Sunday, March 6, 2011

Weekend Warships #2: From City, to Admiral, to King!


This Weekend Warships article will trace the long, strange, convoluted career of the former Soviet Kiev class 'heavy aviation cruiser' Baku.

In the 1970's, the Soviet Union decided to work towards an aircraft carrier capability for its Navy. This gave rise to Project 1153 Orel, which prepared preliminary designs for a ship of 75,000-80,000 tons, powered by a nuclear reactor and capable of carrying 70-odd aircraft, launching them by steam catapults in the same way as US aircraft carriers. Unlike US carriers, it would also have carried a heavy offensive missile armament. However, the design was considered too costly at the time, as was a smaller version of about 60,000 tons carrying 50-odd aircraft. Another factor in the decision was that Soviet shipyards had never built a true aircraft-carrier, nor (at the time) a warship larger than the contemporary Kirov class guided missile cruisers, which displaced about 25,000 tons (and which are still the largest and heaviest surface - i.e. non-aviation - combat ships in service anywhere in the world). To jump from this size to a warship three times larger would be a serious challenge.



Kirov class nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy,
currently flagship of the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet



Project Orel eventually gave rise to two classes of 'pure' aircraft-carrier. First, beginning construction in 1983, came what is today known as the Admiral Kuznetsov class carriers; two ships [only one of which was completed, in 1991], each of close to 60,000 tons, equipped with a ski-jump ramp on their bows to facilitate take-offs, but no catapults, and arrester gear to stop aircraft landing on deck.



Admiral Kuznetsov in Russian Navy service in 1996 (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



Admiral Kuznetsov was the first carrier in the Soviet Union capable of operating 'normal' aircraft [i.e. not restricted to vertical take-off and landing].

Next came a US-style large nuclear-powered carrier, the 80,000-ton aircraft-carrier Ulyanovsk, laid down in 1988, with a sister ship also begun soon thereafter.



Proposed design of Soviet aircraft-carrier Ulyanovsk (click image for a larger view)



However, Ulyanovsk was only about 40% complete when the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-91 led to the cancellation of both ships. Their incomplete hulls were broken up for scrap.

To return to the 1970's, even while Project 1153 Orel was under consideration, the Soviet Navy was faced with a dilemma. It needed to develop its aviation expertise further, so as to be ready for its new aircraft-carriers when they arrived. However, to do this, it needed ships capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft, rather than being restricted to rotary-wing aircraft, as were its two 17,000-ton Moskva class helicopter carriers launched in the 1960's and intended for anti-submarine operations.



Soviet Moskva class helicopter carrier



The Moskva class ships carried 14-18 Kamov Ka-25 anti-submarine helicopters (NATO reporting name 'Hormone'):



Kamov Ka-25 helicopter operating from Moskva in 1970 (image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)



and sometimes the larger Mil Mi-8 transport helicopter (NATO reporting name 'Hip') and/or the further developed anti-submarine and search-and-rescue version of that helicopter, the Mil Mi-14 (NATO reporting name 'Haze'):



Mil Mi-14 of the Polish Navy



but they proved unable to handle the first generation of vertical take-off and landing aircraft (represented in the Soviet Navy by the Yakovlev Yak-38, NATO reporting name 'Forger').



Yakovlev Yak-38 naval strike aircraft



The Soviet Navy needed to learn from experience how to handle larger aircraft aboard ships, with their space constraints and the hazards caused by a platform affected by wind and waves. The US Navy's expertise in these areas had been developed over decades, at great cost in human life and expensive machinery. It wasn't something that could be studied purely theoretically, in an academic setting - it had to be learned the hard way.

Another factor affecting Soviet considerations was the Montreaux Convention of 1936 governing the passage of ships through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the straits connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. The Convention had long been interpreted as forbidding the passage of aircraft-carriers (although its wording is not explicit in this regard). To get around this traditional interpretation of the treaty, the Soviet Union designated its Moskva class helicopter carriers as 'aviation cruisers', a type of ship not named in the Convention. Their heavy missile armament helped to reinforce the Soviet contention that they were primarily cruisers, with a secondary aviation capability. This was provided for in Annex II(B)(2) of the Convention, which states:

"The fitting of a landing on or flying off deck on any vessel of war, provided such vessel has not been designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be classified in the category of aircraft-carriers."


Turkey, through whose territory the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles run, accepted the Soviet argument, which meant that the Moskva class ships could pass between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea without legal difficulty. It was obviously desirable for the next generation of Soviet aircraft-carrying vessels to retain this ability.

As an interim solution, the Soviet Navy designed its Kiev class vessels. At 45,000 tons, they were almost three times larger than the Moskva class, but still considerably smaller than the fully-fledged aircraft-carrier envisaged by Project 1153 Orel. Like their predecessors, they retained a very heavy offensive missile armament, allowing the Soviet Navy to classify them as 'heavy aviation cruisers', thereby circumventing the provisions of the Montreaux Convention. Despite this classification, however, they were genuine aircraft-carriers, albeit small by US standards, and were capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft (the Yakovlev Yak-38 'Forger' mentioned above).

Four Kiev class vessels were built: the Kiev, commissioned in 1975; the Minsk, 1978; the Novorossiysk, 1982; and the Baku, 1987.



Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev in 1985 (image courtesy of Wikipedia).
Yakovlev Yak-38 and Kamov Ka-25 (and/or Ka-27) aircraft are visible on deck.



After the fall of the Soviet Union, all four were renamed for historic Russian admirals, and all were removed from service during the 1990's. All have since been scrapped or sold.

Our interest lies with the fourth and last ship of the Kiev class, the Baku, named after the capital city of what was then the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. She was launched in 1982, but was only commissioned in 1987, the delay being caused by serious difficulties with her advanced electronic systems.



Baku in Soviet Navy service in 1989 (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



She was markedly different in appearance to her predecessors, as the photographs below illustrate. The superstructure in the top picture belongs to Kiev, the lead ship of the class; the bottom, larger superstructure belongs to Baku. Note the latter ship's fixed radar arrays, similar to those on US Aegis-equipped warships, and multiplicity of radar domes and aerials. She was clearly far more oriented towards, and better equipped for, a modern electronic operating environment than her predecessors.




Baku was also armed differently from her predecessors, carrying 50% more P-500 Bazalt anti-ship missiles (12 instead of 8), and a brand-new anti-aircraft missile battery with 192 rounds.

She served only a few years before the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990-91. She passed from the Soviet Navy to the Russian Navy as part of that process. Since Azerbaijan had become independent as part of the breakup, it was no longer deemed appropriate to name her for its capital city. The ship was therefore renamed Admiral Gorshkov, after Sergei Gorshkov (1910-1988), who oversaw the expansion of the Soviet Navy during the Cold War.

Admiral Gorshkov had a short and troubled life in Russian Navy service. Prototypes of the Yakovlev Yak-141 vertical take-off and landing supersonic strike fighter (shown below) were tested from her flight deck in 1991. The tests (and the aircraft) proved successful, but due to lack of funds, the Yak-141 was not put into production.




On October 5th, 1991, one of the Yak-141 prototypes crashed onto the stern of Admiral Gorshkov and burst into flames. The pilot ejected safely - after sitting for almost 30 seconds in the burning aircraft! There's no word on why he took so long to eject, but I bet it wasn't so he could enjoy the warmth! Here's a video recording of the incident, filmed from a safety helicopter flying nearby.







