DETROIT - APRIL 16: Chris Osgood #30 of the Detroit Red Wings dives to make a save as teammate Jonathan Ericsson #52 ties up Fredrik Modin #33 of the Columbus Blue Jackets during Game One of the Western Conference Quarterfinals of the 2009 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs on April 16, 2009 at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Dave Reginek/NHLI via Getty Images)
DETROIT - APRIL 16: Manny Malhotra #27 of the Columbus Blue Jackets battles for the puck with both Marian Hossa #81 and Henrik Zetterberg #40 of the Detroit Red Wings during Game One of the Western Conference Quarterfinals of the 2009 Stanley Cup Playoffs on April 16, 2009 at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo By Dave Sandford/Getty Images)
(Images from NHL.com)
So… Last night… pizza was eaten, beer was drank, and the evening was topped off with Macallan’s and cigars. It don’t get no better than that, Gentle Reader. Oh…wait. Yes, it does get better. The Wings won their opener handily, beating Columbus 4-1. Chris Osgood took a giant step towards silencing his critics and other assorted doubters with a sterling performance in goal, stopping 20 of 21 shots (13 of which came in the first period) and being named as the game’s first star. The recap is here.
The middle game was excellent as well. Chicago trailed Calgary for most of the night yet Martin Havlat managed to tie the game with a little over five minutes left in regulation and win it 12 seconds into overtime. Havlat was the obvious choice for first star in front of a deliriously happy home crowd. The Hawks are back.
SN1 left before the Chicago game went into overtime. He had driven straight through from Riverside, CA to Portales yesterday and was a little bit whipped last night, having grabbed only about four hours sleep after arriving in P-Ville just before sunrise. And he has a long drive back to South Carolina ahead of him today and tomorrow. He needed his beauty rest.
I apparently needed MY beauty rest as well. I didn’t make it all the way through the nightcap game… falling asleep at the second intermission of the Sharks-Ducks game. I don’t have a dog in this fight (or any other sort of animal… fish or fowl) and I have good reason to dislike both teams, based upon their rather rude handling of the Wings in playoff series past. Still and even, my heart is with the underdogs in this one, so I was gratified to learn the Ducks triumphed last evening by a score of 2-0… in San Jose. There’s a lot of hockey left in this series, to be sure. But I think the games are off to a great start.
And… another double-header tonight… Philly and Pittsburgh tilt again and Vancouver hosts the Blues for the nightcap.I love this time of year!
No. 4. Like upsets? Look to where the Zamboni machines roam. Seven times, a No. 8 seed has dumped a No. 1 seed in the NHL first round. That is virtually unheard of in the NBA.
[...]
No. 7. Speaking of Columbus, the Blue Jackets are making their first playoff appearance in history, against defending champion Detroit.
It is a moment so big in Columbus, the public might even be momentarily distracted from the tailback battle at Ohio State's spring practice.
No. 8. The Pittsburgh Penguins and Philadelphia Flyers are meeting in the first round. Perhaps you've noticed that there is fighting in hockey once in a great while. Be advised, these two teams get along about as well as North and South Korea.
No. 9. The Boston Bruins have not survived the first round of the playoffs in 10 years. Three times, they have been evicted by the Montreal Canadiens. Guess who they're meeting again in the first round? Imagine the Red Sox and the Yankees ... with sticks.
[...]
No. 13. Whatever time you spend with hockey, try to keep an eye on the Detroit Red Wings.
One, because they're trying to repeat, and that is harder to do than finding a short bathroom line between periods. No champion has done it in a decade, and the past four Stanley Cup finals have involved eight different teams.
Two, with the playoffs underway, the octopuses will be flying out of the stands in Joe Louis Arena.
Close games, upsets, animosity, twins and sea creatures plopping into the ice. How can you resist?
Indeed... How CAN you resist? About an hour and a half (or so) until the puck drops at The Joe... Yowza!!
The sweetness: SN1, granddaughter Felicty, and great-granddaughter Mya are in P-Ville today. The most happy coincidental effect is the playoffs begin for the Wings this evening and hockey is always better when enjoyed with those you love (insert smiley-face thingie here). There will be beer, cigars, and Macallan's in abundance later on today at El Casa Móvil De Pennington.
