All those Ay-rabs look the same!

American pilots have earned a reputation -- in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Syria -- for being quick on the draw but sloppy on the aim. On 17 April 2002, "friendly fire" from the USAF killed four Canadian soldiers near Kandahar, Afghanistan. US Air National Guard Major Harry Schmidt dropped a laser-guided 500-lb bomb from his F-16 on the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry regiment which was conducting a night firing exercise. Major Schmidt was charged with negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, and dereliction of duty.

He blamed the "incident" on his use of "go pills" (authorized stimulant drugs), combined with the "fog of war". He was found guilty of the third charge (only) and a negative comment was entered on his permanent record. The Canucks stayed in Afghanistan for another ten years or so, but were noted for for their propensity to duck and cover at the sound of approaching jets.

Fast forward a dozen years or so to the fight against The Enemy Which Cannot Be Named -- its initials are IS or ISIS or ISIL -- in, errr, Iraq and Syria. The Canadians sent a half dozen of their aging but still airworthy CF-18s, but no ground troops, on the theory (Walt supposes) that if there were going to be any similar "incidents", it would be better to be on the bombing end than the incoming end. The RCAF flyboys flew missions for about a year without killing any allies... or any Islamic terrorists... or anybody. They did succeed in hitting a couple of dump trucks and what might have been an oil tank. Or not. Then, this past March, they went home, leaving the air war against the jihadis to the Americans... and the Russians... and, errr, the Syrian Air Force.

A ceasefire in the civil war between the Syrian government and assorted rebels went into effect (more or less) on Monday. It was clearly understood, though, that air attacks on the jihadis would continue. So it was that the USAF (or Air National Guard -- who knows... planes with a white star) dove down on a collection of hovels called Deir al-Zour, where the bad guys -- Syrian troops -- were said to be battling the even worse guys (ISIS).

But you know how it is. The damned Ay-rabs all look the same. They wear those same shit-brindle clothes and have rags on their heads. And then there's the "fog of war". Turns out the American pilots couldn't tell them apart and... ooops!... damn!.... did it again!!! According to the Russian army, the Yankees killed 62 Syrian government soldiers before calling a halt to the attack. An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, convened by Russia, is discussing the crisis. Meanwhile, a spokesthingy for the Obama administration expressed "regret" for the "unintentional loss of life".

How the C-5 Galaxy got so big

I see by the aviation news that NASA and the American military-industrial complex are reviving the idea of building an SST -- SuperSonic Transport -- since that worked out so well for the British-French consortium that built the Concorde. The contractor being given charge of the project is... wait for it... Lockheed-Martin. That's the corporate successor to Lockheed, who built the C-5 Galaxy, which was for a time the world's largest military transport aircraft. The picture below gives a good idea of the size of the thing. As Donald Trump would say, it's huuuuuuge!

The reason given for building this monster, according to the Air Force Fact sheet extant in the 1970s, was to "provide a vast capability for rapid deployment of both combat forces and their fighting equipment". Wikipedia tells us "The C-5 Galaxy's development was complicated, including significant cost overruns, and Lockheed suffered significant financial difficulties. Shortly after entering service, cracks in the wings of many aircraft were discovered and the C-5 fleet was restricted in capability until corrective work was completed." No surprises there, then.

Still the question remains, why was the C-5 built so damn big? John Kidner, author of The Kidner Report (Acropolis Books, 1972) provides an explanation which should be read (or reread) by the folks at the Pentagon and every other government department or agency planning the SST or whatever other Next Big Thing. The Kidner Report is a satirical look at bureaucracy. In the chapter headed "The Paper Criterion", the author makes a revolutionary suggestion...

I maintain that as long as there must be files, then let's make them more valuable from the standpoint of sheer volume as well as contents. That way, there won't be so much bellyaching about having to store them. This can be accomplished by using them as a standard -- a criterion. Before this is dismissed as a three-martini concept, let me point out that it may have already been tried.

There has been a good bit of speculation about just how the C-5 Galaxy...came to be as big as it is: six stories high and a block or so long.... I think that a PAPER CRITERION experiment is in progress and that it will be made known when it proves successful.