The ship suffered a 'major machinery casualty' in 1992 that rendered her temporarily unserviceable, followed by a fire in 1993. A boiler explosion and resultant fire in February 1994 rendered her completely inoperable. She underwent repairs lasting more than a year, sailing briefly in May 1995 to test them, but returning to harbor almost immediately.

Meanwhile, her three sister ships were decommissioned and sold, leaving Admiral Gorshkov as the last surviving Kiev class ship in Russian service. The reasons were primarily financial. Such large ships required more maintenance than smaller ones, and many of their systems and machinery were unique to the Kiev class, rather than in service across multiple classes of warships (which would have provided economies of scale). The same problems affected Gorshkov too, with a few unique twists:

  • Gorshkov's one-of-a-kind electronic systems continued to cause problems, which were expensive to fix.
  • In an era when trained naval personnel were thin on the ground (or should that be 'on the sea'?), the large crew required by Gorshkov was difficult to provide. Adding to the difficulty, the later aircraft-carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (which we examined in Weekend Wings #5) was considerably larger, and better able to operate aircraft at sea, than the smaller Admiral Gorshkov. However, she didn't need many more crew than the less capable vessel, making it more logical to commit scarce manpower to the more useful ship.
  • Finally, the Navy's budget was drastically cut during the financial crises of the 1990's. As a result, ships with lower operating costs (in maintenance, crew, supplies, etc.) took priority over those, like Gorshkov, whose running costs were higher.

These liabilities doomed Admiral Gorshkov , just as they'd previously doomed her sister ships. Her turn came in 1996, when she was decommissioned and offered for sale. However, no buyer emerged for some time.

We turn now for a while to the aviation arm of the Indian Navy. This service acquired its first aircraft carrier in 1957, when it purchased the former Royal Navy Majestic class light carrier HMS Hercules. Construction of this ship had begun during World War II, but it was only about 75% complete by May 1946 when work on it was suspended. It remained in that condition until purchased by India, when it was completed with an angled flight deck and other modern technology. The Indian Navy named her INS Vikrant, and took her into service in 1961. According to Wikipedia:

"Vikranta is Sanskrit for 'stepped beyond, taking wide strides, courageous, bold, strong', from vi- = 'apart' and kram- = 'to stride'."


Vikrant and her Sea Hawk and Alizé aircraft saw action during the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971. (An interesting account of their service during the latter conflict may be read here.)



INS Vikrant in 1971



She was later refitted with a ski-jump ramp on the bow, to operate Sea Harrier vertical take-off and landing aircraft. INS Vikrant was retired from service in 1997, and is now a museum ship in Mumbai, India, with vintage Indian Navy aircraft displayed on her deck.



INS Vikrant as a museum ship in Mumbai, India (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



Here's a video clip showing her service in the Indian Navy.







The Indian Navy realized in the 1980's that Vikrant was getting old and wearing out. In an effort to reduce the strain on their only aircraft-carrier, India bought a second aircraft-carrier from Britain, the former HMS Hermes, in 1986. She was also of World War II vintage, although only completed in the late 1950's, like Vikrant. She had seen service during the Falklands War of 1982 before being bought by India.



HMS Hermes returns in triumph from the Falklands War in 1982



She was commissioned as INS Viraat (a Sanskrit word meaning 'Giant') in 1989.



A bow view of INS Viraat



INS Viraat is currently scheduled to remain in service until 2012/13. However, delays in the arrival of new aircraft carriers may force an extension of her service life.

The rise of rival navies in the region, particularly those of India's traditional enemy Pakistan (with whom it's fought four wars since independence, and remains in conflict over Kashmir) and China, caused serious concern to Indian naval authorities. They were tasked with the maritime defense of their country against potential threats, but lacked the ability to project meaningful air power with their small, outdated aircraft carriers, neither of which was capable of operating modern strike aircraft.



Two Indian Navy Sea Harrier fighters fly in formation with a US Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet
during Exercise Malabar 07-2 over the Bay of Bengal in 2007 (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



As a longer-term solution, the Indian Navy began the design of indigenous aircraft-carrying ships that could be built locally. The initial proposal in 1989 called for two 'Air Defense Ships' of 28,000 tons to replace the ageing British carriers. This proposal evolved over time, meeting considerable opposition, both politically and from the Indian Air Force. The program was renamed to 'Indigenous Aircraft Carrier' in 2006, making its purpose unambiguous for the first time. It now calls for the construction of two aircraft carriers, to be known as the Vikrant class. The first ship, which will be named INS Vikrant in order to perpetuate the name of India's first aircraft carrier, began construction in 2008, with her keel laid in early 2009.



Artist's conception of the new INS Vikrant, currently under construction



Construction is proceeding much more slowly than planned, due to delays in obtaining the necessary quality of steel from Russia, which has necessitated the establishment of new steel-making facilities in India. Completion of the first ship of the class is currently not expected before 2015. Construction of the second ship of the class, to be named INS Viraat (after the retirement of the current aircraft-carrier of that name), was scheduled to begin in 2010, but appears to have slipped as well.

Here's a 2009 video report about the project.







The first ship of the class will displace about 40,000 tons, and utilize a ski-jump bow to launch aircraft without catapults. However, according to Wikipedia:

The second aircraft carrier is said to be of higher tonnage of 65,000 tons and will utilise steam catapults. A 65,000-tonne IAC-II is on the drawing board. "It will be much bigger and capable of operating fighters, AEW (airborne early-warning) aircraft, tankers etc," Admiral Verma said. There are plans of constructing at least 3 Vikrant class carriers.


This appears to be a very likely development, given that the Indian Navy has expressed interest in the Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.



Prototype of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



The Indian Navy could operate this aircraft from land bases, of course, but to operate it from an aircraft-carrier (as the US Navy operates its Hawkeyes) would require catapult facilities; and these would be very difficult to install and operate aboard a smaller ship. It's noteworthy that even the almost-60,000-ton Russian aircraft-carrier Admiral Kuznetsov lacks catapults, so a 65,000-ton Indian carrier would suggest a minimum size requirement for the successful installation of modern catapults.

However, even while the 'Air Defense Ship' project was getting under way, it became clear that the Indian Navy would need a carrier to replace INS Vikrant before an indigenous ship could be built for that purpose. The service began looking for alternatives . . . and the Russian Navy was happy to oblige. The latter service desperately needed funds for its own building program, and to alleviate budget shortfalls; and it had the former Kiev class 'heavy aircraft cruiser' Admiral Gorshkov sitting in a dockyard, looking for a buyer.

It was an interesting negotiating process. There was no other ship available suitable for conversion into an aircraft carrier, so the Russians had a certain amount of leverage; but the Indians could always walk away from the deal if they felt they were being taken for granted as a customer. Negotiations continued during the late 1990's and into the early 2000's. Finally, in 2004, a contract was signed. India would receive the hull of Admiral Gorshkov free of charge, but would pay about US $800 million for upgrades and new equipment.

India also agreed to pay $1 billion for a dozen Mikoyan MiG-29K single-seat maritime fighter/strike aircraft (shown in the first photograph below) and four MiG-29KUB two-seat operational training aircraft (shown in the second photograph below); six Kamov Ka-31 helicopters; plus weapons and supporting systems. An option for a further 14 MiG-29K aircraft was included.