I normally don't "do" awards. Well, not gracefully, anyway. I'll invoke the "consider the source" exception in this case, to wit:
Here are the rules associated with this award:
The blogger who receives this award believes in the Tao of the zombie chicken - excellence, grace and persistence in all situations, even in the midst of a zombie apocalypse. These amazing bloggers regularly produce content so remarkable that their readers would brave a raving pack of zombie chickens just to be able to read their inspiring words. As a recipient of this world-renowned award, you now have the task of passing it on to at least 5 other worthy bloggers. Do not risk the wrath of the zombie chickens by choosing unwisely or not choosing at all!
Those are the kind of rules I could possibly live with, excluding the first four sentences. Oops! There are only four sentences! Well, I like the spirit of the thing, anyway. At least, I like the mental picture of all of you running like hell through a barnyard crammed full of zombie chickens in order to get to my stuff. I think I'd like the mental picture even more if some of you were naked. Let me see.
(short pause to visualize you naked)
Yes, it was pretty good - except when Buck, Stu, and Chris Mauger entered the picture. Just for that, they're the first three who'll get this award when I'm handing it out at the end. That means there are still two of you who should be very afraid, despite how good you look naked, unless you send me actual photos of you naked, but that hasn't gotten me too many naked photos in the past, so why should I expect anything different now?
That would be Jim speaking, in his highly entertaining and peerless manner (I would have said "inimitable," but this would be the second consecutive post where I refer to two different blog-buds as "inimitable," which would be below par*, damaged, disagreeable, displeasing, distasteful, exceptionable, half-baked*, ill-favored, improper, inadmissible, insupportable, lousy*, not up to snuff, or otherwise unacceptable. Ain't the thesaurus grand?). I told Jim in comments at his place that I would simply play this straight... due to the fact I was up all night and slept until (nearly) the crack o'noon and am thus somewhat writing-challenged at this hour. That's all true, ya know.
I'll deviate from the rules by not naming five additional recipients (you may all thank me now...don't wait for later). THIS chicken shall not cross the road. But you, Gentle Reader, should hie your fine self off to Jim's and read. He's about the funniest person in my sidebar, if not on this whole danged collection of inter-tubes. I mean that.
Cool, eh? (Well... it would be cool if the animation worked. You'll have to chase the link to see "the real deal.")
As noted above, there are multiple sets at the link, ALL of which are worth viewing, and most especially if you're "of a certain age." Looking at these pics makes me wish I'd saved all those cheesy self-photos I took in those little booths back in the day. Sitting in one of those booths with your Main Squeeze was de rigueur on an outing back in my high-school days... I had hundreds of these things, once upon a time. Ah... "Lost Youth," and all that.
Yesterday was a pretty good day. We saddled up fairly early… for me, anyway… and headed out to the Big(ger) City™ to run a few errands.We got the oil changed in the car, dropped an item off at the UPS Store, and did a little light shopping for to restock the larder with comestibles not available in the charming village of P-Ville… such as four jars of El Pinto, a couple of bags of butter lettuce (why is it P-Villans only eat romaine or iceberg lettuce, apparently?), a pound of brie (same thing with cheese… if it ain’t cheddar, Swiss, or Monterey Jack, it AIN’T… in P-Ville), a Folly Pack from New Belgium (12 bottles of Fat Tire, 1554, Trippel, and Mothership Wit… which might just as well be called “The Buck Pack,” since this is what we drink here at El Casa Móvil De Pennington) and a luscious carrot cake. Among other things… all of which were bought at Albertson’s… which also served to delay the inevitable commissary and Class VI Store run by a couple of days.
I thought my tab was just a bit… umm… pricey when I checked out at Albertson’s and gave my receipt a quick glance to make sure I wasn’t charged double or triple for any one item. And… shock. Since when did the price of brie jump up to 15-frickin’-Yankee-Dollars a pound? Granted, this was the imported French variety, there being none of the usual Made In USA product I usually purchase. But, still! So… I went googling to see what the actual tariff is on brie and was shocked to discover this:
No one's likely to starve as a result, but the pending 300 percent duty on Roquefort, which could be imposed as soon as April 23, would drive its price into the unheard-of range of $60 a pound.
Dang. I almost always buy domestic cheeses, as indicated above. But I find these tariffs (see the linked article) abominable. Here’s the direct impact on me, aka The Consumer, of trade-wars. So, EU… you won’t drop the tariff on US beef? Good luck selling your Roquefort. (I still don’t know what the actual duty imposed on brie is, but I’m pretty sure it’s substantial, given the price of the French stuff is at least three times that of the domestic.)
