He said, 'You are a great man.'
"And after that we could do whatever we wanted in his area."
The pills could put chieftains "back in an authoritative position", another official said.
Uh-huh.
However, I suspect that it may not be only their wives that experience the 'benefits' of Viagra. After all, one of the most famous Afghan ditties, centuries old, goes:
There's a boy across the river With a bottom like a peach - But alas, I cannot swim!
I'm thinking the moral aspect will render the puritanical Taliban doubly outraged by this latest US move to, er, 'stiffen' opposition to its influence.
I see our friends at I Can Has Cheezburger? have been celebrating the season in their own inimitable fashion. Click on any picture to be taken to the ICHC post and viewer responses.
I'm intrigued by a report in the Daily Mail about a new design of seagoing vessel, which looks rather like a spider dancing over the waves.
The WAM-V, or Wave Adaptive Modular Vessel, blasts along on two giant inflatable tubes which, according to its designers, let it 'dance' with the waves.
Powered by twin diesel engines, the spider-like craft can be crewed by just two people as it tackles voyages of up to 5,000 miles.
And best of all, designers claim the boat, nicknamed Proteus, is so light that its fuel consumption is 'significantly lower' than other boats of a similar size.
The catamaran has been built by US-based Marine Advanced Research Inc to carry out studies of the world's oceans.
But designers say the vessel could, in the future, be used as a luxury cruiser, a scuba diving boat or a passenger ship for up to 12 people.
They say they have already designed, manufactured and tested 8ft radio-controlled models and a 50ft personal craft as well as the 100ft Proteus.
A spokesman for the group said: 'The WAM-V is a new class of watercraft based on a patented technology that delivers a radically new seagoing experience.
'These ultralight flexible catamarans are designed to allow for a variety of applications and to fit the requirements of specific users, missions or projects.
'Unlike conventional boats, the hulls of a WAM-V conform to the surface of the water.
'A WAM-V does not push, slap or pierce the waves - she utilizes flexibility to adapt her structure and shape to the water surface.
'Instead of forcing the water to conform to the hull, she gives and adjusts. She dances with the waves.'
The spokesman said the WAM-V could even be used for watersports, adding: 'Your WAM-V could be the means to a new extreme sport experience.'
The main structure of the boat is constructed of titanium and aluminium and is connected to the twin hulls by ball joints fitted with springs and shock absorbers.
Two engine pods, containing the propellors and ancillary systems, are fastened to the hulls with special hinges that keep the propellers in the water at all times.
Despite displacing 12 tons when carrying its full load of 2,000 gallons of fuel, designers claim it handles like 'a small powerboat'.
I found this video clip of the WAM-V being demonstrated in San Francisco Bay.
Interesting! I wonder if this'll be further developed into a commercial product? It looks to me as if it could work in swampy environments such as the Lousiana wetlands or the Florida Everglades, currently the province of airboats. Might be interesting to see how this copes with such environments.
I've seen these new small laptops, but I've never used one. I have a HP Pavilion full-feature laptop, plus my desktop, and tend to use the latter for all work at home, reserving the laptop for travel.
How about you, readers? Are any of you using the new 'Netbook' small laptops? If so, how have you found them? Do they do everything you need, or are they lacking in any key features? I'd love to hear your feedback in Comments, please.
Christmas is traditionally a time to enjoy the company of family and friends, and particularly to over-indulge in rich foods. I haven't done so in quite a while, living alone as I do, but I enjoy reading about various ways to make the season heavy. Of course, the season of celebration extends through the traditional 'Twelve Days of Christmas', so there's no need to do it all in one day.
There's also Blue Christmas Carp, potato salad with sausages, smoked sausage, smoked pork ribs, stuffed goose, and - for those fortunate enough to have access to deer meat during hunting season - Saddle of Venison. I'm sure the recipe will work just as well for North American whitetail, elk, caribou or moose meat as it will for German deer. Yum!
Are hard times threatening your Christmas dinner? Well then, Peru has the answer: guinea pig.
Officials in the coastal Peruvian province of Callao on Monday hailed the Andean rodent as a low-cost, low-fat alternative to a traditional turkey or roast pork Christmas dinner.
Guinea pigs can feed seven or eight for about $3.20, Callao official Mario Sanguinity told Associated Press Television.
"The idea is to give the people a tasty, economical option," he said.
The presentation included a live guinea pig dressed as Santa Claus and eight of its comrades laid out fried, broiled and roasted in traditional dishes from different regions of Peru.
The tiny cuts of white meat are often compared to rabbit and dark chicken. Called "cuy" in Peru, guinea pig is a staple source of income for farmers and holds an elevated place in Andean folklore.
A painting of the Last Supper hanging in the principal cathedral of the ancient Inca capital of Cuzco depicts Christ and the 12 disciples dining on guinea pig.
Er . . . thanks, but I kept guinea pigs as pets when I was a kid. I think I'll stick to something bigger and less tame!
For those raised in the English Christmas tradition, of course, nothing rounds off the Christmas feast quite like traditional Christmas pudding. The firm Matthew Walker produces twenty-four million of them each year!
They're said to use 300,000 tons of raisins, one million pints of cider, and 150,000 pints of brandy, among other ingredients (13 in all, representing Christ and his twelve Apostles), to produce 7,500 tons of pudding mix each year.
All that demand makes the firm one of the UK's major alcohol consumers. Puddings are soaked in Port, fermented in Cognac and Derbyshire vintage stout, then steamed to keep them moist.
A spokesman said: 'What makes our Christmas pudding so special is the quality of the ingredients and the traditional methods we use.'
Matthew Walker, a farmer's son, began by producing preserves and Christmas puddings from his mother's recipes. He then sold products through a friend's grocery store and opened a factory in Derby in 1899. It moved to its present location in 1967. Today, 280 varieties are made there.
A personal favorite (although rather pricy) is the Fortnum & Masons Christmas pudding, made to the firm's own recipe. It's rather expensive, but ohhh, the taste! Serve with traditional English custard, of course, or thick whipped cream. If you dare serve it with Reddi-wip or any other canned imitation cream, I shall hire pudding elves to beat you severely about the head with a slice of your Christmas pudding!
After looking at that, please excuse me for a moment while I wipe the drool from my chin . . .
Of course, one has to consider health and safety matters when preparing and eating Christmas dinner. The Daily Mail has thoughtfully provided us (tongue firmly in cheek) with what it claims are Government Elf 'n Safety regulations for the occasion.
Please note that the meal formerly known as Christmas Dinner - officially renamed The Non-Specific Winter Festival Food-Intake Event - breaks all official guidelines for calorific intake and maximum weekly units of alcohol. This is not acceptable at a time of obesity.
A healthy, satisfying and enjoyable meal can be obtained by retaining many of the traditional features, in a new, exciting - and economical! - form.
Alcohol should be avoided. A refreshing glass of tap water can give that 'special occasion' feel with ice, a slice of lemon and a sprig of holly in the glass.
Note: Ice is a hazardous substance that can fall on the floor, causing slips that may lead to broken bones. It must be handled with care.
Goggles and gloves must be worn when handling lemons and holly.
More helpful Elf 'n Safety regulations on matters such as carol singing, church services, presents and the like are also provided. Thoughtful of them, no?
Anyway, I hope the above gives you some useful ideas for the rest of the Christmas season. May it be a blessed and joyous time for us all.
Members of the so-called 'Mass Democratic Movement' (MDM - a front organization for terrorists) had been trying to 'politicize' a township in South Africa for some time. Most of them were members of one particular tribe - and in Africa, one's tribe counts for quite a lot. Their efforts had been resisted by many residents, who were members of another tribe, and didn't see why these upstarts from an 'inferior' tribe should be allowed to push them around.
Needless to say, the apartheid police, always eager to 'divide and rule', had encouraged the rivalry through not-so-discreet egging-on of the resisters. If Black people could be induced to spend their time fighting each other, instead of uniting to fight apartheid, it was a net gain for the State. Who cared about those who got caught in the crossfire? They were only Black, after all, and the State was White. That's the way it was, in that year, in that part of the country.
Matters came to a head the week before Christmas. The MDM moved a group of 'comrades' into the township, trying to enforce a consumer boycott of White businesses, threatening violence to those who resisted. Some women were forced to drink the liquid soap and cooking-oil they'd bought, and ended up in hospital. Others were threatened. Minibus taxis taking shoppers to a nearby town were met at the outskirts of the township, and forced to turn back. In response, the police shut down deliveries to the few shops in the township itself. Very quickly, people began to run out of food and essential supplies.
I got a phone call in the afternoon of December 24th from a pastor in the township. I'll call him 'Fanyana' for his safety (he's still working there).
"Hey, Fanyana, what's up, brother?"
"It's bad, Peter." (Sound of scattered gunshots in the background. He was breathing quickly, shallowly, the fear evident in his voice.) "The 'comrades' have been trying to shut the place down all week, and the miners have finally had enough. They've ganged together and they're out on the streets, looking for the outsiders. It's bad, man."
I sobered, very fast. If Fanyana was this scared, and didn't mind showing it, it was bad indeed. The previous year he'd dragged me clear of a riot, both of us bleeding, me almost unconscious. He had guts to spare.
"What about the cops?"
"Oh, hell, man, the usual, you know! They're sitting on the outskirts, watching the fighting, and doing ****-all. They don't care."
"What do you need?"
"Can you get the brothers and sisters together, Peter? I'm opening the church to refugees, but we have nothing. Nothing. The 'comrades' have stopped all shopping in (the White town nearby), and all the shops here are empty. We need food, medical supplies, and anything else you can find for us."
"We're on our way. Usual meeting-place?" (A crossroads on the outskirts of town, on the bush side, where the police usually didn't go.)
"Yes. I'll try to have someone there in three hours to meet you. Be careful, my brother. You've got the wrong color of skin to be in here after dark, remember."
He wasn't joking about that. To have the wrong color of skin, or be a member of the wrong tribe, or have the wrong political sympathies, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, had been a death sentence for all too many South Africans of all races in the past few years.