The development of the MiG-29K is very interesting. It originated as the MiG-29 land-based fighter. Two prototypes of a navalized version competed unsuccessfully with the Sukhoi Su-33 (shown below), itself a navalized version of the land-based Su-27, in the 1980's for a contract to equip Soviet naval aviation, and serve aboard the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.




The Su-33 was considerably larger, more powerful, and longer-ranged than the smaller MiG aircraft. Reportedly, 24 Su-33's were built for the Soviet Navy before the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990's. Since then, these aircraft have suffered considerable wear and tear, and several have been lost in crashes and operational accidents. Some sources claim there are 19 left; others say that the number in flyable condition is considerably less than 19. At any rate, there appear to be insufficient to form an effective operational force. Those that remain will have to be replaced by about 2015.

The Indians would have liked to buy Su-33's for their 'new' carrier, because their Air Force operates its 'parent', the Su-27, and assembles it locally: but the aircraft is too large and heavy to be operated safely from a ship the size of the Admiral Gorshkov, even with an extended flight deck. The smaller MiG-29K, however, can be safely flown off the smaller ship. India therefore paid Mikoyan to complete the development of the MiG-29K, upgrade its systems to the latest versions, and build it for the Indian Navy. It would probably have been cheaper for India to buy US naval aircraft like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but at the time, political considerations made this difficult. Besides, the Super Hornet is designed to be launched using a catapult, which will not be fitted to the converted Gorshkov.

Admiral Gorshkov was renamed INS Vikramaditya. According to Wikipedia:

"Vikramāditya" is Sanskrit for "Brave as the Sun" and was the title of some of the most famous kings in Indian history, such as the Vikramaditya of Ujjain, famed as a noble ruler and a mighty warrior. It is also a title that was used by the Indian king Chandragupta II who ruled between 375-413/15 AD.


As part of her conversion, Vikramaditya was to be stripped of all the missile armament formerly carried on her foredeck, and her flight deck extended to provide a ski-jump bow. To illustrate how this changed her appearance, let's first look at a view of her bow as it was in 1988, when she was operating under the name of Baku in the Soviet Navy.



Baku's foredeck, photographed off Italy in 1988 (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



As you can see, missile tubes occupied almost all the available space. By contrast, the contemporary Soviet aircraft-carrier Admiral Kuznetsov had a clear foredeck, rising to a ski-jump bow, as shown below.



Admiral Kuznetsov (image courtesy of Wikipedia)



The Russian proposal involved removing Vikramaditya's missile armament, then widening and extending her bow to resemble the ski-jump configuration of Admiral Kuznetsov's bow, as shown below in model form.




This lengthened Vikramaditya by no less than 10 meters (almost 33 feet), although (thanks to the removal of her missile systems and associated equipment) her weight was almost unchanged. The ship's hangar space and aircraft handling systems were also extended and upgraded, to allow her to operate MiG-29 aircraft as well as helicopters.



Vikramaditya's bow before conversion




Vikramaditya's bow during conversion




Vikramaditya's bow after conversion



Vikramaditya was supposed to be delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008, but serious delays arose in the conversion process, and disputes over costs escalated. It was reported in 2007 that Russia was threatening to keep the ship for its own use unless India agreed to pay a great deal more for the ship. This caused serious political problems in India, where the Comptroller and Audit General criticized the deal.

"The objective of inducting an aircraft carrier in time to fill the gap in Indian Navy has not been achieved," the CAG said in its annual report released on Friday.

"The cost of acquisition has more than doubled to USD 1.82 billion in four years. At best Indian Navy would be acquiring, belatedly, a second-hand ship with a limited life span by paying significantly more than what it would have paid for a new ship," it said.

. . .

According to the CAG report, the platform is scheduled to be delivered by 2012 and would be due for its second refit in India by 2017.

Moreover, the CAG report predicts that the Russian shipyard might as well fail to stick to the scheduled delivery date.

"Overall work progress continued to be slow and needed to be accelerated to meet even the revised scheduled. Given the work needed to be done, preceeding the undocking and the cascading effect of delay in undocking on downstream activities, there was a risk that the delivery acceptance trials of the ship would not be completed by 2012," the report said.

"It can be seen that Indian Navy was acquiring a second-hand refitted aircraft carrier that had half the life span of and was 60 percent more expensive that a new one," said the report.

Despite the exorbitant price tag, the CAG report points out the carrier has limited operational capabilities and certain key capabilities which would enable the ship "to meet potential threats or challenges" had either not been provided for or had been postponed to a later date.


There's more at the link. Certainly, to say that Russia appeared to be negotiating in bad faith seemed to be a serious understatement! The matter was finally resolved, after much acrimony, in 2010, when India agreed to pay a total of US $2.33 billion for Vikramaditya and the contracted upgrades and modifications, an increase of over 1½ billion dollars in the price of the ship. Unfortunately, India had little choice but to pay. If it didn't, it would lose what it had already invested in the ship, with no guarantee that Russia would refund its money. If it paid what Russia was asking, the deal would become (and is indeed) completely uneconomic, as the Indian CAG has pointed out. However, operational requirements dictated that India had to proceed, simply because no other suitable carrier (or candidate for conversion) was available. Without Vikramaditya, the Indian Navy would be unable to fulfill its operational responsibilities in the short to medium term.



INS Vikramaditya in early 2009 after leaving dry-dock



Vikramaditya is now scheduled to be delivered to the Indian Navy by the end of 2012 . . . although, given the pattern of delays and problems so far experienced, this may be open to question.

As part of the new agreement, India also ordered an additional 29 MiG-29K aircraft (over and above her original order for 16) for an amount of US $1.46 billion. This brought her total MiG-29K order to 45 aircraft, and came as a Godsend to Russian naval aviation as well. As mentioned earlier, their Su-33's were in short supply and wearing out fast. It would have been prohibitively expensive to restart the production line for them in the small quantities Russia would need. However, thanks to India, the MiG-29K production line had been restarted, and development of an upgraded version of that fighter had already been paid for. Therefore, it emerged in 2009 that Russian naval aviation will order 24 MiG-29K's to replace its surviving Su-33's. The smaller, lighter MiG's are less capable than the Su-33's, but they'll also be more affordable for a service that doesn't have much hard cash to spare. Mikoyan (now part of the United Aircraft Corporation in Russia, along with its former rival, Sukhoi) will thus produce a total of 69 MiG-29K's, which is a much more economical proposition than the mere 16 aircraft originally ordered by India.

Here's a Russian-language news report from 2009 about flight deck testing of the new-production MiG-29K's aboard the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.







Vikramaditya was floated out of dry-dock in late 2009 for initial trials. She's currently undergoing installation of her electronic systems. Indian Navy personnel are working alongside Russians to do the work and learn her systems as they install them, which should make future maintenance and upgrades easier for Indian shipyards. As can be seen in the photograph above, Vikramaditya's extended ski-jump flight deck has altered her center of gravity, making her bow-heavy (illustrated by the angle of the waterline against her paint, which shows her to be down by the bows). However, she doesn't have her aircraft or supplies aboard yet. That will presumably change her weight distribution enough to bring her back to an even keel. (If it doesn't, it will raise questions about her ability to cruise safely in rough seas.)

Vikramaditya should begin dockyard trials soon, to prepare her for delivery to the Indian Navy by late next year. The first MiG-29K's have already been delivered to the Indian Navy, and are being prepared for service aboard her. Here's a news report from Russia about progress.