And about the UPS Store. More sticker-shock. The last time I shipped anything via UPS was back in 1999, when I boxed up the album collection and shipped it off to Maine for safekeeping in SN2’s basement. That was a rather pricey endeavor, but we’re talking four large boxes filled with approximately 500 vinyl LPs… going from Ra-cha-cha, NY to Maine… via UPS Ground.
Yesterday I sent my 28-135mm lens back to Canon for service (we have focus issues with this lens)… in California… for the princely sum of 23 Yankee Dollars and change. Granted, I sent it Two Day Air… but still. Again. Perhaps I need to get out more, but I found these two examples of sticker-shock to be rather surprising.
―:☺:―
I am NOT a Happy Camper when it comes to teevee… I’m looking at YOU, Versus… coverage of the play-offs. Versus will cover Game One of the Detroit-Columbus series and then nothing more until Game Five, which happens on April 25th. That’s just not right… as the Wings are The Defending Champions!!
―:☺:―
Today’s Pic:A Breakfast Tableau.A good healthy chunk of that carrot cake was sliced off and consumed right after I took the photo.One of the bennies of being an adult: “Cake for Breakfast.”
Well, now. The regular season is over (ending on a sour note for Wings fans) and the long playoff run begins day after tomorrow. The NHL announced the playoff schedule sometime last evening… and I have “concerns.” The Beloved Wings begin play on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. (EDT) and so does Boston in its series against Montreal… on the exact same day at the exact same time. Versus hasn’t posted their TeeVee schedule as of this writing but I’m slightly worried, as there are similar scheduling conflicts throughout the first round. But… it will be what it will be. In the meantime, Detroit’s quarter-final series will be most interesting:
Posted by George James Malik April 13, 200900:26AM
As MLive.com's own Ansar Khan reports, the St. Louis Blues 1-0 win over the Colorado Avalanche earned the Blues the sixth seed in the Western Conference, locking the Detroit Red Wings into a 2-versus-7 match-up against the Columbus Blue Jackets.
Those pesky Anaheim Ducks get the San Jose Sharks for their trouble, while the Blues play the Vancouver Canucks, and our dear friends, the Chicago Blackhawks, host the Calgary Flames.
The Red Wings' series will start on Thursday, April 16th, and you can read the entire schedule here (all teams).
This one's going to be interesting for some very simple reasons.
First and foremost, the Blue Jackets won the season series.
The Red Wings mostly played Columbus over the second half of the season, kicking off the season series against a team that had Pascal Leclaire in the net. On November 28th, the Wings defeated the Blue Jackets 5-3; on January 7th, the Wings shut out Steve Mason and Columbus 4-0; Rick Nash scored a hat trick in Columbus's 3-2 win on January 27th--which marked the one-game suspension doled out to Nicklas Lidstrom and Pavel Datsyuk--and Columbus got another 3-2 win on February 14th before the infamous 8-2 drubbing on March 7th.
Detroit finished their regular-season play against Columbus with a 4-0 win and Chris Osgood shutout on the Ides of March (March 15th), but Columbus sees Detroit as eminently beatable.
It’s that last sentence above that raises fear in Detroit… the fear of that ol’ playoff song: “Hot Goalie Meets Powerhouse Offense.” We’ve seen that movie before… when the Wings made first-round exits in 2001, 2003, and 2006. Which, of course, isn’t saying we’ll see a re-run. A first-round exit is MUCH more likely to happen in San Jose, who will play the streaking Anaheim Ducks… even though ESPN calls it for the Sharks in seven. (ESPN picks Dee-troit in five, by the way)
Wings aside... I’m thinking the most interesting first-round series will be that San Jose/Anaheim match-up, which should be a doozy. And the second most interesting? That would be Philly/Pittsburgh, about which ESPN sez Penguins in six. Forgive me for concentrating on the Western Conference, Gentle Reader, but it’s what I know. I might have watched perhaps six Eastern Conference games all year, given the fact I live in a hockey wasteland. But there will be ALL the hockey I want for the next six or seven weeks.
I can’t wait!
Update, later that same morning... According to NHL.com I have no reason to worry about teevee coverage this Thursday:
Four more begin Thursday, starting with the Wings, who host Columbus at 7 p.m. ET on VERSUS and TSN. Montreal at Boston also starts at 7 p.m. ET on CBC and RDS. Calgary and Chicago open at the United Center (8:30 p.m. ET on TSN2 and VERSUS) and San Jose hosts Anaheim at 10:30 p.m. ET on VERSUS, CBC and RDS.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...