I set the telephone chain in motion. We were a small group of people who cared. We didn't give a damn about the politics of those in need - although all of us were opposed to apartheid, and wanted to see South Africa a genuinely democratic nation. We were all believers in our particular faiths, and saw it as our duty to help the helpless, rather than shout political slogans. We went into townships where violence had erupted, tried to get the injured to safety, took in supplies for distribution through local churches, and generally tried to bring a little light into the darkness of the turmoil that was spreading throughout the country like a cancer.
We were of all races, and all religions: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, animist, Hindu . . . you name it, and the odds were we had at least one member of that faith in our loose network. It didn't matter to us. If you believed strongly enough in your faith that you were willing to put your life on the line to help those in need, that was all that counted. We were brothers and sisters from that moment. We would worry about the theology later.
Of course, the fact that we were trying to help the victims of violence made us targets. The terrorists wanted to make the Black townships, segregated under apartheid, ungovernable, havens of sanctuary for their resistance. If they had to do so by a rule of terror, they had no scruples about it - and they didn't want anyone giving hope to those living in fear. The authorities, on the other hand, didn't want the true conditions in the townships to be exposed. They used the Group Areas Act and other legislation to keep outsiders away. If you didn't have a permit to be in an area reserved for another racial group, you could be - and often were - arrested on the spot. People like us, who ignored the law and went in to help others, were a threat to them. The fact that we were a multi-racial group, not segregated, made it worse in their eyes.
As a result, we faced violence from both sides. Twenty-seven of us would die in the course of the unrest, and many more of us bear the scars of those years to this day.
It took almost two hours for various people to get away from work, pick up what supplies they had available, and get them to our meeting-place in Hillbrow, a high-rise, run-down, seedy suburb of Johannesburg. Those who could brought money, and hastily shopped for essentials at a local supermarket, competing with long lines of people doing last-minute Christmas shopping. Their carts and baskets were filled with cheap, tawdry gifts. Ours held cornmeal, beans, cooking oil, kerosene for cooking stoves, bandages, disinfectant.
We loaded the boxes and bags into a rattletrap old minibus that one of the group had made available to us. It was a Toyota Hi-Ace, similar to those shown below (and the same color as the first), dating from the mid-1970's.
It smoked, wheezed and backfired with every mile, and shook like a dervish on even the best-paved roads. Rust streaked the body, and a couple of the windows were cracked, held together with tape . . . but it ran, and it was inconspicuous in a township environment. That could keep a man alive, in those days. To stand out was sometimes to die.
It was a hot, dry night. (South Africa's in the southern hemisphere, so Christmas falls in high summer, to the confusion of many in the Northern hemisphere who associate the season with snow and cold. To us, it was a time for salads and sodas, not heavy meals and eggnog.) We set out as the sun sank low on the Western horizon, myself driving, three others - one Indian, one Colored (mixed-race in South African parlance), and one Black - in the seats alongside and behind me, the back of the van piled high with supplies. We threaded our way through the late rush-hour traffic and headed South.
After an hour, we turned off the freeway and headed into a farming area. We were coming up on our destination from behind, through the farmlands and bush, rather than approach it from the nearby White town, where police were sure to be manning roadblocks. They wouldn't be in a good mood. They wanted to be at home with their families on Christmas eve, wrapping presents for the kids. Instead they had to stand guard while the kaffirs fought each other. (The term was originally an Arabic word meaning 'unbeliever', but in South African parlance had become a derogatory term for a Black person, similar to - but worse in meaning than - the US term 'nigger'). Those of us trying to help them were contemptuously referred to as kaffirboeties - 'kaffir brothers', meaning much the same as 'nigger-lovers' in the US.
We could see smoke rising ahead of us in the fading light. Buildings were already burning in the township, that was clear. We slowed down, and crawled closer to the crossroads. All of us tensed as we saw the flashing lights of a police roadblock ahead. Too late to turn back - they'd only be suspicious, and pursue us to find out who we were and why we'd tried to run.
I moved up to the roadblock, and stopped. A uniformed Sergeant came to the door. I relaxed slightly. I'd met him before. While he was no friend, and as racist as any other policeman at the time, he was amenable to 'persuasion'.
"What do you - oh, it's you again!" He spat contemptuously into the dirt. "Come to help those dumb ****ers again, have you? Just look at the stupid ****ers!" He gestured at the smoke billowing up behind him. "It's ****ing Christmas, and they haven't the sense to stop their **** and shut up for a bit so we can have a break!"
"Er . . . yes. We've brought supplies. We want to take them to the **** Church, where the pastor's setting up a refugee center."
"No way, man. The township's ****ing closed to outsiders. You know the drill. Come on, let's see your ID."
I did, indeed, know the drill. I extended my arm through the window, handing him my 'Book of Life', the fat passport-like identity document issued to all South Africans. Inside the front cover I'd tucked five twenty-Rand notes - not a small sum, at that time.
He flipped through the pages, glancing casually over his shoulder at his men, who were lounging in and around their vehicles, watching us disinterestedly. He handed the document back to me. The banknotes had miraculously disappeared.
"You get into trouble, you're on your own, hey? No way we're coming in there to get you."
"I understand."
"On your way." He waved at the two constables standing in the road, assault rifles held ready, and they stepped aside. I accelerated past them, weaving my way down the dirt track.
We arrived at the crossroads as the last of the light began to fade. A stripling in ragged shirt and trousers was waiting, jumping up and down and waving at us as we approached. He ran to my window.
"Oh, Baas Peter! Baas Peter! The Pastor says to come quick! Is bad!"
I hated to be called Baas ('Boss', a common subservient term of address from Black South Africans to White, a relic of the days of slavery), but this was no time to stand on ceremony. "Get in, quick, and show us a safe way to get there."
David got out of the passenger seat next to me, getting in the back, and the boy took his place. We bumped into the back roads of the township, the familiar smells growing stronger by the yard. The stench of excrement overlaid every other odor - this township didn't have a sewage system, and relied on buckets to catch the 'night soil' deposited by its inhabitants. Acrid smoke mingled with the fecal smell, and if you had an active imagination, you could smell the fear too. You could certainly smell it in our vehicle - all of us knew what we were facing.
The dirt roads were dusty, except where runnels of sewage ran down the middle of some of them, adding a noisome mud to the scenery. Feral dogs cringed out of our path as we drove past. No-one was visible on the streets at all. They were either locked in their homes, hoping and praying that the violence didn't move in their direction, or they'd fled to a place where they imagined they'd be safer.
We came to the church hall, a run-down mud-brick structure with a corrugated asbestos roof. No lights were on in the hall, but two or three strong men stood guard outside, armed with sticks and spears. As we pulled up, two of them moved towards us.
"Who are you? What's your business - oh, it's you!" Smiles broke out across their faces, their white teeth gleaming against their dusty charcoal-black skin.
"Yes, we've brought you what we could. Can you help us unload?"
"Yes. Pull your van over there, out of sight. It's not safe for you to be seen right now."
Our cargo was swiftly offloaded by eager hands. Within five minutes the roar of kerosene stoves was added to the distant tumult, as women set them up outside and balanced huge pots on top of them, heating water to make putu (a thick cornmeal porridge, almost dense enough to be cut with a knife). Others opened tins of beans and a few precious luxuries, cans of corned beef, cutting the meat into cubes and adding it to the beans as they bubbled in their pots. Fanyana came out and hugged us, tears of gratitude in his eyes. He had over two hundred refugees crammed into his church hall, all of them having fled from homes near the center of the violence, and they had only the clothes on their back. At least they'd eat tonight.
We passed out the paper plates and cups and plastic eating utensils we'd brought, and everyone was given a small helping of the putu, covered with a ladleful of beans and a few shreds of corned beef. For many, this was the only meal they'd had all day. There was no tea or coffee: those who were thirsty drank water from the tap at the corner of the hall. (This township had no indoor plumbing - if you needed water, you got it in cans from communal taps, set every hundred yards or so. There was no electricity either, candles and kerosene lanterns providing the only light.)
I put down my plate, to have it swiftly taken by a young child, who carefully washed the plastic utensils and put them in a bag. In a place where poverty was so rampant, there was no such thing as 'disposable' cutlery. Even the dirty paper plates, which couldn't be washed, would be kept after being scraped clean. When dried and torn into strips, they would serve as kindling to light fires. Nothing was wasted here.
It was full dark now. Fanyana and I stood silently together outside the hall, watching the skyline to the East. It glowed and flickered as burning buildings sent up the light of their flames. We could see them reflected from the smoke clouds . . . black, sooty smoke, from car tires. If those nearby were fortunate, the tires would be burning only as barricades across the street. If they weren't, some of those tires would be burning around the necks of anyone suspected of being an informer, or lacking sympathy for the 'revolution'. They'd scream their last as the gasoline-soaked 'necklaces' roasted their faces and heads into charred caricatures of a human being.
I almost lost my faith that night. I'd been on the brink for some time, furiously angry at Church leaders who preached politics instead of the Gospel, who supported political factions instead of standing for all believers, who talked a good fight instead of going into the streets and actively ministering to those who most needed their help. To me, the Gospel was deed rather than word - and all I was hearing from these leaders was words. It made me sick, and I was on the point of abandoning my membership of any organized Church. Looking at those flames in the distance, knowing that people were suffering and dying there, I cried out internally to God, asking Him, "Where are your bishops and priests and pastors and ministers now? Why aren't they here, with Fanyana and others who need them? Where is the love they proclaim so loudly, but never live out?"
I got no answer . . . not right away.
A man ran along the street, staggering, at the last extremity of exhaustion. He came up to us, wobbling on unsteady feet, and Fanyana and myself caught him as he almost collapsed.
"Pastor! The tsotsis (thugs) are moving towards you! They've heard that people have gathered here. You must get out!"
Fanyana looked at me. "We can head for the old factory. It was burned out long ago, but the walls are still standing, and part of the roof. I think we'll be safe there." He hesitated. "We've got some old people who can't walk fast. Some can't walk at all. Some are in here, some are still at home. Can you help us get them out?"