It's been a long, strange road for the former Baku. She's undergone many changes:

  • From being part of the much-feared and -hyped Soviet Union's Navy, to the much smaller and financially crippled Russian Navy, and shortly to a new and wholly different service;
  • From being the latest and most sophisticated warship of her kind in the world, to a technological white elephant rusting at anchor, to being resurrected in a totally different form;
  • From being named for a Communist city, to being named for a Communist admiral, to being named for 'some of the most famous kings in Indian history' (what would the anti-imperialist Marx have said to that, I wonder?);
  • Transformed from a 'heavy aircraft cruiser' with a substantial missile armament, to a fully-fledged aircraft-carrier; and -
  • About to go from the cold of the waters around the former Soviet Union to the warmth of the Indian Ocean.

Perhaps she'll be a happier and more successful ship in warmer climes. One hopes so, for the sake of those who'll serve aboard her.

On a final, ironic note: two of the former Kiev class ships, Kiev and Minsk, ended up being sold to China, ostensibly for use as static displays in military theme parks. However, we may be sure that the Chinese defense industry has learned all it can through detailed study of them. China also bought the derelict hull of Varyag, sister ship to Admiral Kuznetsov, from the Ukraine in 1998. That's quite a story in itself. According to Wikipedia:

In April 1998, Ukrainian Trade Minister Roman Shpek announced the winning bid - US$20 million from a small Hong Kong company called the Chong Lot Travel Agency Ltd. Chong Lot proposed to tow Varyag out of the Black Sea, through the Suez Canal and around southern Asia to Macau, where they would moor the ship and convert it into a floating hotel and gambling parlor. It would be similar to the attractions Kiev in Tianjin and Minsk at Minsk World in Shenzhen.

However, considerable evidence suggested that the future of Varyag was linked to the People's Republic of China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and its program to develop an aircraft carrier.

. . .

In mid-2000, the Dutch ITC tugboat Suhaili with a Filipino crew was hired to take Varyag under tow. However, Chong Lot could not get permission from Turkey to transit the dangerous Bosporus strait; under the Montreux Treaty of 1936 Turkey has obligations to permit free passage, but has certain sovereignty and refusal rights. The hulk spent 16 months under commercial tow circling in the Black Sea. High-level PRC government ministers conducted negotiations in Ankara on Chong Lot's behalf, offering to allow Chinese tourists to visit cash-strapped Turkey if the travel agency's ship were allowed to pass through the straits. On 1 November 2001, Turkey finally relented from its position that the vessel posed too great of a danger to the bridges of Istanbul, and allowed the transit.



Varyag prior to being towed through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles in 2001
(image courtesy of Wikipedia)



. . .

China continued to assert that Varyag would be a casino. However, when Macau awarded new casino licenses in February 2002, Chong Lot was not among successful bidders. The hulk was tied up at Dalian and left to rust. The total cost of acquiring the hulk was over $30 million USD: $25 million to the Ukrainian government for the hull, nearly $500,000 in transit fees, and some $5 million for the towing.

Analysts believe that the PLAN will use Varyag as a training platform for carrier take-offs and landings. Robert Karniol, the Asia editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, said: "The Chinese haven't seen this type of carrier before and it could be very useful to them. They are trying to vacuum up as much know-how as they can".

. . .

... the Varyag was moved in early June 2005 to a dry dock at Dalian. Her hull was sandblasted and scaffolding erected around her. The most visible modification done to the Varyag is that her island has been painted in a red marine primer that is used to treat corroded metal. On 24 October 2006, the Kommersant online daily newspaper revealed Russia plans to sell up to 50 Su-33 fighters to China through Rosoboronexport, in a $2.5 billion deal. However, in March 2009 Moskovskij Komsomolets reported that these negotiations had collapsed over Russian fears that China might begin producing cheaper export versions of the Su-33 with Chinese avionics and systems, undercutting Russian exports, in the same way as with the J-11B (Chinese version of the Su-27).

. . .

Jane's Fighting Ships states that Varyag may have been named Shi Lang and assigned pennant number 83. Jane's notes that both the name and pennant number are unconfirmed, however. Shi Lang was a Ming-Qing Dynasty admiral who conquered Taiwan in 1681.

. . .

As of 2011 the ship is still docked in Dalian shipyard, and is being fitted out with combat sensors, and defensive weapons.



Shi Lang (formerly Varyag) in Dalian shipyard



The vessel is also beginning to run power as well. Recent photos have shown steam and exhaust coming from the ship's island, further suggesting her engines and propulsion will be operational soon.


There's more at the link.

India's rival for naval superiority in the Indian Ocean will therefore soon field its own aircraft carriers . . . probably embodying lessons learned from Vikramaditya's sister ships; and China's first aircraft carrier will probably be the sister ship of Vikramaditya's old partner in the Soviet and Russian Navies, the Admiral Kuznetsov. Ironic, isn't it?

Peter

Saturday, March 5, 2011

A bicycle race for madmen!


This is truly mind-boggling. It's the annual Valparaiso Cerro Abajo downhill race for mountain bikes, held each year in Chile's third-largest city.

The first video clip, from the 2010 race, shows the course from the perspective of a rider, filmed through a helmet camera. Watch for the dog that gets in his way when he's at high speed . . .







The next clip, from the 2008 race, shows the course from the perspective of spectators. It gives you the other side of the coin from the riders' point of view.







I don't think I want to be anywhere near that course during the annual race! How they avoid multiple deaths, maimings, mutilations and lacerations, I just don't know . . .





Peter

"Ten things I hate about you" - from both sides


The Daily Mail has published two lists, one by Giles Coren from a male perspective, the other by Christina Hopkinson from a female viewpoint, about the trials and tribulations of relationships between the sexes. There are some wonderfully funny jibes on both sides. Here are a few examples.

Things Giles Coren hates about women:


Failing to grasp that she moults


"The shower plughole is blocked again!" she cries out from the bathroom. So again you go upstairs and pull off the plug-guard, reach into the slimy hole and pull out the hair trap which is blocked with a serious fistful of long blonde hair, all slimy and yukky with whatever’s been flowing through it the last couple of weeks.

"That’s not necessarily mine!" she says as you hold the cloggy straggle up to show its comfortable 18in length against your dark brown short back and sides.

So you show her how the hair trap works, in case she blocks it again next time she’s combing conditioner through her barnet in the shower. But all the same, a few weeks later, you’re quietly reading the paper when the despairing cry comes: "The shower’s blocked agaaaaiiin . . . "


Always leaving some awful pop music station on top volume in the car when she was the last one to drive it

So that when you get in on a cold morning to go to work, and switch the radio on expecting to hear the mellifluous mutterings of the Today programme, it instead blasts into shrieking life with some frightful oik bellowing rage into a voice-distorter over the sound of a huge drum kit being kicked down a hill by donkeys. Your day simply doesn’t recover.


Things Christina Hopkinson hates about men:


The surprisingly wiry ‘wireless’ home

One mobile phone, one charger - it’s all you need. But no, he has wires crawling round the house like vines. Then are the drawers full of old cables that look like nests of vipers. Some of them are for his first Nokia, bought circa 1995.

These phone, camera and computer chargers have joined old keys as things we can no longer throw away for fear that the moment we do so, we’ll discover a need to use them. And speaking of phones, why is he always there, with the iPhone or BlackBerry surgically attached to his hand, constantly tapping the screen with the excuse that ‘something important from work’ might have just landed in the inbox.