Image: Sistine Chapel. Hendrick van den Broeck (1519-1597) — Scenes from the Life of Christ: The Resurrection of Christ (H). (Yes... it's the same thing I posted last year. Some things cannot be improved upon.)
So... we're just in from Happy Hour, which began badly but concluded on a happy note. Why the bad beginning? Well... we weren't in the mood to do a beer run all the way out to the base, so we decided to "broaden our horizons" by picking up a sixer of Santa Fe Hefeweizen while we were doing our shopping out at Wally-World, given as how we were "in the mood" for a hefeweizen. And so we picked up a sixer of these:
And we were NOT pleased, Gentle Reader. We drank but one of the above before we dived into what remains of the beer stock and pulled out a couple of Mothership Wits, which went down oh-so-much-better than the aforementioned "hefeweizens," which more resembles run-of-the-mill Budweiser than a hefewieizen. Truth be told... the Santa Fe Brewing Company ought be ashamed... and greatly so... for daring to append the name "hefewiezen" to this brew. This beer will remain in the fridge for a whole HELLUVA long time before it's finished. It might be suitable for foisting off on unsuspecting visitors (and non-discriminating beer drinkers) to El Casa Móvil De Pennington, but that would be about it.
The day was saved (as noted above) by pulling out two Mothership Wits. I sense there will be a beer run out to the Cannon AFB Class VI store in my most immediate future.All that said.... Happy Hour was indeed a success. We began with a soundtrack provided by Pandora... to wit, "Hot Tuna," followed up with "Motown." About which... one of the better tunes we enjoyed this afternoon:
That just HAS to be one of the songs Arthur Conley was talking about when he asked the musical question "Do you like Sweet Soul Music?" Oh, yes... indeed. Yes, we DO.
Blog-Bud Lou writes about the wild fires in southwest Oklahoma last evening... and one of her commenters drove me to the newspapers covering Oklahoma City and its environs. I lived in Choctaw, a suburb of OKC, for about a year and a half while I was stationed at Tinker AFB in my final USAF assignment. Choctaw and Midwest City were the locations of some of the worst fires to hit the area in quite some time, and those fires appeared to be quite close to the Old Pennington Homestead at 1277 South Indian Meridian Road, pictured below.
The top picture is a bird's eye view (heh) of the general neighborhood where I lived; the bottom pic is the house I owned... which sat on a little over two acres. I worried about tornadoes when I lived on Indian Meridian Road and never thought much about wildfire. I hope my used-to-be neighbors are OK...
―:☺:―
Your political commentary for the day comes from one of my favorite pundits...Charles Krauthammer, writing at Townhall.com. The lede grafs:
WASHINGTON -- In his major foreign policy address in Prague committing the United States to a world without nuclear weapons, President Obama took note of North Korea's missile launch just hours earlier and then grandiloquently proclaimed:
"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."
A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What "strong international response" did Obama muster to North Korea's brazen defiance of a Chapter 7 --"binding," as it were -- U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?
The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared express "concern," let alone condemnation.
Having thus bravely rallied the international community and summoned the U.N. -- a fiction and a farce, respectively -- what was Obama's further response? The very next day, his defense secretary announced drastic cuts in missile defense, including halting further deployment of Alaska-based interceptors designed precisely to shoot down North Korean ICBMs. Such is the "realism" Obama promised to restore to U.S. foreign policy.
Read the whole thing... coz the paragraphs above were just a shot across The One's bow. It gets a LOT better.
With the regular hockey season wrapping up, guys can look forward to having at least one butt cheek glued to a couch or barstool for the two-month televised marathon that is the NHL playoffs, beginning next Wednesday.
According to the TV commercial stereotype of guys watching sports, women are seen either in tight tank tops and serving beer, or as uninterested wives nagging their husbands about undone chores. But times have changed. Women represent a significant demographic among sports fans, so it's almost as likely that they'll be the ones worried about getting to the bar in time to see the first puck drop.
(Sigh) They do things just a lil bit differently in The Great White Up and arguably better, as well. Women hockey fans DO exist in these United States, don't get me wrong. My daughter-in-law's sister Yolanda is one such, but she's a Dallas Stars fan... much to her discredit. But Hey! It's hockey...
Perhaps I should move back up to Dee-troit and put my money where my mouth is, no? (I already did that Northern California thing, in case you're wondering. I'd never entertain doing it again, FWIW.)