"Let's go!"
The next hour or two was organized chaos. Groups of men, women and children hurried from the hall, carrying kerosene stoves, the supplies we'd brought, and the pitifully meager possessions they'd been able to salvage. Some of the men formed a fighting group, armed with sticks, axes and spears, and moved down the street, to hold off the forerunners of the gang heading in our direction, buying time for us to get clear. David, Alex, Sammy and I made a dozen shuttle runs in our old minibus, loading it with old people, one of us driving them to the ruined factory building while the rest of us went from door to door, checking whether anyone needed a ride, organizing them into groups of six to eight people, ready for the next run.
The last run was the worst. The 'comrades' had been setting fire to buildings and tires as they moved in our direction, and the wind had shifted, covering us in the rank smoke. We coughed and spluttered as we urged the last group together. One old man tried desperately to persuade us to bring his bed as well - the only possession of any value in his home. We had to be brutal in forcing him out, leaving the bed behind, great wracking sobs coming from him as he abandoned all he had in the world to the violence he could not understand.
We loaded the last group, and Sammy headed for the factory while the rest of us ran up the street with Fanyana, yelling to the fighting group to disengage and fall back to the hall. They did so, several of them bleeding from cuts and bruises, two wounded by bullets. Some of the 'comrades' had brought AK-47's with them, it seemed. We heard several full-auto bursts of fire, the distinctive sound of the Communist weapon a familiar and dreaded backdrop to the discordant symphony of violence being played on the stages of townships across the country.
Fanyana's wife, Miriam, stood at the hall, waiting for us. His face contorted with fear as he saw her. "What are you doing here? I sent you to the factory! Where are the children?"
"They are there, safe. Did you think I'd leave you to die, not knowing what had happened?"
I had to smile. No shrinking violet, this. She'd stand by her man in the face of mob violence and death if she had to.
Fanyana wasn't impressed. "I'm not dead, and you're a fool! Come on!"
As we ran up the street into the darkness, abandoning the church hall, the rest of us had to try desperately to hold back our laughter as his wife told Fanyana in no uncertain terms that she was no fool, and if he thought she would leave him to die alone, he'd better think again, and . . . One of the men muttered, "Hau! And to think my parents want me to get married to a good Christian girl! What do I want with a woman who'll talk to me like that?" Those around him chuckled grimly. In a male-dominated tribal culture like theirs, the pastor's wife was an exception to the rule.
We moved out of the township into open scrub land. About two hundred yards ahead of us, the silent, black ruins of the old factory loomed up beneath the starlight. We ran across the grass, stumbling on hummocks and stepping in holes, wrenching at our ankles, our breath catching in our throats. We slowed as we came to the walls, and stopped, and looked around. Behind us the glow of flames and the billowing smoke was higher than ever, moving in our direction. We knew the church hall would most likely not survive the night. One of the men said as much to Fanyana, and he shrugged. "Buildings . . . are just buildings. At least we are alive."
We walked into the ruined main building. Its walls were standing, but most of the roof was gone, leaving only a third of it covered. Already those who'd first arrived had swept the concrete floor clear of the debris and detritus of years, and several hundred people were sitting down in family groups. Candles and kerosene lanterns flickered here and there, shedding an eerie dim light over the scene.
Another group of women had lit the kerosene stoves from the church, and were boiling water. As we came in, they beckoned to us, and cleaned and bandaged the wounds of those who'd been injured covering our escape. They organized men to go with buckets to fetch more water from the nearest tap in the township, and David took the minibus to help them get it as quickly as possible. He made several trips, and they filled every available container to the brim. We didn't know when we'd be able to get more, after all.
I knew the four of us were stuck here until at least daybreak. We wouldn't be able to see whether we were driving into danger, so we couldn't risk trying to return to Johannesburg. While the others found their families, or fetched water, or helped in other ways, I walked outside, looking up at the stars. I was in a foul mood. Anger at the pettiness and political shenanigans of organized religion, frustration at not being able to protect these people's homes from destruction, bitterness at yet more destruction in the seemingly never-ending cycle of violence that had engulfed my country, the disgrace of police sworn to 'protect and serve' who instead sat back and let rival groups destroy each other, enjoying the spectacle . . . I was in a bleak state indeed. I couldn't even pray. If I'd tried, at that moment, I'd probably have cursed God.
I don't know how long I stood there, my mood as black as the night. It was a long time.
I was brought out of my miserable reverie by a tugging at my hand. I looked down. A small girl was standing there. She'd got hold of my finger, and was pulling at it.
"Baas Peter, come. Come! We are going to sing."
Sing??? What on earth could there be to sing about, on such a night? Still internally numb, angry, withdrawn, I allowed her to lead me back into the ruins.
Fanyana and Miriam had cleared a space in the center of the factory floor. The children had gathered together there. There must have been five or six hundred people inside, of whom maybe a quarter were kids under the age of ten. They were from two or three different tribes, and several different churches . . . but tonight, that didn't matter.
As I stood there, my tiny escort smiled up at me, then scampered to join the others. She reached them just as Miriam raised her hand.
The kids broke into a soft, gentle song. The words were in Zulu, but they'd originally been written in German . . . and I knew them well enough in English.
Silent night, holy night All is calm, all is bright 'Round yon virgin mother and Child Holy infant so tender and mild Sleep in heavenly peace; Sleep in heavenly peace.
Silent night, holy night, Shepherds quake at the sight. Glories stream from heaven afar, Heav'nly hosts sing Alleluia; Christ the Saviour is born; Christ the Saviour is born.
Silent night, holy night, Son of God, love's pure light. Radiant beams from Thy holy face, With the dawn of redeeming grace, Jesus, Lord at Thy birth; Jesus, Lord at Thy birth.
And I went outside, and I wept from the depths of my heart and my soul. I wept for Sue, my fiancée, who'd answered a call such as this on a night several years ago, and never came home, and was buried far away. I wept for my friends who'd died serving this seemingly hopeless cause. I wept for myself, for my own heart, which had hardened to near stone under the blows of the world, and which I'd allowed to harden . . . because I hadn't listened to the words of the One who came to us on that blessed Night, almost two thousand years before.
My concerns about church leaders preaching politics instead of the Gospel?
Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 18:3)
Children are not born with these things. They become thus after learning from adults. I'd forgotten to learn from God, rather than the chaos and anarchy around me. Those leaders had made the same mistake. Many of them are still making it to this day.
My inability to see God even in the midst of suffering?
Though the fig tree may not blossom, Nor fruit be on the vines; Though the labor of the olive may fail, And the fields yield no food; Though the flock may be cut off from the fold, And there be no herd in the stalls— Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
(Habbakuk 3:17-18)
The press, and the politicians, and the so-called 'religious' leaders, preaching doom and gloom and disaster, hatred and violence, envy and rebellion?
The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined. You have multiplied the nation And increased its joy; They rejoice before You According to the joy of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For You have broken the yoke of his burden And the staff of his shoulder, The rod of his oppressor, As in the day of Midian. For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle, And garments rolled in blood, Will be used for burning and fuel of fire. For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:2-6)
The lack of care shown by most so-called Christians, so few of whom were willing to share burdens such as ours, on this night?
And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: “ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.
(Luke 2:1-16)
Jesus didn't come to a cathedral, or synagogue. He didn't appear in majesty before the prelates of the Sanhedrin, or the hypocrites of the Pharisees. He came as the lowliest and most helpless of humans, a new-born child: one for whom there was no room at the inn, and who was placed in a manger of straw. I think he - and Mary, and Joseph, and the shepherds - would have felt right at home in that ruined factory, that night.
And so a new journey of faith began for me that night, one that was to lead me to become a pastor. Even so, I've grown more and more disillusioned with organized religion in all its forms: but the message of Christmas has never been in doubt for me since that night.
For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
I have several friends in the sandbox (both of them), plus readers of this blog who've somehow heard about it while over there. To all of you, I send my prayers and very best wishes for a safe, peaceful and blessed Christmas. I'll post general Christmas greetings tomorrow night, but since you're several hours ahead of us in the USA, I figured I'd better get yours out to you ahead of time.
You all seem to have fairly raucous senses of humor (a bit like mine when I was serving!), so I thought you might enjoy Achmed the Dead Terrorist singing a Christmas carol.
For those few who haven't yet encountered Achmed, here's his first appearance. I guess I'd better issue a language alert for the sensitive.
Here's Achmed's latest effort to spread Christmas joy (sort of).
Today's Doofus comes from New Bedford, Massachusetts.
A home-owner using a blowtorch to melt ice on his back porch accidentally set fire to his North End triple-decker Monday, officials said.
The blaze at 107 Davis St. caused $20,000-$30,000 worth of damage and displaced several residents, Fire Capt. Scott Kruger said.
Those who were home escaped safely after being alerted by smoke alarms, he said.
Firefighters responding to the call around 1:39 p.m. saw flames and smoke coming from the tenement's second and third floors. It took 25 firefighters about 30 minutes to subdue the fire.
Snow and ice the fire trucks' mobility. Firefighters guarded against hoses freezing and prevented streets from icing over from the running water.
Capt. Kruger said the building's owner was trying to melt the snow and ice on the back porch using a large torch hooked up to a 20-pound propane cylinder.
He got too close to the building's wood frame and ignited the vinyl siding. The fire quickly spread into the building's uninsulated exterior wall and chased into the second and third-floor apartments, Capt. Kruger said.
The fire damaged the rear bedrooms in the second- and third-floor apartments, and caused extensive damage to the structure and electrical wiring.
Melting ice off a porch with a blowtorch??? Near wood frames and vinyl siding???
Y'know, I'd never have believed someone could be that dumb, but I guess I'm learning . . .
Despite getting help from a police officer, an elderly woman left a path of destruction after she panicked while pulling out of a parking space. She damaged half a dozen cars, a street lamp, and more, police in Schleswig–Holstein reported on Tuesday.
“It was like in a bad film. The engine kept roaring and she was unstoppable,” police spokesperson Jana Kralisch told The Local.