Saying we’ve run out of something . . . after it’s actually run out

‘We’re out of cornflakes/sugar/bread’ said in an offensively accusatory way, as he empties the last of it onto his plate. Always with the subtitle running below it of: ‘Can you go out and buy it, I’m far too busy.’ This is closely allied to the habit of putting empty food receptacles back into the cupboard or fridge, especially milk bottles. (But then, contrarily, always leaving full milk bottles out of the fridge so that the contents curdle.)


There's more at the link. Great fun, and entertaining reading.





Peter

A pop star's fashion secrets revealed!


I had to laugh at this Lolcat at I Can Has Cheezburger?




(Click the image to be taken to its home page at ICHC.)

I know nothing whatsoever about Lady Gaga, or her music, or her clothing: but the image above intrigued me, so I looked for some pictures of her 'fashions'. Behold, I found these:




Blow me down if they don't look exactly as if they were inspired by that Lolcat!



Peter

Did Nungesser and Coli beat Lindbergh across the Atlantic?


I've written about many aviators who tried to cross the Atlantic during the 1920's, and failed - some at the cost of their lives. Among them were French airmen Charles Nungesser (right, below) and François Coli (left, below), who took off from France on May 8th, 1927, in a Levasseur PL-8 biplane named L'Oiseau Blanc ('the white bird').



Nungesser, Coli and L'Oiseau Blanc (image courtesy of Wikipedia - click it for a larger view)



They were never seen again. The only relic of their flight is the detachable undercarriage of L'Oiseau Blanc, which was dropped after take-off to reduce drag on the long trans-Atlantic flight. It's preserved today in a French museum.




I recently came across an article published in the Independent newspaper in Britain, claiming that a new analysis of contemporary evidence reveals that Nungesser and Coli might actually have made it across the Atlantic. Here's an extract.

The greatest single mystery of the early days of aviation has been solved, according to French researchers.

. . .

The evidence suggests that Charles Nungesser and François Coli landed their sea-plane, L'Oiseau Blanc, or The White Bird, just off the coast of the French islands of Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, near Newfoundland on 11 May. Their plane probably broke up on - or soon after - touching down and both men were killed.

. . .

Bernard Decré, 70, the creator of the "round France" yacht race and an aviation enthusiast, believes he has solved the mystery at last.

One of the last pieces in the jigsaw was an internal US Coast Guard telegram found by his team of researchers in the national archives in Washington DC last month. It tells of the remains of a white aircraft seen floating in the ocean 200 miles off New York on 18 August 1927, which "may be the wreck of the Coli-Nungesser airplane".

This evidence, and other documents unearthed in recent months in Newfoundland and St Pierre et Miquelon, leads Mr Decré to believe he has finally pieced together the story of Nungesser and Coli's 5,200-kilometre flight. Although they failed to meet the "challenge" of flying between New York and Paris, they were, he believes, the first to complete a full, or "long", crossing of the Atlantic and the first to cross the Atlantic by plane from east to west.

"My intention is not to disparage the magnificent achievement of Lindbergh," Mr Decré told The Independent yesterday. "Enormous credit is also due to the British pilots (John) Alcock and (Arthur) Brown, who were the first to complete a 'short' crossing of the Atlantic from Newfoundland to Ireland in 1919."

. . .

There is documentary evidence, in Newfoundland archives, of an aircraft being seen and heard on 11 May. There are also well-documented witness reports, uncovered by Mr Decré's team, of the sound of an aircraft just off the coast of Saint Pierre et Miquelon between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Pieces of wing were picked up in the sea nearby.


There's more at the link.

M. Decré makes an interesting case, but I don't find it convincing. The stories of aircraft being 'heard' can't be substantiated, and can't be linked to any one aircraft or flight. They may have been invented after the fact by attention-seekers. Furthermore, the sighting of 'the remains of a white aircraft' aren't proof that the remains belonged to L'Oiseau Blanc. Other aircraft were also lost at sea during that period. The primitive wood-and-fabric construction of contemporary planes would 'bleach out' after prolonged exposure to sun and salt water, so that even a dark-colored aircraft would soon appear light-colored - perhaps even white.

I fear M. Decré's research, interesting and valuable though it is for historical reasons, can't prove that Nungesser and Coli made it across the Atlantic. At this stage, eighty-four years after their disappearance, I doubt we'll ever find out how far they got, or precisely what happened to them.

Peter

Friday, March 4, 2011

"The Scottish Play" - with tongue (not) in cheek!


I'm sure many of my readers share with me a taste for the Blackadder comedy series broadcast by the BBC in England. There have been many wonderfully comic moments, but this one, playing on the theatrical superstition about Shakespeare's play 'Macbeth', is one of my favorites.









Peter

Er . . . have they thought this through?


I'm a little . . . er . . . perturbed by a suggestion from Boeing.

Boeing has floated the possibility of using vibrating cockpit seats as an alternative mechanism to visual and aural indicators on the flightdeck.

. . .

The 27 January patent document, whose authors include Boeing chief test pilot Frank Santoni, describes a mechanism comprises two travelling probes capable of vibrating at various amplitudes, frequencies and durations, depending on the nature of the required alert.

This could be pre-programmed to ensure timely intervention at specific points in the flight. But the document also shows that it could be activated, if necessary, by external interaction from air traffic control.

Boeing's document suggests the mechanism may provide overflight prevention capability. The system could also be used to obtain the attention of pilots who are not responding to radio calls.


There's more at the link.

They want to put "two traveling probes" in "vibrating cockpit seats"? Really?

This reminds me irresistibly of an article last year in Gizmodo, which asked "What do you get when you cross a sex toy with a bicycle seat?" The answer (which you'll find at the link - it may not be safe for work) may surprise you.

Boeing might want to re-think this idea - or risk re-defining membership of the "Mile High Club" in a whole new way! (Of course, pilots might find that an . . . er . . . intriguing possibility!)





Peter

That's one way to handle missionaries at the door!


I had to laugh at Jacob Taylor's 'best story ever', of how a co-worker's son mistook a missionary at the door for a visiting leprechaun. The resulting shenanigans were . . . interesting, to say the least! Go read all about it, and enjoy a good laugh yourself.

(A tip o' the hat to reader Mike C. for e-mailing the link to me.)



Peter

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity


It seems several readers have never heard of Professor Carlo M. Cipolla's five basic laws of human stupidity. I've known of them for some years, and it's astonishing how often they apply!

The five laws, in their basic form, are:

  1. Always and inevitably each of us underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a given person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic possessed by that person.
  3. A person is stupid if they cause damage to another person or group of people without experiencing personal gain, or even worse causing damage to themselves in the process.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the harmful potential of stupid people; they constantly forget that at any time anywhere, and in any circumstance, dealing with or associating themselves with stupid individuals invariably constitutes a costly error.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person there is.


There's an excellent analysis and explanation of the laws in this article, along with some delightful illustrations. Recommended (and amusing) reading.





Peter

The ATF scandal: the video news report


Following up on my report last night about the latest developments in the ATF scandal, here's the CBS video news report that's blown the lid off the mess.







My sincere thanks and congratulations to Agent Dodson for his courage and responsibility in going public with this story. If it weren't for him, I'm sure the ATF big-wigs behind this criminal fiasco would still be covering their tracks. Now they've been exposed, we can make them answer for their crimes.

Peter

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Filming FAIL!