(Images are screen-shots from the downloadable brochure. Click for larger, of course.)
That would be the 2010 Camaro, which comes in several flavors… ranging from mild to wild.But even the “mild” version comes with a standard 3.6 liter (217 cu. in.) V6 that puts out an astounding 304 hp while getting an estimated 18 miles per gallon (city) and 29 mpg on the highway.Just to put that in perspective… The Second Mrs. Pennington’s 1992 Corvette (which later became mine) put out 300 hp and got all of about 18 mpg on the highway… if you kept your foot out of it... which was pretty danged hard to do, given that 300 hp is a LOT of fun!
The base Camaro begins at $22,995.00… and a moderately tarted-up V6 LT2 model has an MSRP of $27,330.00.That sounds pretty danged reasonable to me, and it also makes me wonder if GM has changed its long-standing policy about not allowing the GM employee discount on new models.I suspect they just might have done so, given the current sales environment.(Full disclosure: The family and I are eligible for that discount by virtue of me being an EDS retiree.SN1 just used the discount last month to buy a new Tahoe.)
But… back to the car.If the base V6 ain’t enough for you and you happen to be a serious horsepower freak… there’s always the 426 hp 2SS model that begins at $34,180.00.Or, as the brochure sez:
If you seek the ultimate, why not own the ultimate — the SS. Call it the extreme Camaro, with performance credentials that compare to many supercars. Its standard 6.2L V8 lays down an incredible 426 hp and a massive 420 lb.-ft. of torque when mated to the standard short-throw six-speed manual — all without a federal gas-guzzler tax.
That last bit I highlighted is pretty danged impressive, in its own right.But 304 horsepower seems like enough for YrHmblScrb.Insurance being a consideration, and all that…
Motor Trend likes the new Camaro, too. The Camaro SS was the winner in a shoot-out between the Camaro, the Mustang GT, and the new Dodge Challenger. Watch...
In re: the post title. It only seems that way, Gentle Reader. Soon it will be "All Hockey, All the Time." But... that said... This is kinda interesting.From the Tuesday edition of the Air Force Association’s Daily Report:
Raptor Cutoff: Production of the F-22 fighter will end at 187 aircraft if Defense Secretary Robert Gates has his way. Gates announced the decision in a round-up of Fiscal 2010 budget moves at a Pentagon press conference Monday. The F-22 buy "completes" the program at the 183 level set for it in 2005, plus four more added by Congress, Gates said, adding that "there is no military requirement for more." He later said that the Air Force told him that no more were needed, which is surprising because the service has been strongly promoting its need for more F-22s and unofficially quoting 60 as the number. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said USAF needs 60 more F-22s. Although he did not elaborate on his decision yesterday, Gates has previously criticized the F-22 as being an overly powerful machine that has been unnecessary in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gates has also asserted that the US is "dominant" in airpower. Speaking broadly about the budget—but apparently reflecting on the F-22's superiority to similar foreign fighters now presumed to be on the drawing board—Gates said "our conventional modernization goals should be tied to the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries, not by what might be technologically possible for a potential adversary given unlimited time and resources." In another veiled reference to the F-22, Gates said, "Every dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk—or, in effect, to 'run up the score' in a capability where the United States is already dominant—is a dollar not available" for care of troops or to "win the wars we are in." The Air Force did not provide a response when asked if its official military advice to Gates was that more F-22s are unnecessary. (Gates remarks as prepared for delivery; briefing Q&A) (From Monday's Daily Report: The Air Force Cut List)
And on the same subject… here’s a blurb from today’s Daily Report:
Where's the Beef?: We've asked the Air Force for an unambiguous confirmation that its senior leadership recommended no further F-22s are needed, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates told a Pentagon press conference that "the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement" beyond 187 F-22s, and when asked about the Air Force's position, he replied, "that was their advice as well." The Air Force's response to our query wasn't exactly on point. A USAF spokesman said, "The Air Force supports the holistic, strategic approach to next year's budget adopted by the Administration and the Secretary of Defense, and we will continue to provide our best military advice to DOD and Congress as they propose and approve a Fiscal 2010 budget. As a service, we understand the need to balance current and future requirements and to exercise fiscal discipline. We're ready to move forward with the guidance Secretary Gates has provided to make the most of the resources we're given and to work as a member of the joint team in accomplishing our nation's military objectives." We'll keep working on them for a direct answer.