After the 76-year-old Oma accidently brushed a parked car while attempting to pull out of a parking spot in the small town of Großhansdorf on Monday, police were called to the scene to help.
“She asked the officer to block the road for her so that she could take her time pulling out,” Kralisch said.
While police secured the area the woman took up the challenge again – and backed right into a minivan. But before the officer could come to her aid the retiree revved the engine and sideswiped a streetlamp at full throttle.
“She must have mistaken the gas pedal for the brake,” Kralisch said.
But her confusion seemed to simply spur her on. Having reached a state of total panic, the 76-year-old slammed the gas pedal again and careened into a BMW, pushing it up against a tree.
While police were busy trying to reach the freaked-out grandma, she accelerated again in reverse, smashing this time into a Nissan SUV which was itself forced into a parked Mercedes van.
Not finished just yet, the engine roared one last time and the senior citizen clipped a road sign, another BMW and then a Volvo before police managed to bring the joy ride to an end.
“She just got the car from her son this summer and even took some driving lessons, but they didn’t seem to have helped a lot” Kralisch said.
The retiree’s panic attack caused at least €40,000 (US $55,700) in damages and police have pressed charges against her. She will now probably lose her license “due to a physical inability” to drive, Kralisch said.
The Big Brown Truck of Happiness left four boxes in my carport this afternoon. Three of them contained Wedco 20-liter red gasoline jerrycans - the old, reliable, World War II design, not the abomination of desolation that is the new CARB-compliant version, the only kind legal to make in or bring into the USA after the New Year. A fourth box contained a couple of spouts for them, plus two siphon kits. Some of the cans are for me, some for friends.
For those who don't know its history, the jerrycan was developed by Germany prior to World War II as an essential accessory to its Blitzkrieg tactics. You can read all about it at the Expedition Exchange Web site. Scroll down past the product listings and you'll find more historical information than you'll ever need, complete with pictures. Wikipedia also has some interesting details about them.
Suffice it to say that I used jerrycans in Southern Africa for a good part of the 1970's and 1980's, in territory ranging from desert, through bush and scrub, to sub-tropical swamp. Other containers (particularly the 'new and improved' plastic variety in all its horrible forms) would leak, or allow fumes to escape, or give other problems. The jerrycans gave no such trouble. Some of them were World War II cans, captured from German forces in the Western Desert in 1941-43 and brought back to South Africa: yet, despite their age, they were still going strong and giving trouble-free service.
As I said, plastic cans and cheaper metal imitation jerrycans proved to be an abomination. You want to develop a rapid and almost terminal case of Zulu Revenge? Try eating food that's traveled in the back of a Land-Rover with a leaking gasoline container. Even if the gasoline itself doesn't get out, the fumes will contaminate everything nearby, with a resultant effect on your gastrointestinal tract that makes euthanasia seem like a desirable alternative!
(And yes, 'Zulu Revenge' is comparable to other well-known maladies such as 'Montezuma's Malady', 'the Cairo Curse', 'Delhi belly', 'the Roman Runs', 'the Taliban Two-Step' and 'Iraq-around-the-clock', to judge by comments from my veteran relatives and friends, who've served in those regions during various and sundry wars. Of course, the names they used were frequently somewhat less, er, sanitized - you should pardon the expression - than those I've given!)
Regrettably, the new CARB-compliant 20-liter jerrycan is far less satisfactory. That's not the manufacturers' fault. The bureaucrats at the California Air Resources Board came up with the requirement for the redesign, allegedly because of the vast damage to the environment caused by escaping gas fumes. (The fact that a single typical California forest fire produces more undesirable gases than about fifty years' worth of escaping fumes, from all the portable gasoline and diesel containers in the USA, apparently didn't cross their minds . . . ) The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted the CARB recommendations, and is implementing them nationally as of next year.
Portable Fuel Container Program
EPA is establishing standards that will limit hydrocarbon emissions that evaporate from or permeate through portable fuel containers such as gas cans. Gas cans are consumer products used to refuel a wide variety of gasoline-powered equipment, including lawn and garden equipment, recreational equipment, and passenger vehicles that have run out of gas. The new requirements also apply to diesel and kerosene containers. Starting with containers manufactured in 2009, the standard limits evaporation and permeation emissions from these containers to 0.3 grams of hydrocarbons per gallon per day. We are also adopting test procedures and a certification and compliance program in order to ensure that containers meet the emission standard over a range of in-use conditions.
EPA has worked closely with major container manufacturers and it is expected that the new cans will be built with a simple and inexpensive permeation barrier and new spouts that close automatically.
Thanks to the bureaucrats, the new design lacks the ease of pouring of the old one (spillage is almost guaranteed, according to friends who've tried them). They're equipped with an integral spout, without which one can't pour from them into a vehicle's gas tank. Even with the spout, I think one needs to be a three-handed gorilla to succeed! It's a thoroughly unsatisfactory development, but as of January 1st, 2009, that's the only fuel jerrycan that can be legally manufactured in or imported into the USA. Once existing stocks of the old variety are sold, that's it. You'll never be able to get the 'old reliable' jerrycan again.
So, friends, if you rely on portable gasoline containers for any purpose at all - refueling gardening machinery, off-roading, boating, emergency supplies of gasoline or diesel for a bug-out situation, whatever - I can't recommend too strongly that you get hold of some original-design jerrycans while the going's good. They're not cheap, but the best never is. In particular, if you envisage a situation where you might have to have (a) fuel container(s) in the passenger compartment of your vehicle (e.g. in the back of an SUV or minivan in a bug-out situation, like getting out of the way of a hurricane), the jerrycan is the only way to go. It won't release fumes to poison the atmosphere - or your food supplies! - provided you keep the exterior wiped clean and dry.
The supplier I used, Expedition Exchange, has already sold out of diesel (yellow) jerrycans, and only has the gasoline variety (red) left in stock. Nevertheless, if you need diesel jerrycans, I'd strongly advise buying some of the red ones, then picking up a couple of spray cans of yellow paint from your local store and re-painting them yourself. They're good enough that it's worth the extra trouble. Also, some states already prohibit the sale or shipment of non-CARB-compliant jerrycans. If your state's one of them, and you have friends in adjoining or nearby states who can still legally receive them, I'd advise that you have them shipped there.
There aren't many places with stocks of original-design jerrycans left. I know and recommend the Wedco brand, but I can't speak for others. Be careful to insist on a brand that's welded all round at the seams, not solder-sealed - the latter invariably develop leaks, sooner or later. You've got seven days left to order a few for yourself, or lose the chance forever: so, if I may suggest it, buy yourself a New Year's present! Expedition Exchange has a special offer, four jerrycans in a 'mix-and-match' size configuration for up to $20 off, which is what I bought. You can get any combination of 20-liter (5.3 US gallon), 10-liter (2.65 gallon) or 5-liter (1.32 gallon) cans. I think it's a worthwhile investment. (And no, I'm not on their payroll and don't get any freebies for mentioning their name - they just gave me very good service, for which I'm grateful. I'm returning the favor by giving them some free publicity.)
I hope this is helpful to those who use or need portable gasoline or diesel containers.
In the world of competitive eating, "Furious" Pete Czerwinski is to latkes what the unstoppable 1998 Yankees were to baseball.
None of the other 10 contestants who came to Lake Grove for yesterday's National Potato Latke Eating Championship stood a chance.
Czerwinski - a 6-foot-2, muscle-packed Canadian - downed 46 latkes and was still licking applesauce from his stubble when the eight-minute contest ended. Will Millender, a 380-pound Brooklyn community college student, came in second with 29 latkes.
Czerwinski's demolition of about seven pounds of potato pancakes throughly eclipsed the 31 latkes consumed by Tom "Goose" Gilbert of Massachusetts in 2006 and is a new world record, said Arnie Chapman, chairman of the Association of Independent Competitive Eaters, which sanctioned the event at Zan's Deli.
For Czerwinski, who has been eating competitively for about a year and has shot to the top of the AICE rankings, the win was a textbook case of beginner's luck. He said he had never eaten a latke before.
"I'm just a power eater. My brain never signals that I'm full," said Czerwinski, 23, a mechanical engineering student. Czerwinski took home $300, but most contestants said competitive eating is more about fun than money.
Seven pounds of latkes . . . in eight minutes.
I think I've just developed a case of sympathetic indigestion!
No good deed goes unpunished, or so goes the saying.
Such was the case with Lisa Torti, who is being sued for pulling a now-paralyzed friend from the wreckage of a Los Angeles car accident in 2004.
The victim's lawyers claim the Good Samaritan bumbled the rescue and caused injury by yanking her friend "like a rag doll" to safety.
But Torti -- now a 30-year-old interior designer from Las Vegas -- said she thought she had seen smoke and feared the car would explode. She claims she was only trying to help her friend, Alexandra Van Horn, and her own life has been adversely affected by the incident.
. . .
The California Supreme Court ruled this week that Van Horn may sue Torti for allegedly causing her friend's paralysis. The case -- the first of its kind -- challenges the state's liability shield law that protects people who give emergency assistance.
The court ruled 4-3 that only those administering medical care have legal immunity, but not those like Torti, who merely take rescue action. The justices said that the perceived danger to Van Horn in the wrecked car was not "medical."
The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently.
Van Horn's lawsuit will go on to trial court to determine if Torti is to blame for Van Horn's paralysis.
But some legal experts say the ruling may discourage people from trying to save lives.
. . .
Peter Keane, a dean emeritus and professor of law at Golden Gate Law School, said the impact of the court ruling will "be a bad one" and have repercussions in about a dozen other states that have Good Samaritan laws.
He said the ruling will force ordinary people to be "reflective" before coming to the aid of a person in an emergency.
"It's much too literal an interpretation of the immunity law for Good Samaritans," he told ABCNews.com. "Now it puts the onus on the lay person in an emergency situation to try to figure out the nuances of what medical care means, something that could subject them to liability later on."
There's a lot more to this story than I've published above - you can read all the details at the link - but the 'meat' of it is in these paragraphs.