Someone wanted to make a video recording of the launch of a space shuttle in 2008; so he rigged up his camera, aimed it at what he presumed was the launch pad, and pressed the trigger. This is what happened.







Oh, dear . . .



Peter

The problem of risk management


Wharton Magazine, organ of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, has a very interesting article about risk management. Here's an excerpt.

Howard Kunreuther and Robert Meyer have staked their careers on the belief that human beings are at heart irrational, doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over - unless we find a way to overcome our wiring.

. . .

That’s the Risk Center’s raison d’etre. It was founded in 1984 with the goal of providing guidance to companies and governments on managing "low-probability, high-consequence events"; a less technical way of putting this is to say that the Center is a think tank for a world facing guaranteed disaster. The Center is a highly interdisciplinary place, calling on the expertise of professors who study economics, statistics, mathematics, insurance and risk management, marketing, psychology, environmental science, political science, geography and meteorology, not only from Wharton but also from universities across the world.

. . .

Instead of rationality, the world seems to be driven by randomness, ignorance, venality and procrastination, and good intentions are stymied by the quirks of human psychology. The question, then, is what to do about it - how to anticipate and mitigate human misperceptions of risk, before we make another round of doomed decisions. This complex problem is the focus of a recent book edited by Michel-Kerjan and Slovic called The Irrational Economist (written in honor of Kunreuther) in which many of the world’s top behavioral economists express their own ideas about human decision biases and how to avoid them.

. . .

These days, Michel-Kerjan is increasingly interested in truly large scale catastrophes and in developing innovative solutions that create value (a topic he teaches in the Wharton MBA program). Looking at the U.S., "I think Katrina may look like a baby in the next few years," he says. "Do you know what the insured exposure on the coast of Florida is, for example?" By 'insured exposure', he means the total dollar amount of all property that could be obliterated in a hurricane or a flood. "Is it $100 billion? Five hundred billion? What do you think?"

Five hundred billion?

"It’s 2.5 trillion dollars," he says. "It’s close to $1 trillion for Texas. And it’s $2.4 trillion for the state of New York. From the Texas to Maine coast, you’re talking close to $8 trillion of insured assets on the coast. Just the coast. If you combine that with the potential for more intense hurricanes in the next few years ... " He pauses. "That might be very bad. If we don’t mitigate it. If we don’t invest in risk-prediction measures." Now you are warned.


There's more at the link.

If you're at all concerned about the future - your future - economically, politically, geologically, geographically, or in any other way - you should read this article. It's food for thought.

Peter

Fascinating aviation art


Courtesy of a link in the archives over at Dark Roasted Blend, I came across two articles at Voyages Extraordinaires, a blog that describes itself as:

"a weblog for people of intelligence and good breeding who enjoy rousing Victorian-Edwardian Scientific, Imperial and Planetary Romances, Retro-Futurism, Victoriana, silent and early cinema, and authentic tales of history and exploration."


The two articles are 'Great Moments in the History of Flight, Series 1' and 'Series 2'. They depict a series of French trading cards from the last decade of the 19th century, showing the history of flight prior to that time. Here are two examples from each series to whet your appetite.



Experiments to control the direction of flight of balloons by Guyton de Morveau, 1784




First use of an observation balloon, named L'Entreprenant, at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794




Death of Madame Sophie Blanchard, first woman to die in an aviation accident, in 1819




Rescue of balloonist Francisque Arban by Italian fishermen
after he ditched his balloon in the Mediterranean Sea in 1846



There are many more images in Part 1 and Part 2 of the article. Highly recommended reading for all lovers of aviation history. Thanks to Voyages Extraordinaires for finding and publishing them!

Peter

The cost of running a business


The blog Well Seasoned Fool published a very interesting article last year on the true cost of running a business. Here's an excerpt.

Small business operators have a tool, mostly ignored, that can help focus on what matters. This is "Cost per Minute".

How many minutes, per month, is your business open? What is your monthly operating cost? Don’t know? Shame on you. Divide the monthly operating cost by the minutes you are open. If you have never done this, you will probably be shocked.

In the mid 1990’s, my employer had me organize and manage off premise car sales. We held sixty over a thirty month span. The cost? $32 per minute. Our dealerships were run in a most frugal, if not downright cheap, manner. No frills. Our operating costs were around $122 per minute.

Generating income per minute became a focus. Every problem can be overcome but time gone cannot be recovered.

Employees respond well, if grudgingly, to clear goals and practices. The ten minute gab fest around the coffee pot isn’t very enjoyable when you are focused on the cost per minute and revenue per minute.


There's more at the link. Very interesting reading, and highly recommended for all those who are self-employed or working in or for a small business.

Peter

The ATF scandal blows wide open!


I've written on three previous occasions about allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) actively condoned and permitted illegal gun purchases in the USA, and tracked the guns to Mexico, as part of an apparent attempt to build up a case for future prosecution. Unfortunately for the agency, this allegedly led to the murder of a Border Patrol officer with one of the weapons involved.

Now an ATF agent has gone public. CBS News reports:

Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.

He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?

"Yes ma'am," Dodson told CBS News. "The agency was."

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.

Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

Dodson's bosses say that never happened. Now, he's risking his job to go public.

"I'm boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we've been doing it every day since I've been here," he said. "Here I am. Tell me I didn't do the things that I did. Tell me you didn't order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn't happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn't happen."

Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

. . .

Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets... the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.

One e-mail noted, "958 killed in March 2010 ... most violent month since 2005." The same e-mail notes: "Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone," including "numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles."

Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border. "I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two," he said. "The more our guys buy, the more violence we're having down there."

Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over.

Their answer, according to Dodson, was, "If you're going to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs."

. . .

On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down. Dodson got the bad news from a colleague.

According to Dodson, "They said, 'Did you hear about the border patrol agent?' And I said, 'Yeah.' And they said 'Well it was one of the Fast and Furious guns.' There's not really much you can say after that."

Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry's murder.

Dodson said, "I felt guilty. I mean it's crushing. I don't know how to explain it."


There's more at the link.

I wish I had words to describe to you how angry - no, how incensed I am by this news. Well . . . I do have words . . . but they're not the kind I can use in a (relatively) family-friendly blog like this one.

I was a Federal prison chaplain. I swore the same Federal law enforcement oath that Agent Terry swore, and that every ATF agent has sworn. The only difference, apparently, is that I - and Agent Terry - meant it. Clearly, these ATF clowns didn't.

I want every single ATF supervisor, manager or official who approved this program named and shamed, then prosecuted in federal court for their crimes - and they are crimes. Can you say 'misprision of felony'? How about 'color of law abuses' or 'malfeasance in office'? These are the most minor charges I can think of in this situation . . . there are plenty more serious ones that might be brought. Furthermore, I hope Agent Terry's family sues the ATF for every penny they've got, and then some. They deserve nothing less.

I'd like to ask a favor of any bloggers who read this article. Please publicize this case on your blogs, too. If you don't want to write a detailed article of your own, please feel free to link to this one and/or copy it to your own blogs. The more people who know about this case, the better. Ask your readers (as I now ask mine) to please write to their Congressional representative and Senators, demanding an official inquiry into this matter.

If our Federal law enforcement agencies have become so corrupt that they won't bring the guilty parties to trial, we'll just have to rely on the common sense and decency of the American people to note the names of those involved, and shun them in every possible way. (I trust the names will come out, somehow. If an ATF whistle-blower will provide them, I'll publish them on this blog!) Refuse to co-operate with them officially; refuse to serve them in your businesses; refuse to even speak to them about anything at all, even so much as a greeting. Deny any and all co-operation to their agency(ies) unless and until they're tried and convicted for their crimes.