God Save Us.Even the frickin’ military has gone PC these days.Even though it IS part of the culture to salute smartly and execute the order… even if you disagree with said order… there isn’t anything in the culture that prevents you from giving a direct answer to a direct question.Or there didn’t used to be, anyway.
―:☺:―
Speaking of Our Man Gates… he did an extensive interview on The News Hour last evening, and here he is holding forth on the F-22:
ROBERT GATES: I think what we're trying to do is not reduce emphasis on conventional warfare, but be more selective about the weapons systems that we fund to fight that kind of a fight. I'm not cutting the F-22; I'm not recommending the F-22; I'm simply recommending that the program set in 2005 was to build 183 of these aircrafts. I'm simply saying, let's finish that program and then let's focus on buying large numbers of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, which has 10- to 15-year newer technology, has some capabilities that the F-22 doesn't have.
The F-22 is a great airplane, all you have to do is ask the pilots who fly it, but - and it will remain in the inventory, but there is no military requirement for more than 183 of them, 187 with those that are in the supplemental. So we're doing that, we're building additional ships, we're doing more in the way of theater and tactical ballistic-missile defense. We're converting more ships to have ballistic-missile defense that would help against China. So I think there's kind of a misunderstanding of exactly what it is we're trying to do here. We're trying to be more selective about systems that actually work and that can be delivered in a reasonable period of time than some of these exotic systems.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But by ending production in - down the road, of the F-22 Raptor, I'm already reading that shutting it down is going to mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Was that something that weighed on you as you made that decision?
ROBERT GATES: Well, we can't be oblivious to the impact that these decisions have on people, but the information that's available to us shows that the direct employment of the F-22 will go from about 32,000 in - I'm sorry, from about 24,000 this year to about 11,000 in 2011. But Joint Strike Fighter will go from 38,000 people working this year to 82,000 people that work on that plane in direct support in 2011. So there are puts and takes. I think we've done a good job of taking care of the industrial base in the shipyards and the workers there in the decisions on the shipbuilding.
So we're not oblivious to the employment aspects, but to be perfectly honest, there isn't a single defense program anywhere, procurement program, that doesn't have an impact in somebody's hometown and somebody's state. And so if you're going to bring any discipline to the Defense Department budget, if you're going to try and make any selectivity, have any selectivity in terms of what you fund and don't fund, it will have an impact somewhere.
That’s just a little disingenuous… the bit about finishing the program as it was approved in 2005.The Air Force originally requested approximately 700 F-22s, back when the program was in its infancy… with the full realization that it would never be able to get that many. The F-22 is generally viewed as the follow-on replacement for the F-15, which has been in service since 1975. The Air Force operates 522 Eagles. Here’s a little blurb from Global Security.org on the subject of numbers:
A Joint Estimate Team was chartered in June 1996 to review the F-22 program cost and schedule. JET concluded that the F-22 engineering and manufacturing development program would require additional time and funding to reduce risk before the F-22 enters production. JET estimated that the development cost would increase by about $1.45 billion. Also, JET concluded that F-22 production cost could grow by about $13 billion (from $48 billion to $61 billion) unless offset by various cost avoidance actions. As a result of the JET review the program was restructured, requiring an additional $2.2 billion be added to the EMD budget and 12 months be added to the schedule to ensure the achievement of a producible, affordable design prior to entering production. The program restructure allowed sourcing within F-22 program funds by deleting the three pre-production aircraft and slowing the production ramp. Potential for cost growth in production was contained within current budget estimate through cost reduction initiatives formalized in a government/industry memorandum of agreement. The Defense Acquisition Board principals reviewed the restructured program strategy and on February 11, 1997 the Defense Acquisition Executive issued an Acquisition Defense Memorandum approving the strategy.
The Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which was released in mid-May 1997, reduced the F-22 overall production quantity from 438 to 339, slowed the Low Rate Initial Production ramp from 70 to 58, and reduced the maximum production rate from 48 to 36 aircraft per year.
The Air Force has maintained for years that 381 Raptors is the minimum number required to achieve the air superiority mission and has only grudgingly accepted lesser numbers. Here’s an excerpt of testimony by one Christopher Bolkcom (Specialist In National Defense, Congressional Research Service), before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July of 2006:
The number of F-22's to be purchased has fluctuated considerably over time. Originally conceived of as a 750-aircraft program, DoD’s first Selected Acquisition Report that included the F-22 (December 31, 1991), reported a 648-aircraft procurement plan. Over time, the number of F-22s that could be purchased under budget limits was reduced to 442, 440, 342, 341, 278, 279, 181, and 185 (including aircraft built with RDT&E funds). The Air Force called its attempts to purchase as many F-22's as possible under budget limits a “buy-tobudget” plan. Some criticized this approach as being inconsistent with DoD’s more traditional requirements-driven weapon system acquisition strategy.