I trained as a first aid practitioner with St. John Ambulance in South Africa during my teenage years. As an adult I've had to assist at more than a few scenes of injury, and found my training very useful. However, all of those occasions were outside the USA, where this country's tort-crazy legal system didn't apply.
I can see two sides to this dilemma. On the one hand, I'm genuinely outraged that any person trying to help another, in good faith, should be subject to legal proceedings like this. In an emergency, there's simply no time for long-winded, well-reasoned debate about whether or not to do something. I've been there, done that, and got the T-shirt to prove it. I've stood alongside smoking vehicles in the aftermath of an accident, and been all too aware that if any leaking gasoline comes into contact with a spark - or even a hot metal surface, like an exhaust - an explosion and/or fire could result. Under those circumstances, I've twice helped to remove injured people from a motor vehicle. Sure, there was a risk of exacerbating their existing injuries, and having been trained in first aid, I knew that - but what of the greater danger of incineration in a gasoline fire?
Sometimes one has to gamble on which is the greater risk. In the heat of the moment, there's no choice.
On the other hand, I can see where the court is coming from on this one. If the danger proves to have been negligible, or even non-existent, despite the impressions of those on the scene at the time that it was very real, what then? If a bystander causes further injury, or makes an existing injury worse, by getting someone out of a vehicle, when it was later determined that there was no need to do so, what's their liability? This question is particularly important if they're not medically trained and able to assess the injury(ies) concerned.
Trouble is, when one's on the scene, one doesn't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. After the fact, when the smoke has cleared and everyone's safe, an accident investigator can check out the scene at his/her leisure and make an informed judgment. However, just after things went pear-shaped, with all the noise and confusion and chaos, that sort of rational, reasoned approach isn't always possible. Sometimes one has to act in the heat of the moment, for fear that something worse may happen if one doesn't.
There was a case in South Africa where a driver was trapped in a burning car. No emergency vehicles had yet arrived, and he was screaming in agony as he was being burned alive. A bystander snatched a gun from the holster of another person and emptied it at the driver, trying to put him out of his agony. He waited for the police, handed over the gun, and openly stated what he'd done, and why. He was arrested and charged with murder: but an autopsy revealed that no bullets had struck the driver, who'd died of burns and smoke inhalation, so the charge was dropped.
There was widespread shock and horror at what the bystander had done . . . but let me assure you, readers, if you've ever had to watch (and even worse, hear, and smell) a person burn to death (and I have, on three occasions), you'd be sorely tempted to do likewise, as the most merciful thing possible under the circumstances. Believe it. It's true. The prosecuting authority in South Africa publicly acknowledged, in withdrawing the case, that the circumstances were 'extraordinary', and indicated that if the case had gone to trial, the charge would probably have been dropped to culpable homicide rather than murder, on those grounds.
That was an extreme incident, of course, but what about more normal circumstances, such as those described in the news report above? What's the answer? Should those trying to help, in good faith, be legally shielded from any negative consequences of their actions? Part of me says, "Not just 'Yes', but 'Hell, yes'!" - because if they're not, who's going to try to help at all? Won't it be 'safer' to leave someone to potentially die, rather than expose oneself to the risk of a lawsuit?
On the other hand, what if their good-faith efforts make things worse? What if their assessment of the risk was seriously out of whack? What if they'd been drinking, and in their less-than-fully-competent mental state, made an error of judgment?
I honestly don't know the answer. Readers, I'd love to hear your take on this in Comments, particularly those who are police, fire or EMS personnel.
Scientists have created a mathematical formula of how to make the perfect bacon butty.
Experts at Leeds University discovered the secret to the ideal sandwich lay in how crispy and crunchy rashers were.
They found that two or three back bacon rashers should be cooked under a preheated oven grill for seven minutes at about 240° C (475° F).
The bacon should then be placed between two slices of farmhouse bread, 1cm to 2cm (0.4 to 0.8 inches) thick.
Cooking times
Four researchers at the Department of Food Science spent more than 1,000 hours testing 700 variations on the traditional bacon sandwich.
They tried different types and cuts of bacon, cooking techniques, types of oil and a range of cooking times at different temperatures.
A shortlist was then tested with computers to measure the texture of each sandwich.
Fifty volunteers also judged each sandwich according to its taste, texture and flavour.
'Turn-off'
Dr Graham Clayton, who led the research, said: "We often think it's the taste and smell of bacon that consumers find most attractive.
"But our research proves that texture and the crunching sound is just - if not more - important.
"While there was much debate within our taste panels on the smoked or unsmoked decision, everyone agreed that tough or chewy bacon is a turn-off."
The formula is:
N = C + {fb (cm) . fb (tc)} + fb (Ts) + fc . ta
where:
N = force in Newtons required to break the cooked bacon;
fb = function of the bacon type;
fc = function of the condiment/filling effect;
Ts = serving temperature;
tc = cooking time;
ta = time or duration of application of condiment/filling;
cm = cooking method;
C = Newtons required to break uncooked bacon.
So now you know! This blogger hereby volunteers his services (generously, with no thought of the self-sacrifice involved) to taste scientifically test the efforts of those who'd like to try this formula for themselves. All I ask is reimbursement of travel costs (plus any treatment required for indigestion!).
I'm delighted that an Italian official has displayed common sense - and humanity - in dealing with smuggled goods.
Traditionally it's the food of the wealthy. But this Christmas, the poor and homeless will dine on caviar.
Italy, like many countries, bans beluga caviar, one of the most expensive varieties, to help preserve the endangered beluga sturgeon which produces the prized eggs.
So when officials seized 88lb from smugglers in Milan, it was assumed the £370,000 haul destined for the black market would be destroyed.
But it seems the caviar was just too good to waste.
'Last year, after a similar operation, we ended up destroying all the confiscated caviar,' said an official who deals with protected species. 'This time,' he added: 'I came up with the idea of giving away all the caviar to the poor.'
It is being donated to the Red Cross, Franciscan monks, care homes and organisations which prepare Christmas food for the homeless and poor around Milan.
And the helpings promise to be generous. One shelter is expecting 22lb to feed 82. That makes portions up to three times larger than those in restaurants.
Juri Mantegazza, a spokesman for the Italian Forestry Corps in Milan and who seized the caviar, said: 'We decided that the best thing to do was to donate it but we have kept a small amount as part of the investigation.
'It was found in the fridge of a private house in Milan and the woman and two Poles have been arrested following the discovery.'
Father Virginio Colmegan, of the Casa della Carita (House of Charity) said: 'Every gift we are given is warmly accepted even if the majority of our guests don't even know what these little black balls are.'
"Little black balls", indeed! I wonder how many Milanese socialites will try pretending to be poor on Christmas day, to get triple portions of "forbidden fruit"?
Carrier-based aviation in the US Navy finds itself in a difficult position today concerning its overall strategy, and even its very reason for being. This Weekend Wings will examine some of the issues involved, and look at how the USN is addressing them. However, before doing so, we must examine the environment within which their aircraft carriers will operate. (Click this and all photographs for a larger view.)
USS Nimitz
Critics of the USN's huge carriers allege that they're easy targets for today's missiles and guided weapons, and unlikely to survive for very long in a major war. This may possibly be true. Certainly, no-one's yet experienced the effect that multiple hits from major missiles like the Russo-Indian BrahMos, shown below, would have on a Nimitz class carrier: but it's likely they'd be pretty devastating. I doubt whether the ship would be able to continue operations, even if it wasn't sunk.
BrahMos can be launched from land-, sea- or air-based platforms, and strike targets up to 180 miles distant. The current version of this missile cruises at up to three times the speed of sound, and a hypersonic version is under development, planned to have a velocity of over Mach 5. Other anti-ship missiles, such as the USN's own Harpoon, the Russian 3M-54 Klub, the European Exocet, the Swedish RBS-15, the Israeli Gabriel, the Chinese C-802 and C-803, and the Taiwanese Hsiung Feng II and III, are slower than the BrahMos, but some have greater range and/or a larger warhead.
Even a single hit from such a missile can devastate a modern warship, as the following examples show. The Royal Navy destroyer HMS Sheffield, shown below, was struck by a single Exocet missile, launched from an Argentine aircraft, during the Falklands War in 1982. The resulting fire crippled her, and she eventually sank after rough seas flooded her through the holes made by the missile.
The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate USS Stark, shown below, was hit by two Exocet missiles, fired from an Iraqi warplane, in 1987. Only one exploded, but the damage crippled the ship, rendering her combat-ineffective, and took over a year to repair.
The Israeli Sa'ar 5 class corvette INS Hanit, shown below, was struck by a Chinese C-802 missile, fired by the terrorist movement Hezbollah, off the Lebanese coast in 2006. The impact and explosion fractured the hull from keel to superstructure, and the resulting fire destroyed much of the ship's electrical network. She was forced to curtail operations and return to port for repairs.
All told, fourteen vessels have been damaged or sunk in attacks by anti-ship guided weapons since 1966. Carrier critics point out that the USN's current air defenses (aircraft-launched missiles such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM, ship-launched long-range missiles such as the RIM-67/156 Standard, plus short-range point defense systems such as the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, 5" cannon and Phalanx Close-In Weapons System) would have great difficulty dealing with a mass missile attack by most current-generation weapons, and probably couldn't cope at all with BrahMos and future hypersonic missiles. They claim that the only way for the USN's carriers to survive such threats would be to remain outside their launch envelope - which would also put the carriers so far away from their own targets that they'd probably be rendered ineffective.
Certainly, the proliferation of anti-ship missiles is cause for serious concern to any Navy. India and Russia are on record as planning to produce up to 2,000 of the BrahMos series, of which up to 1,000 are intended for export to other nations. Already over 50 nations operate anti-ship missiles of greater or lesser capability, and that number is likely to increase in coming years.
The equation is one of simple cost-effectiveness. A USN nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier, including its wing of aircraft and all supplies and munitions, has a replacement cost of the order of $15-$20 billion. Add to this her usual escort of a cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate, plus a supply ship or two, and the replacement cost of a carrier battle group exceeds $30 billion.