May they rot in jail for the rest of their lives!





Peter

EDITED TO ADD: I've posted the CBS video report of Agent Dodson's claims in a new article. Please click the link to view it for yourself.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Forget cars on ice - how about Boeings?


This Scandinavian Airlines System Boeing 737 was trying to taxi at Bodø Airport in Norway. Unfortunately, the buildup of ice on the apron made for a wild ride!










Peter

Doofus Of The Day #451


Today's winner is from Danvers, Massachusetts.

A man crashed through a guardrail on the White Fuel Bridge and plummeted into the Waters River in Danvers after he was distracted by text messaging while driving Monday night, officials said.

Gerald Maher, 22, of Danvers will be summonsed to court on charges of negligent operation of a motor vehicle and texting while driving, Danvers police said. A Salem District Court official said a court date has not yet been scheduled.

Danvers Police Captain Patrick Ambrose said Maher, who was distracted by texting, hit a snow bank, swerved into the opposite lane on Route 35, crashed through the bridge guardrail, and landed in the river around 11:45 p.m.

"The guardrail was just completely torn off," he said.


There's more at the link.

I just can't fathom people who allow their technological gadgets to preoccupy them to such an extent that they risk their own lives, and place others at risk as well. A schoolboy was killed in England just a couple of weeks ago because he ran while listening to music through his iPod - and, as a result, didn't hear a train approaching a level-crossing.

This video clip highlights the dangers of texting while driving. I urge you to please have your loved ones watch it, and pass it along to others. It might save lives . . . perhaps even your own.







Peter

"Just Because You’re Shot Doesn’t Mean You’re Dead"


That's the title of an article at 'The Truth About Guns', a pro-firearm, pro-Second Amendment Web site that publishes many useful articles. I was led to it courtesy of a link by Rev. Paul. Here's an extract.

On TV ... Everybody shoots and no one gets killed; someone gets shot, falls down and dies; or someone clutches their shoulder and tell their police partner I’ll be alright, take care of her. In real life, unless someone’s shot in the head ... they are not going to die straight away. And maybe not even then. And maybe not later, either. Ask any ER staff member: most gunshot victims survive. Which means two very important things . . .

1. As the headline says, just because you’ve been shot doesn’t mean your dead

There’s a theory going around that people fall to the ground when they’re shot because Hollywood has programmed them to do so. I’m not so sure about that. My research indicates that getting shot hurts like hell. Falling to the ground when you’re hurt is a natural reaction to extreme pain. As is curling up in a little ball and crying like a baby.

If you’re in a gunfight, assuming the fetal position is not really your best option. I would recommend continuing to fight: shoot, move, throw things, attack!

. . .

As combat vet Adam Deciccio says, the key to survival in a firefight is speed, surprise and violence of action. Don’t stand there and let a stranger (or acquaintance) slaughter you like a sheep. Truth be told, there are worse things than being shot, even if you die. Watching a bad guy kill your family’s right at the top of that list. Don’t fear the reaper.

2. Just because the bad guy’s shot doesn’t mean he’s dead

. . .

Even if you shoot someone straight through the heart, they may be up and running for another 30 seconds. That’s plenty of time to kill your ass. Strategically, you must remember your goal: shoot until the threat stops. Killing your assailant may - or may not be - a by-product of that process.


There's more at the link. Italic print is my emphasis.

I'd like to reinforce this very important article from my own experience. I've been shot twice, hit by grenade fragments three times, stabbed once, and beaten up a few times. (That's what comes of not being able to carry a tune . . . ) Seriously, though, this was in another country, during a very turbulent period in its history, when racially-motivated civil unrest was endemic.

I learned a number of lessons during that period which resonate with the article above.

  • Yes, being shot did indeed hurt like hell sometimes: however, at other times, it didn't. Once I only realized I'd been hit when others pointed out that I was bleeding. I guess it all depends on the circumstances, what you're hit with or by, and your own mental state. (I'm here to tell you, getting clobbered by a 7.62x39mm. round from an AK-47 hurts like a bleep*bzzt*crackle*zzzz*grrr!)
  • There are, indeed, worse things than dying. I've seen several of them at first hand, and I never want to see them again.
  • You can, indeed, go on fighting after you've been shot. That's why I'm still alive to write these words.
  • Bad guys can, indeed, go on fighting after they've been shot. The field of wound ballistics is a very complex one. Briefly, the only wound guaranteed to instantly shut someone down is a central-nervous-system hit, either in the motor control center of the brain or in the spinal cord. Those are very small targets, and hard to hit when your target is moving at high speed. The more common torso hit will puncture blood vessels, and perhaps (if you're lucky, and a good shot) the heart and/or lungs; but even a ruptured aorta will take a minimum of 15-20 seconds to cause enough blood loss to stop someone. The rule is, if someone is still armed, and/or still advancing, and/or is still on his feet but is not retreating . . . he's still a threat. Shoot him again.
  • Yes, bad guys can have friends handy. If you stop the threat, keep your eyes open and look around frequently. Unpleasant surprises might be coming up behind you. (How do I know this, you ask? Trust me. I know this. I have the scars to prove it.)


I hope the article, plus my comments, will provide food for thought to those of you who are aware of the need to defend yourself and your loved ones from criminal attack. For those of you who haven't thought about that . . . may I suggest it's about time you did?

Peter

The world's shortest scheduled airline flight


I'm pleased to see that Loganair, a small Scottish airline, is to resume its daily service between Westray and Papa Westray in the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland. It'll operate between June and September, when the weather is good enough to permit scheduled airline operations, before shutting down again during the winter months. The flights will be conducted with eight-passenger Britten-Norman Islander aircraft (shown below).




The Westray-Papa Westray hop is classified as the shortest scheduled air service in the world. From start to finish, the flights last less than two minutes! Here's a video clip of the entire flight.







That's a flight I'd enjoy making, just to say I'd done it!



Peter

An interesting theory about high-speed rail


George Will, writing in Newsweek, advances an intriguing theory as to why high-speed rail networks are so popular with the Obama administration.

... why is America’s 'win the future' administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.

Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons - to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.

To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they - unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted - are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.

Time was, the progressive cry was "Workers of the world unite!" or "Power to the people!" Now it is less resonant: "All aboard!"


There's more at the link.

I tend to agree with Mr. Will on this; also with John Mica, Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House of Representatives, who famously said of President Obama's high-speed rail initiative: "This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio."

However, vested interests and entrenched 'establishment' politicians are fighting to keep the program alive. I can only assume that's because they see a way to get power, patronage or bribes 'campaign contributions' out of it. Most recently, two veteran Florida politicians - from both sides of the aisle - have sued that state's Governor for refusing to accept Federal funds for high-speed rail. They're trying to force him to take the money. To that I can only say, it's time the people of Florida elected themselves a better class of representative! (The same battle is being fought in England, where politicians want to spend tens of billions of pounds on a high-speed rail network that's been branded 'a complete waste of taxpayers' money'.)

I guess, even more than collectivism, the real reason for this push for high-speed rail is money, plain and simple. It greases politicians' palms, and lets them advertise to their constituents that they've 'brought home the bacon' according to the ancient and time-honored practices of pork barrel politics. The fact that our children, and our children's children, will be saddled with paying for this technological white elephant, doesn't concern them at all. After all, they won't be in office when our children reach voting age - they'll have retired, rich, fat and happy.