Since 2002, Air Force leaders have consistently stated that they require 381 F-22s. Further, Air Force officials point out that this requirement has been validated by DoD.
The Air Force’s stated rational for the 381 figure has not been consistent. At times Air Force officials have argued that this figure is required to field one 24-aircraft F-22 squadron in each of the Service’s 10 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEFs). Other times, the Air Force has argued that 381 was the minimum number required to address emerging “nearpeer” competitors. At still other times, Air Force leaders argued for the F-22, based on their perception of the Raptor’s potential contribution to the “global war on terrorism.” Specific F-22 missions Air Force leaders described include conducting cruise missile defense over the United States, and flying close air support (CAS) missions for small, dispersed U.S. ground forces fighting terrorists or insurgents.
It is also important to note that although DoD may support the 381-aircraft goal for the F-22 in theory, DoD has cut the F-22 program by $10.5 billion. This reduction has made the 381 requirement difficult to achieve.
The Air Force is part of the problem, obviously.It’s ludicrous to justify the F-22 as a close air support platform… and the Air Force sacrificed a good deal of its credibility by attempting to do so.But that is neither here nor there.We began with Secretary Gates’ comment about the F-22 program, “as established in 2005.”The truth is just a little bit different, no?
A letter from the president of the Air Force Association:
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
AFA members, Congressional staffers, civic leaders, and DOCA members, yesterday, Secretary Gates briefed the press corps on his budget proposal for 2010. [You can find his statement at: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341]
In sum … for the Air Force, the following was recommended:
Continued production of ISR systems
Increased production of the F-35
Continue the process to select tanker replacement
Purchase of more SOF lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft
However, the following programs were terminated/delayed:
F-22 production – terminated
Follow-on Bomber – terminated ("until we have a better understanding of the need, requirement, and the technology")
C-17 production – terminated
Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter –X – terminated
Transformational Satellite (TSAT) – terminated – and instead purchase of two more AEHF satellites
Missile Defense – radically cut
No increase of ground-based interceptors
Airborne Laser (ABL) terminated
Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) – terminated
Missile Defense Agency budget reduced by $1.4B/year
One cut – which has but one line in the release – retires 250 aircraft. This means:
We will have a defacto Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) – since 250 aircraft is the equivalent of 3.5 wings (and over 5 CVBGs) of fighter aircraft
F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s will all leave the force … with no replacements …
Let me make a few observations about this budget.
This budget guarantees that the oldest Air Force in the history of our nation will get even older.
B-52s (built in the 1950s) will have to be kept on duty for a minimum of another 15-20 years …
At a time when the nation is spending literally trillions of dollars, we seem to not have enough money to fund an adequate defense
We are using tomorrow's dollars to solve today's problems.
The acquisition decisions recommended will lock in the range of national security options for decades into the future.
The decisions are not just programic nuance – but will impact core Air Force functions, to include Air Force ability to deter, to conduct an air campaign, and to rescue our downed Airmen.
The launch of an intercontinental missile by North Korea this weekend (and a similar launch by Iran 5 weeks ago) argues for a robust missile defense, not a reduced one – to include the ABL. The technology of ABL has the potential to revolutionize warfare in the future.
It is difficult to determine the strategy which this budget supports. This is especially important since a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is mandated by law … and will be conducted in the upcoming several months. It seems the budget (and hence the strategy) precedes the QDR.
This budget increases risk … in my view … beyond so-called "moderate."
AFA believes there are major impacts and consequences … for the full-up joint team. These budget recommendations may cost us lives and will reduce our strategic options in a very dangerous world.
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Mr. Dunn is a retired USAF Lieutenant General. His bio is here.
Remember this? Wherein I said... "Let's think about other things, such as going to the DMV (or some other to-be-announced Fed agency) to file a warranty claim on your GM car. Yeah. THAT will be fun, dontcha think?" The folks at Reason were on the same page... and made a video to that effect.