An anti-ship missile such as the Chinese C-802 can be purchased for less than a million dollars. If an enemy launched a mass strike against a carrier battle group, using, say, 200-300 such missiles, there's no way in the world the latter would be able to shoot them all down before they reached their targets. For a start, the vertical launch long-range missile systems in the cruiser and destroyer only hold 96 missiles, not all of which are for anti-aircraft or anti-missile use. Even if every weapon was accurately targeted, they'd run out of ammunition before destroying even half the incoming missiles. The surviving missiles would unquestionably at least disable, if not sink, all the ships in the battle group. Thus, for an investment of about a quarter of a billion dollars, an enemy can neutralize a hundred times that value in US weaponry and equipment - not to mention causing massive casualties amongst US personnel. Not a bad deal, from an enemy's point of view.
However, all is not as bleak as it may appear on the surface. The USN has been facing a missile threat since the 1960's, and its structure, equipment, weapons and tactics have been developed to confront and defeat that threat. Just as missiles have improved over the years, so have defenses: and today's hypersonic missiles are engendering new responses that may change the nature of sea warfare as we know it.
The USN's primary response to the missile threat is to keep their launching platforms out of range of its ships. This is sometimes achieved simply by stationing the carrier battle group at a safe distance from any threat. However, geographical and operational constraints don't always allow this, so a layered system of defenses has been set up to deal with incoming fire.
The first layer is distant attack of launching platforms. Airborne early warning aircraft such as the Grumman E-2C Hawkeye series can track enemy ships and aircraft out to 300 miles or more, within a three-million-cubic-mile surveillance envelope, and pass targeting information to other aircraft and ships.
The new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, currently under development with two prototypes already flying, promises a quantum leap in performance. The Hawkeye can direct other carrier aircraft to intercept and destroy enemy ships and planes before they get close enough to launch missiles. If enemy missiles are launched, the Hawkeye can track them and direct aircraft to intercept them at longer ranges. It will also pass its information to the ships themselves via datalink. The AEGIS combat system aboard US cruisers and destroyers, with its distinctively-shaped hexagonal phased-array radar panels, is designed to track and engage scores of targets simultaneously, directing long- and short-range defensive missiles and guns.
US warships also have comprehensive electronic warfare and decoy systems, details of which are highly classified. The USN maintains that this layered system of defenses is likely to defeat most potential attack scenarios.
Personally, I doubt that any gun- or missile-based defense system can beat off an attack by massed anti-ship missiles in large numbers. The reaction time available to the defenses is just too slow, and the time of flight of defensive weapons too long, to be able to succeed against a sufficient number of incoming targets. However, directed-energy weapons such as laser beams are on the horizon. The first such system to be commercially available, Northrop Grumman's Firestrike, is already being marketed. More will follow. Today's lasers are powerful enough to blind the sensors of an incoming weapon, and within ten years their power output is expected to reach a level that can destroy an aircraft or missile.
This will change the air-defense situation completely. It may even render manned aircraft too dangerous to fly over a battlefield, or against a naval combat group. You see, light-speed weapons don't need to make any allowance for the motion of their target. Their beams are so fast that they reach the target virtually instantaneously. This means that if the weapon is correctly aimed, its target is as good as dead. It won't be possible to evade them. If each warship carries enough of these beam weapons, and its combat systems can re-target them quickly against multiple threats, even a 'swarm' attack by anti-ship missiles may no longer be enough to defeat a carrier strike group.
(It bears mentioning that the power requirements of such weapons will be astronomical compared to current missiles and guns. This is where the nuclear-powered warships of the USN, with their vast electrical generation capabilities, will have a distinct advantage.)
Of course, submarine attacks won't be detected or deflected by such countermeasures. Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) used to be a top priority of the USN, but with the demise of the Soviet Union, it took second place to the global projection of maritime power. Now that many nations are acquiring modern submarines, capable of launching anti-ship missiles as well as torpedoes, the USN is placing renewed emphasis on the ASW mission, which will hopefully lead to improvements in defenses in that area as well.
Let's accept, therefore, that while a carrier battle group may be vulnerable to a massed missile attack, this is offset to at least some extent by appropriate tactics and its existing defenses, and will be further reduced by a new generation of defensive weapons. The carrier will probably remain a viable platform for the naval air arm, albeit with the risk of some losses in time of war.
At present, the USN operates ten nuclear-powered aircraft-carriers: one of the Enterprise class;
A tenth Nimitz class carrier is to be commissioned in 2009. The first of a new generation of aircraft carriers, the Ford class, is under construction, and is expected to enter service in 2015.
Artist's impression of USS Gerald R. Ford
The latter two classes each displace approximately 100,000 tons at full load, and are very comprehensively equipped to sustain operations globally.
Although not, strictly speaking, regarded as 'aircraft carriers', the USN operates several amphibious assault ships that carry US Marine air components (often with some USN aircraft attached). At present there are two Tarawa class and eight Wasp class vessels in commission, with the first of the new America class vessels scheduled to be delivered in 2013, replacing the Tarawa class.
Wasp class amphibious assault ship
Each of these ships displaces more than a World War II Essex class aircraft carrier. However, they lack the catapults and arrester gear needed to operate modern carrier planes. Instead, they carry several dozen vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft. Types and numbers can vary by mission, but usually include US Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II strike aircraft, plus a mixture of CH-46 Sea Knight, CH-53E Super Stallion, UH-1N Huey, AH-1W Supercobra and SH-60F/HH-60H Seahawk helicopters. Over the next few years the new F-35B Lightning II will replace the AV-8B's, and older helicopters will be first supplemented, then replaced, by MV-22B Osprey aircraft and UH-1Y Venom, AH-1Z Viper, CH-53K Super Stallion, and possibly later-model SH-60 Seahawk helicopters.
Having looked at the ships, what about the carrier air arm itself? What problems confront it today, how are they being overcome, and what does the future hold?
The aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier are organized as a Carrier Air wing. This used to be known as a Carrier Air Group, and the Commanding Officer of a Carrier Air Wing (a Navy Captain or USMC Colonel) still uses the acronym CAG from this legacy (perhaps because CAW would be too undignified!).
A Wing is made up of squadrons, as well as detachments from some squadrons, totalling 70-80 aircraft in peacetime. As a representative example, let's look at the US Navy's Carrier Air Wing One as it's made up at present, comprising eight squadrons and/or detachments:
The four Hornet/Super Hornet squadrons, each with 10-12 aircraft, perform fighter and strike missions; VAW-123 provides airborne early warning; VAQ-137 fulfils the tactical electronic warfare function; HS-11's mission is anti-submarine warfare and support of fleet and air operations (e.g. air/sea rescue, vertical replenishment, etc.); and VRC-40 transports supplies and personnel between the carrier and shore bases.
There are ten Carrier Air Wings in the US Navy. Each is usually assigned to a particular aircraft carrier for a period of some years, but may be reassigned to another (for example, when the first goes out of commission for extended maintenance). It's sobering to think that a single Carrier Air Wing comprises more striking power than the entire Air Forces of many smaller nations!
One deficiency that will be immediately apparent to sailors of the second half of the 20th Century is that the air wing lacks the ASW assets that were previously an important component. This is partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which removed a great deal of the need for ASW operations, and partly due to budgetary considerations. The mainstay of ASW flight operations, the Lockheed S-3 Viking, has reached the end of its service life, and the last will be retired by early next year. It has already been withdrawn from carrier squadrons.
S-3B Viking launching from USS Abraham Lincoln
At present no replacement aircraft is planned. This leaves a potentially serious gap in airborne ASW defenses. Stopgap measures could include the deployment of shore-based ASW aircraft such as the Lockheed P-3C Orion or its pending replacement, the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, and assigning nuclear-powered attack submarines to protect the carrier battle group. Carrier air wings will deploy the new MH-60R variant of the SH-60 Seahawk helicopter, shown below, in the ASW function.
However, no helicopter has the speed, range or weapons carrying capability of the S-3. This is likely to remain a weakness in the Carrier Air Wing, and if the submarine threat increases, it may have to be addressed by a new aircraft in future. There have been suggestions that a new version of the V-22 Osprey might be developed for the purpose. This would have the advantage that it could also operate from amphibious assault ships, as it would not be restricted to catapult- and arrester-gear-equipped carriers for launch and recovery.
The S-3 also served as an in-flight refueling tanker for strike aircraft, carrying fuel in a 'buddy store' beneath its wings, as shown below.
With the S-3 leaving service, a replacement tanker was needed. This capability was incorporated into the new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which can carry a similar 'buddy store' to refuel its fellow strike aircraft, as shown below.
The future of the USN's strike aircraft is presently under scrutiny, and a number of interesting developments should be examined. Let's begin by stating the single most critical problem: modern combat aircraft have become extremely expensive. New technologies and materials are part of this, of course, but so is inflation - not to mention plain, downright greed among suppliers. To illustrate, consider these actual prices for USAF front-line aircraft:
The P-51D Mustang fighter of World War II cost $50,000 in 1945 ($573,173 in 2007 dollars, adjusted for inflation);
The F-86E Sabre of the Korean War cost $220,000 in 1952 ($1,711,206 in 2007 dollars);
The F-4E Phantom II of the Vietnam War cost $2,400,000 in 1965 ($15,708,972 in 2007 dollars);
The F-16A/B Fighting Falcon of Operation Desert Storm cost $14,600,000 in 1992 ($21,451,295 in 2007 dollars);
The F-35A Lightning II's unit cost when it enters service in 2011, according to the USAF's 2008 budget projection, will be $83,000,000.
Incredible, isn't it? The front-line fighter/bomber of 1945, even allowing for inflation, cost less than one per cent of the price of the front-line fighter/bomber of 2011! The front-line fighter/bomber of Operation Desert Storm in 1992 cost less than a fifth of the price we'll pay for its replacement, the F-35, in 2011.