Politicians! Grrr!





Peter

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

I guess that's one way to cross a river . . .


. . . but it's not one I'd recommend! This video was filmed in Bolivia.







Note the constant bailing of water out of one of the vessels involved. If I saw that, and I was waiting to cross, I think I'd be demanding a more watertight boat!





Peter

Justice with a smile!


I had to laugh at today's news that the Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling that AT&T enjoys (and, by extension, other corporate entities enjoy) the same right to privacy as an individual. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.

. . .

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T Inc. that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.

"We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities," he wrote. "In fact, we often use the word 'personal' to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."

The decision means the Federal Communications Commission may release documents that were compiled during an investigation in 2004 over whether AT&T had overcharged schools and libraries for use of the Internet.


There's more at the link.

What made me laugh was Chief Justice Roberts' final summation:

"The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."





Peter

'Opportunity' is still hard at work!


There's some good news from Mars. It's amazing, not in the sense that one of the Mars Exploration Rovers is active, but that it's still active after eight years. Remember, it was designed for a mission originally scheduled to last for only 90 Martian days!

The Planetary Society reports:

The Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission emerged from its third solar conjunction this month and, as March roars in, is embarking on its 86th month on the Red Planet. While Opportunity roved away from a surface target it had been studying at Santa Maria Crater and on to an intriguing blue boulder, JPL engineers on Earth stepped up their efforts to recover Spirit, which has been silent, ostensibly in hibernation mode, since late March, nearly one year ago.

. . .

... Opportunity emerged from solar conjunction in fine form. The rover promptly returned a healthy amount of data on Luis de Torres, a surface target named for one of Christopher Columbus' crewmembers on the first voyage of his Santa Maria. This Luis de Torres is located along the wall of the southeast rim, on the edge of what may be a shallow secondary impact depression the team calls Yuma.

This area was chosen for Opportunity to hunker down and work during the two-week solar conjunction period, because it was a safe location and because it is in the area where the signature for hydrated sulfate, a mineral that indicates past water, was detected from orbit by the Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM), a visible-infrared spectrometer onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO).

. . .

Last week, Opportunity roved northeast from Luis de Torres, driving counter-clockwise around Santa Maria Crater to Ruiz Garcia, a slate-blue colored boulder that it has since been examining.



The boulder christened 'Ruiz Garcia', photographed by the Opportunity rover



This rock was also named after one of Columbus' crewmembers from the Santa Maria's first voyage, and the rover is now finishing up its check-out of this interesting, equant rock. From Ruiz Garcia, the plans calls for Opportunity to drive another 20 to 30 meters further to the northeast to a chosen waypoint, where it will take some final stereo images of the interior of the crater. The scientists hope to combine all the stereo images the rover took here and create a 3-D map of Santa Maria. "Then we'll start heading for the hills," said Arvidson.

Although the winds of the late Martian spring are kicking up dust and causing extremely dusty, almost opaque skies over the Opportunity's site, it's what usually happens this time of year and the team is not worried.

"The atmospheric opacity has been moving up and down because of the season," confirmed Arvidson. And even though Opportunity's power levels have dropped, the rover, he added, "still has an abundance of power to do what we need to do."

Although there are no compelling targets between Santa Maria and the 22-kilometer (13.70-mile) diameter Endeavour Crater from what can be seen in the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) pictures taken from MRO's orbit, Opportunity, in addition to necessary rest stops, will be making at least a couple of stops en route to take samples of the bedrock and soils.

If something interesting or odd or different should be found on the route, the team will instruct Opportunity stop and take a look. "We're a discovery led mission," reminded Callas. "We'll drive for Endeavour, and if we see compelling science along the way, we'll stop of course, but really the plan is to get where we need to go. So, once we're done at Santa Maria, it will be time to get back up on the Interstate and put the pedal to the metal."


There's more at the link.

Congratulations to the project team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for their hard work in keeping the Mars rovers going, so far beyond their design lifetime. We're learning more through these vehicles and their instruments than anyone would have believed possible, eight years ago.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #450


Today's winner comes from Nebraska.

Officials said a sheriff's deputy responded to a report of a suspicious pickup truck east of Lincoln. The deputy said he stopped the truck to question the driver and found everyone in the vehicle was unclothed. The deputy said their clothes were in the bed of the pickup.

According to authorities, when the two men and two women in the pickup were questioned about what they were doing, one replied, "I think we're getting in trouble."


Ya think???

There's more at the link.

I know Nebraska is known as the 'Cornhusker State' . . . but aren't the husks supposed to stay on the corn until it's ready to be eaten? (And no, I'm not, repeat, not going there!)



Peter

Remember what I said about 'Follow the money'?


A few days ago I reported on the Center for Responsive Politics and its listing of the top 140 donors to political parties over the past couple of decades. I was cynically reminded of that list during the recent brouhaha over whether or not Republican efforts to cut government spending were a good idea.

The Web page of the Democratic Party's Senators reported last week as follows:

House GOP Spending Measure Would Cut U.S. Economic Growth By As Much as 2%, Nonpartisan Economic Analysis Finds

Schumer Responds: Analysis Proves House GOP Proposal is 'Recipe for Double-Dip Recession'

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Wednesday after Goldman Sachs issued an independent economic analysis finding that the House Republicans’ funding measure would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of this year:

"This nonpartisan study proves that the House Republicans’ proposal is a recipe for a double-dip recession. Just as the economy is beginning to pick up a little steam, the Republican budget would snuff out any chance of recovery. This analysis puts a dagger through the heart of their ‘cut-and-grow’ fantasy. We need to reduce the deficit, but we must do it by striking the right balance between cutting spending and growing the economy. According to independent economists, the House Republicans’ proposal gets this balance all wrong. The verdict is in on their proposal, and nonpartisan economists give it an ‘F’."


There's more at the link. Bold print and font size variations are as per the original report.

Sounds fairly clear-cut, right? Not so fast . . . According to that report from the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs was the fifth-largest political donor during the period in question. The company reportedly donated $33,387,252, of which 61% went to the Democratic Party or individual Democrat politicians.

Given that leaning towards the political party making the claims cited above, would you, dear reader, consider Goldman Sachs to be an impartial, disinterested, 'nonpartisan' observer, and its observations about the Republican Party's efforts to cut spending to be equally impartial and disinterested and 'nonpartisan'?

I thought you wouldn't . . .

Of course, this problem isn't limited to the Democratic Party. I distrust both major political parties equally. I believe both of them put their own partisan interests ahead of those of the country as a whole, and both are equally dishonest in their attempts to mislead, gull and hoodwink us, the voters, into supporting them and their policies and positions. If Goldman Sachs can be accused of favoring the Democrats, there are other companies who can be accused of favoring the Republicans in the same way. If Republicans demonize George Soros for his partisan support of Democrats, the Democrats can (and do) demonize the Koch family for its support of Republicans. (Personally, I say good luck to both of them. They have the right to support any cause, party or person they wish. So do I. If it's OK for me to do that, why isn't it OK for them?)

Just remember . . . when you read about a 'survey' or 'forecast' or 'prediction' that favors one political party's positions or policies over those of its rival, the odds are pretty good that the information is at least suspect, if not downright slanted. 'Follow the money', indeed!

Politicians! Grrrr!





Peter