Big doings this past weekend, most of which occurred Saturday night and very early Sunday morning.First of all, the Norks defied the entire world (except perhaps for Iran and a few other rogue regimes) and launched their prototype ICBM (which failed, according to the NYT), just hours before President Obama invited the world to join hands with him and sing a few choruses of Kumbaya.The president, speaking in Prague yesterday (transcript here):
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)
Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies -- including the CzechRepublic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.
Sweet Mother of God.While this may not be unilateral disarmament it’s most definitely its first cousin.The president says he’s “not naïve,” but I beg to differ.And I’m not alone, either.Here’s former Speaker Newt Gingrich, speaking on Fox News Sunday:
Just in case you didn’t watch the video all the way to the end… here’s what I think is the most important bit… Newt on Obama’s “no nukes” speech (complete FNStranscript here):
WALLACE: Mr. Gingrich, what do you make of the president's speech today in which he called for new limits and, in fact, the elimination, eventually, as a goal, of all nuclear weapons at the same time, as I discussed with David Axelrod, that he wants a cut in missile defense?
GINGRICH: There's a fascinating analysis of Jimmy Carter's Notre Dame speech when he spoke at the commencement in 1977. And that was the moment in which Carter's fantasy view of the world became clear, and the beginning, I think, of the end of his -- of his administration. The president's in a world where Hamas is firing missiles every day into Israel, Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the North Koreans today during -- basically during his speech fired a missile, and he has some wonderful fantasy idea that we're going to have a great meeting next year.
With who? I mean, who's coming to this meeting? The Pakistanis? The Indians? The Chinese? The Russians? And what are they going to promise? And why would you believe them?
I just think that it's very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy, and it can get you in enormous trouble, just like giving -- you know, we don't have a war on terror anymore. We don't have terrorist attacks anymore. So now homeland security has manmade disasters.
I'm somehow not comforted with the thought that 9/11 was a manmade disaster but not a terrorist attack, and I'm not comforted with words instead of serious systematic policies.
It’s worse than it looks, actually.The president’s announced policy very likely means our current nuclear arsenal, which is in serious need of upgrading due to reliability issues, will NOT be upgraded.From Saturday’s WSJ (“To Russia With Love; Degrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”):
What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that "we do need a new warhead." When we asked about Mr. Obama's views on the warhead, the Admiral said, "You would have to ask him."
The RRW is not, in fact, a new weapon; it has been in development for several years and is based on the W89 design tested in the 1980s. It is said to be a remarkably safe and long-lasting warhead, a significant consideration given the gradual physical deterioration of the current U.S. arsenal, particularly the mainstay W76.
The irony is that Mr. Obama's opposition is making substantial reductions in the total U.S. arsenal that much riskier. In the absence of actual testing, which hasn't happened in the U.S. since 1992, the only real hedge against potentially defective weapons is a larger arsenal. Naturally, arms-control theologians are instead urging the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ban the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium.
The thinking here is that somehow the American example will get Russia, as well as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran, to reject nuclear weapons. In fact, a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is diminished in both quantity and quality would be an incentive for these countries to increase their nuclear inventories, since the door would suddenly be opened to reach strategic parity with the last superpower. Mr. Medvedev, for one, recently announced Russia would pursue "large-scale rearmament" of its army and navy, including nuclear arsenals.
France also plans to deploy new sea-based nuclear missiles next year, even as it reduces the overall size of its arsenal. The French understand that a credible nuclear deterrent requires modern and reliable weapons. The Obama Administration should understand that the best security for both the U.S. and the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella lies in an unchallengeable arsenal, and not an invitation to the world's Mahmoud Ahmadinejads to compete on equal terms.
While Mr. Obama may not be naïve, he apparently believes in fairy tales... or their foreign policy/defense policy equivalents. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if he were only a private citizen and not the president of the United States.We live in a dangerous world… a world where power is respected and weakness is exploited.The policy Mr. Obama announced in Prague will be interpreted as a sign of American weakness in the world’s dark corners, at the very best.I hesitate to speculate what the worst case scenario might entail, but I’m sure it’s NOT something Americans would welcome.And while it’s true the president went to some (small) length to assure the world the US is not unilaterally disarming, he’s coming perilously close to doing just that.I’m afraid the Prague speech was just the first step in what will be an irreversible slide down a slippery slope.
I dunno about you, Gentle Reader, but I feel a whole helluva lot less safe today than I did before I went to bed Saturday night.The other shoe will drop sometime today when Secretary Gates announces the administration’s proposed cuts in major defense programs. I can hardly wait.
Yep… elections have consequences.I only hope the change doesn’t kill us.