Faced with this cost inflation and the changing threat environment, the USAF stopped buying previous-generation strike aircraft in the 1990's, pinning its hopes on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project (of which more later). However this program is greatly over-budget and very late. The result is that the USAF's existing aircraft are getting progressively older and more expensive to maintain. In addition, budgetary constraints mean that it won't be able to buy enough new aircraft fast enough to replace its legacy fleet, as older aircraft reach the end of their useful lives. This is likely to cause crippling constraints on its operational flexibility over the next two decades.
The US Marine Corps has also 'bet the farm' on JSF, looking to it to replace its F/A-18 Hornet carrier-based aircraft and also its AV-8B Harrier II vertical take-off and landing aircraft, deployed on amphibious assault ships and at forward air bases. Like the USAF, it stopped buying 'legacy' aircraft, preferring to wait for the JSF, and its existing aircraft are also getting old and tired. Whether or not they'll remain operationally effective until they can be replaced is an open question, particularly given the heavy demands on them (and USAF planes) for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past few years.
The USN took a rather different approach to its sister services. It had proposed the Advanced Tactical Aircraft project in the 1980's, leading to the design of the A-12 Avenger II strike aircraft.
Artist's concept of A-12 Avenger II
It was planned to buy 620 A-12's for the Navy and 238 for the Marine Corps. However, due to enormous cost overruns, this program was canceled in 1991 before a prototype was built.
The Department of Defense mandated that the USAF, USN and USMC seek a common solution to their future strike aircraft needs. This evolved into the Joint Strike Fighter Program, which was eventually won by the Lockheed Martin X-35. This aircraft went on to be developed into the F-35 Lightning II, which is nearing production status.
The Lightning II will be built in three versions. The F-35A, shown below, is a conventional takeoff and landing version for the USAF, using existing airfields.
The F-35B is a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version for the US Marine Corps, which can operate from conventional airfields, rudimentary forward air bases, aircraft carriers, and amphibious assault ships, replacing both the F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet and the AV-8B Harrier II. It will have a smaller internal weapons bay and reduced internal fuel volume compared to the F-35A, due to the space taken up by the lift fan and other specialized machinery. The X-35B JSF prototype is shown in hovering flight below.
The F-35C, the first of which will fly next year, will be a carrier-borne variant for the USN. It will have a larger, folding wing and larger control surfaces for improved low-speed handling, and stronger landing gear, an arrester hook and catapult launching capability, all required for carrier operation. Its structure will be strengthened to withstand the stresses involved. The graphic below shows the three versions from above. The larger wing and control surfaces of the C model are clearly visible.
The F-35 will be able to carry a wide variety of weapons, both US and foreign, as shown in the graphic below. Several foreign air arms have joined the program.
The USN committed itself to the JSF program, and is scheduled to buy 480 F-35C's for its carrier air wings, replacing Boeing F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet models. The USMC will buy 340 F-35B's to replace its Hornets and Harrier II's. (These figures are, of course, current proposals: they may change in the light of future budgetary restrictions.)
However, the USN did not make the same decision as the USAF and USMC, abandoning the purchase of other aircraft while waiting for the outcome of the JSF program. Instead, it persuaded Congress to approve the development of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, portraying it as an evolutionary development of the earlier F/A-18A/B/C/D models. However, whilst it's visually similar to the earlier Hornet, the Super Hornet is in fact an almost entirely new aircraft, 20% larger and much heavier than its predecessor, and carrying 33% more internal fuel. As one commentator has noted:
In terms of broad comparisons, the F/A-18E/F most closely compares to the late model F-15 variants. While it does not have the supersonic optimised wing and top end BVR combat and supersonic agility performance of APG-63(V)2 phased array fitted F-15C models, it has a more recent avionic package, radar cross section reduction measures absent on the F-15 and a very modern defensive EW package. In most key respects, the Super Hornet is a substantial improvement over the established F/A-18A-D models, especially in combat radius performance. While the aircraft is frequently criticised for not offering a dazzling supersonic agility and thrust/weight performance increase over the baseline F/A-18C, this was not a primary design objective. Rather, the aim was to provide a low risk near term growth aircraft exploiting the established technology investment in the F/A-18C, and utilising newer technologies such as RCS reduction, integrated MIDS datalink and advanced countermeasures to improve the aircraft's survivability and lethality without the cost penalties of a clean sheet new design.
The Super Hornet has replaced the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and Grumman A-6 Intruder in USN service, and is also replacing some earlier-production Hornets. It continues in production, and a new version, the EA-18G Growler, pictured below, has begun to replace the EA-6B Prowler in the electronic warfare role. Note the aerial bulges on the vertical surfaces of the tail, and the under-wing and wingtip electronic equipment pods.
The Super Hornet, while very capable in many ways, does have certain disadvantages. Its power, range and maneuverability are inferior to a likely opponent, the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker family of fighters, which is in widespread service. One commentator summarizes the situation as follows:
In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.
Whilst the above comment may be true, it's not exactly fair to the Super Hornet, which was never designed to be an air superiority fighter. The Su-27, on the other hand, was designed to counter the USAF F-15 Eagle. The Super Hornet is multi-role, operating as both fighter and strike aircraft. Inevitably, it will perform less well in the dedicated air superiority role than an aircraft optimized for that purpose. In a combat scenario, it's likely that the USN would try to keep its Super Hornets out of dogfighting range of opponents like the Su-27, preferring to engage them at long range with missiles.
The rest of the USN's F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet aircraft will be replaced over time by the F-35C Lightning II. This aircraft is optimized for the strike role, with a secondary capability to take on enemy aircraft. It has the advantage of utilizing stealth features in its design and construction, making it much more difficult for an enemy to detect and engage it. However, those same stealth features are an untried quantity in a maritime operating environment. The USAF has found that maintaining the stealthiness of its F-22 Raptor air superiority fighters is causing an enormous maintenance overhead. Since the F-35 uses similar stealth technology, will this also affect its operations? This is of particular importance in the corrosive salt-air environment, close quarters and hard-pounding takeoffs and landings encountered aboard an aircraft carrier. Will a 'stealth' aircraft remain 'stealthy' under such conditions? This remains to be seen.
The US Marine Corps will also be operating the F-35, in its B version, equipped for short takeoff and vertical landing. This may cause some interoperability problems on USN carriers. The USN's F-35C will have a longer range, and be capable of carrying more ordnance, than the USMC's F-35B. If they are to operate in the same Carrier Air Wing, this will require allowances to be made for the latter aircraft, which might be difficult under operational conditions. On the other hand, without the F-35B, the USMC would lose the ability to operate its aircraft in support of its ground forces from amphibious assault ships and unprepared forward air bases. The trade-off will have to be accepted - or the Marines may end up buying some F-35C's instead of a full fleet of F-35B's.
The USN currently has no air superiority fighter like the F-22 Raptor in its inventory, and none is in prospect. There were plans in the 1990's to adapt the F-22 to carrier operations, but these were abandoned due to complexity and expense. Will the lack of such a dedicated fighter aircraft be a problem, or will the F/A-18E/F and F-35C be able to deal with any enemy air threat? This question can only be answered in wartime operations . . . which we hope won't be necessary. However, the lessons of history teach us that such hopes are unlikely to be fulfilled.
The F-35 program is currently running years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Whether or not the aircraft will perform as promised is still uncertain. Indeed, in an attempt to save money, the testing that would normally take place prior to operational deployment won't be completed until almost 300 aircraft have already been built! If any major flaw is discovered, all those planes already bought will have to be modified at great expense, and the operational effectiveness of all three US air services will be in serious danger.
Faced with this uncertainty, it's clear that the USN's strategy of continuing to purchase F/A-18E/F Super Hornets is a wise one. The USAF is already in an extremely difficult situation, because it halted purchases of 'legacy' aircraft in the 1990's to wait for the F-35. Given the delays and cost overruns in the latter program, it now can't buy enough F-35's quickly enough to replace its existing strike aircraft as they reach the end of their service lives. It may end up with a shortfall of several hundred aircraft for several years. The USMC may face the same problem in replacing its older F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets and AV-8B Harrier II's. The USN may face a similar difficulty as its F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets reach the end of their service lives, but because it's been steadily bringing Super Hornets into its inventory, the scale of the problem will be much smaller.
The USN is also considering what will replace the Super Hornet in due course. Several years ago it launched the F/A-XX program to assess its future combat aircraft needs. Many observers have questioned why this investigation was necessary at so early a stage. One simple answer might be that the USN saw the problems developing in the F-35 program, and realized that it needed a backup plan!
In the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2006, it was announced that the J-UCAS project had been terminated. The USAF would proceed with the development of a new generation bomber aircraft (whether piloted or not was to be investigated). The USN decided to pursue what had already been learned with J-UCAS, and contracted with Northrop Grumman to develop the X-47B as a demonstrator, to show what a a future naval Unmanned Combat Air System might look like. Progress has been steady, and the prototype X-47B was rolled out in California just last week.
X-47B rollout, December 16th, 2008
The X-47B is unlikely to go into production in its present form. However, the eventual production version may be very similar. The demonstrator is a very large aircraft, with a wingspan of 62.1 feet (compared to the F/A-18's wingspan of 44.7 feet). The wings fold to 30.9 feet for storage in an aircraft carrier's hangar. It's powered by a Pratt & Whitney F100-220 turbofan developing almost 18,000 pounds of thrust. The demonstrator also incorporates a full weapons bay, of similar size to that on the F-35. It's scheduled to make its first landing on an aircraft carrier in 2011.
Artist's impression of X-47B on carrier deck
The USN has progressively refined its requirements for the technology demonstrator. From being a primarily reconnaissance-oriented airframe, a strike requirement was added, and now autonomous air-to-air refueling is also to be demonstrated. The X-47B will land and take off using arresting gear and catapults in the same way as piloted USN aircraft. A major part of the demonstrator's task will be to determine whether unmanned aircraft can maneuver around the deck of an aircraft carrier without causing damage to other aircraft, or injury to crew members.