Rumor has it that back in 1950 an Air Force general, dismayed at the mountains of proposals he had to plow through, said to his aide, "By Gawd, Alphie! I wish somebody'd build an airplane big enough to carry all the Gawdamned paper it takes to get it built! That way we'd be able to carry all we needed to\" Knowing that a general's wish is a colonel's panic, I felt that something must have come of it.

I learned that the invitations to bid on the Galaxy were 1500 pages long. The five competing contractors responded in 240,000 pages. These were reproduced in 30 copies and distributed for review to 400 people. The significant point here is the weight of the paper -- 35 tons! 70,000 pounds!

Now comes the matter of costs. Thne original estimate was about 3.2 billion dollars but the final tab amounted to 5 billion, or about 60 percent over estimate. Acting on the assumption that the size of the aircraft would be proportional to the weight of the paper, I concluded that the costs would be related to the size in the same manner. Therefore we must add 60 percent of the original weight of the paper (70,000 lbs) which is 42,000; then 70,000 and 42,000 total up to 112,000 lbs. To this add 1000 lbs. for paper clips and staples and the total is 113,000 lbs. This is exactly the cargo carrying capacity of the C-5A, and is quoted in the fact sheet describing its characteristics.

It is not hard to envision the immense value the files will take on as they are used as standards for larger aircraft carriers, space stations, submarine fleets, and transports [including SSTs! Walt]. Bureaucracy will no longer have to fight for storage space, and fellowcrats won't have to blush over the file drawers pregnant with their creations. And the time will come when the old request -- "Can we get that in writing" -- will be given the honored reception it deserves.

Waiting for the balloon(s) to go up

This just in...

"President Barack Obama has approved targeted air strikes in Iraq, near the site where some 40,000 religious minorities are trapped on a mountaintop after fleeing from Islamic State militants who have threatened to kill them.

"Obama said the Iraqi government asked for U.S. help in fighting Islamic State militants, who have surged across northern Iraq in the country's Kurdish region, forcing tens of thousands of Christians and Yazidis — a Kurdish ethno-religious community — to leave their homes or risk death."

Meanwhile, to the northwest, Russian troops are massing along the border with Ukraine. NATO has called on Russia to "step back", otherwise they will, errr, well... that's kind of unclear. If (God forbid) NATO wants to call in an airstrike on the Russkis, who're they gonna call? The USAF will, it seems, be occupied elsewhere.

And... yes, there's more... there seem to be two chances of a permanent cease-fire in Gaza, the two chances being slim and none.

What next? To be clear, Walt is glad the USA is coming to the defence of the Christians (etc) in Iraq. Better late than never. And Walt would support the use of lethal force to keep the Russians from gobbling up any more of Ukraine. The fear, of course, is that the Islamic militants and/or Russians might stand and fight. So what should we do? Walt's answer: Go big or go home! But...

Memo to Ed.: Remember that bomb shelter we built out in the back 40? Do you remember where I put the key?

VIDEO: Designer of F-16 calls F-35 "a turkey"

The F-35 is a turkey. So says Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, in an interview with CBC-TV's public affairs programme The Fifth Estate. In Mr. Sprey's not-so-humble opinion, the F-35 is an inherently terrible airplane, built for what was a dumb idea to begin with. He predicts that the plane will fail time and time again. Cost of failure? A trillion bucks. Here's the video.



Walt feels compelled, in the interests of fairness, to tell you how to find a detailed rebuttal. Tyler Rogoway is a self-styled defence journalist and photographer who maintains the website Foxtrot Alpha for Jalopnik.com. In "Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe is Half Brilliant and Half Bullshit", he says that Pierre Sprey's comments are... what the title says.

Walt's conclusion if that the F-35 may... may make sense for the USAF, but not for the RCAF. It is the Canadian government's proposed purchase of the "turkey" that spurred the interview with Mr. Sprey. The major problem, from a Canadian point of view, is that the F-35 has only one engine, like the ill-fated F-104/CF-104 "Widow-maker".

Three or four other types were (supposedly) considered by the Canadian Defence Ministry. All of them had two engines, like the CF-18 Hornet which the F-35 is supposed to replace. One engine may be enough for missions in America or Europe or even the Middle East [Really??!! Ed.], where, in the event of engine failure, a place to land won't be that far away. But in the barren wastes of the Great White North, if you lose your only engine, you'll be polar bear food. That's all ye know and all ye need to know.

Thanks and a right proper salute to Agent 34 who sent us the link.