Furthermore, the X-47B is a fully stealthy design, without a tail. This is far harder to detect than an aircraft with vertical or near-vertical surfaces. It thus becomes a natural candidate for further development into a fully-fledged strike aircraft. If a tailless design, which is inherently unstable in flight, can be sufficiently developed to automatically land on an aircraft carrier without problems, this will usher in a whole new era of shipborne aviation.
Artist's impression of X-47B in flight
The two video clips below show how the X-47B (and its operational successor) may function in an operational environment. You'll have to excuse the breathless hype of the commentator, which is completely unnecessary - but then, that's show business!
Ironically, the X-47B may also be helping the USAF, despite the demise of the J-UCAS program. As one journal has pointed out, there is evidence suggesting that Northrop Grumman may already have received a secret contract to develop the USAF's new bomber. (It had earlier suggested an XB-47C development, much larger than the X-47B, with a heavier payload.) If that's the case, it's inconceivable that the two projects will go ahead at arms length from one another. It's likely that each will learn from and influence the other. The USAF has indicated that its next-generation bomber will be required in the 2017-2020 time frame, and the USN wants its next combat aircraft to enter service in 2020-2025, so there's also an approximate fit in terms of timescale for development.
We've already spoken of the Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aerial warning and control aircraft, which is currently under development. Below is a picture of one of the prototypes.
Both the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35B/C Lightning II will have full datalink capability with this aircraft, and all three of them with the carrier and its escorts. In effect, any aircraft or ship will be able to convey to any other what its sensors are picking up, and any of them will be able to provide guidance to weapons launched by any other. Any future production version of the X-47B can be expected to have the same capability when it enters service.
The current carrier on-board delivery (COD) aircraft is a derivative of earlier models of the E-2 Hawkeye, namely the C-2A(R) Greyhound.
C-2A(R) Greyhound with E-2C Hawkeye
39 Greyhounds were delivered during the 1980's, and continue in service. They are unlikely to need replacement soon: and since a new generation of Hawkeyes is about to enter service, it's likely that their basic structure could be adapted to provide a relatively low-cost Greyhound replacement as well, if necessary.
The USN's helicopter requirements appear to be adequately met at present, and the USMC is bringing several new types of helicopter into service. The only gaping holes in the USN aircraft inventory are a dedicated carrier-borne long-range ASW platform to replace the S-3 Viking (which might be met, if necessary, by a new version of the V-22 Osprey, as speculated earlier), and a carrier-borne air superiority fighter, which may be less important in a stealth combat environment. As one commentator has pointed out:
No matter how good a conventional fighter is, and how good its missiles and sensors are, an engagement flown against a stealthy fighter aircraft is a no win proposition. The whole engagement can be summarised as "Deedle, deedle, deedle, BANG!". Your warning receiver blares away, you crank your head around to figure out what is happening, and you die as the inbound missile blows you to little pieces. It is indeed as simple as that. Situational awareness is everything in the first-shot-is-the-killing-shot game, and stealth takes away that situational awareness completely.
. . .
With a stealthy air superiority fighter, an opponent ... is disadvantaged in reaction time in every situation, and if the pilot of the stealthy fighter exploits his advantage systematically, the conventional fighter will lose almost every time.
There is no historical parallel for this. Therefore, the established doctrine for air combat tactics is largely obsoleted. Only should the pilot of the stealthy fighter choose to be drawn into a turn-and-burn dogfight, or do so by poor choice of engagement geometry, does the conventional fighter have a chance of success in the engagement.
Therefore, trivial comparisons of manoeuvre performance between conventional and stealthy air superiority fighters are quite meaningless. Capability can only be measured in the context of a suitable air combat doctrine for the stealthy fighter. Should this doctrine be designed to exploit stealth to its fullest, then the conventional fighter will suffer overwhelming losses in almost any scenario.
A US observer commented some years ago that stealth was a "zero-sum game". There is only one winner in an air battle between a force of stealthy fighters and a force of conventional fighters. Stealth will rule the air battle.
If the F-35 can provide this stealth advantage in the air battle, and if the successor to the X-47B can improve on it, then the USN may not need a dedicated air superiority fighter at all. The advent of directed-energy beam weapons on board ship, as noted earlier, might also render moot the need for an air superiority fighter. If enemy aircraft, missiles and bombs can be shot out of the sky with impunity whenever they come within range of a carrier task force's sensors, the whole air-to-air combat equation changes out of all recognition.
This leads to the question of what potential enemies might do to disrupt carrier air wing operations. There are two obvious possibilities. One is electronic warfare. If an enemy can disrupt the datalinks between aircraft and their ships, their interlinking defenses fall apart, and they all become vulnerable. However, the USN is probably far more advanced in this field than any adversary at this time, and it's working hard to maintain its lead.
The second, much more serious possibility is the use of nuclear weapons against the carrier task force. These don't have to score a direct hit to inflict heavy damage, and the electromagnetic pulse caused by their detonation will almost certainly disrupt all electronic equipment on the ships and their aircraft. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the globe, such an attack is no longer inconceivable: and a rogue nation launching it might hope to avoid nuclear retaliation by pointing out that it had used them against a legitimate military target, not involving civilian property or casualties. Given that, the USA might find it legally and politically difficult to respond in kind. Perhaps the only defense against such an attack will be to ensure that no aircraft, ship or missile gets close enough to the carrier task group to pose such a threat.
The USN's biggest single problem in the short term is likely to be, not enemies, but finances. Its ships are enormously expensive (the first of the Ford class carriers is currently expected to cost $8.1 billion in FY08 dollars, including initial development costs for the class). Add to that the cost of modern aircraft (about $55 million apiece for F/A-18E/F's, at least $83 million each for F-35C's, and who knows how much for the successor to the X-47B?), and the budgetary picture looks very bleak. It may be that the USN will not be able to afford as many aircraft carriers and Carrier Air Wings as it would like. On the other hand, if its operational responsibilities remain unchanged, it can't afford to make do with less. This conundrum will have to be resolved, one way or another, and my bet is that the budget will win. I expect the USN will have to deploy fewer large aircraft carriers in future, whether it likes it or not.
There are those who argue that smaller aircraft carriers, sized closer to current USN amphibious assault ships, would be a viable way to maintain carrier numbers. However, the USN points out that smaller ships could not carry a balanced air wing, as larger carriers can. Examination of the smaller aircraft carriers of other nations, current and planned, bears this out. Let's look at a few examples.
The Royal Navy's proposed Queen Elizabeth class carriers, yet to be built, will weigh 65,000 tons at full load and carry 40-50 aircraft.
Proposed layout of Queen Elizabeth class carrier
The Royal Navy's present Invincible class 'carriers' (20,700 tons), which are less than half the size of USN amphibious assault ships, can only operate about 20 aircraft.
HMS Illustrious (Invincible class) with USS John C. Stennis (Nimitz class)
Neither the Invincible nor Queen Elizabeth classes has or will have catapults or arresting gear, so all aircraft mut be vertical- or short-take-off and landing variants, which limits their warload and endurance. The Queen Elizabeth class will have provision to fit catapults and arrester gear at a later stage, if operational considerations require them, and funds are available to buy them and aircraft to use them. However, given the lessons of history, the latter is questionable.
The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle weighs 42,000 tons at full load, and carries up to 40 aircraft.
Charles de Gaulle (right) with USS Enterprise
The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov weighs 55,000 tons at full load, and operates up to 40 aircraft, over half of which are helicopters. She has arresting gear, but no catapults. Her aircraft must take off under their own power, using a bow 'ski-jump' to assist them. This means they cannot do so carrying a full load of munitions or external long-range fuel tanks. (Operations aboard this carrier, including video, were discussed in Weekend Wings #5.)
Admiral Kuznetsov
The USN's current Carrier Air Wings would have to be cut in half to fit onto smaller carriers like these, thereby losing a great deal of their striking power and flexibility: and there's no guarantee that the smaller ships would be all that much more cost-effective to build and deploy. (For example, the present estimated cost of two Queen Elizabeth class carriers for the Royal Navy is about $6 billion, at current exchange rates, and this is almost certain to rise significantly by the time they're completed.) Certainly, such ships could not be powered by nuclear reactors at such prices - and nuclear power will be essential to generate enough electricity for future beam weapons and other requirements. It's therefore unlikely that the USN will move away from its present large-carrier doctrines.
However, we may see a development of the air divisions assigned to amphibious assault ships. It's not impossible that the USMC could deploy more F-35B's to them, displacing some of the helicopters currently carried, to provide more of a strike force from these platforms. It might even be possible for the next-generation America class amphibious assault ships to be more optimized for the air support role. That might imply a task force of an aircraft carrier with up to four Navy F-35C squadrons, plus an amphibious assault ship with one or two Marine F-35B squadrons. The F-35C's could handle the longer-range missions, assisted (and perhaps eventually supplanted) by the production version of the X-47B, while the Marine F-35B's could handle combat air patrols over the fleet, and move in to support their forces on the ground during and after a landing, when the longer-range aircraft would have taken out most of the initial high-priority targets.
Alternatively, some components of the present Carrier Air Wing could be displaced to other ships. Helicopters, for example, could be moved to an amphibious assault ship, or to a new design of helicopter carrier based on a fast supply ship hull. This would free up space on the aircraft carrier to carry more strike aircraft. Marine F-35B's are also versatile enough to be moved to new platforms in this way, if required. That, in turn, might make possible the intriguing prospect of a naval squadron with two amphibious assault ships. One would carry up to three squadrons of F-35B's, giving significant striking power: the other would carry helicopters and transport aircraft. In effect, the approximate equivalent of a carrier air wing would be spread over two ships. This might be of interest in littoral operations, where a large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is simply too vulnerable to put at risk.
The next few years will be very interesting for carrier-borne aircraft operations. Chinese naval officers have spoken of wanting up to six aircraft carriers; India is building up to a fleet of three of them; Britain wants its two new Queen Elizabeth class vessels, and France may build a similar vessel to accompany Charles de Gaulle; and other nations may well try to acquire smaller aircraft platforms, similar in size and capability to Britain's Invincible class. The missile threat will continue to proliferate and become more sophisticated, as will the submarine menace.
