Speaking of American Sniper . . .
We have a really good voice actor for the audio version, John Pruden. You can hear some of his work at his website, JohnPruden.com
If you're into audio books, you're going to want to get his version of Sniper; it's sure to be a winner.
Goodnight . . . (??)
Coming this January . . . what war was really like.
You can pre-order on B&N here . . . it's already in the top 100 there, or at least was yesterday, when it was right under . . . Goodnight, Moon.
Somehow, that juxtaposition is just a little . . . troubling?
Can I get a 'duh' . . .
The only real question now: when will the attacks begin?
United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way.
(Times story.)
The only real question now: when will the attacks begin?
Some Bradley posts . . .
Besides the material on my web site, I've written a bunch of short blog entries on Omar Bradley.
Here are a few:
Besides the material on my web site, I've written a bunch of short blog entries on Omar Bradley.
Here are a few:
Oh yeah, I also wrote a book. To order it online, go to this page: http://www.jimdefelice.com/Ordering_Omar_Bradley.html and click on your favorite on-line retailer. You can also get a sample chapter there.
Telling the truth
. . . can get you fired, even when you're a two-star general.
To wit:
. . . can get you fired, even when you're a two-star general.
To wit:
In an interview with Politico, Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, deputy commander of the American-led NATO effort to train and equip Afghan security forces, called key elements of the Afghan government “isolated from reality,” described Karzai as “erratic,” and said officials there “don’t understand the sacrifices that America is making to provide for their security.”
Whole story here. (Original remarks here in Politico - worth reading.) Nothing, but nothing, General Fuller said is off-base - if anything, he was being kind.
Amazon's lending library
The other day, Amazon started a new "library" feature as part of a plan to (supposedly) push sales of its Kindles.
The only problem is, authors aren't being paid for the books. (Publishers are, but that's a really strange arrangement as well - in some cases, Amazon is actually buying single copies each time a book is loaned out. Most major publishers are pretty much up in arms over the whole enterprise, which has the potential to hurt them in any number of ways. But we'll let them speak for themselves.)
So once again, the people who actually created the work are after-thoughts, while others make money on them.
From Publisher's Lunch:
The other day, Amazon started a new "library" feature as part of a plan to (supposedly) push sales of its Kindles.
The only problem is, authors aren't being paid for the books. (Publishers are, but that's a really strange arrangement as well - in some cases, Amazon is actually buying single copies each time a book is loaned out. Most major publishers are pretty much up in arms over the whole enterprise, which has the potential to hurt them in any number of ways. But we'll let them speak for themselves.)
So once again, the people who actually created the work are after-thoughts, while others make money on them.
From Publisher's Lunch:
The Association of Authors' Representatives has issued a statement on the new initiative:
"The agent and author community have not been consulted about this new sort of use of authors' copyrighted material, and are unaware of how publishers plan on compensating authors for this sort of use of their books, which is unprecedented. But we think free lending of authors' work as an incentive to purchase a device and/or participation in a program is not covered nor was anticipated in most contracts between authors and publishers—nor do most contracts have any stipulation for how an author would be compensated for such a use. Without a clear contractual understanding with their authors, it is unclear to us how publishers can participate in this program. We take very seriously our role to protect the interests of our clients, and at this stage it is difficult to see how this program is in the best interests of our clients."
Looking cool is most of the battle
I'm not sure there's a cooler looking plane than the Russian Berkut, the reverse-winged aircraft whose fictional cousin (from Ace Combat) is above.*
In real life, the plane was a '90s era experimental testbed, demonstrating the potential for forward swept wings. (And other systems, but we'll focus on the wings.)
One of the ideas in putting a jet's wings backwards, so to speak, is that you are able to increase the maneuverability (mostly at low speed) while not penalized high speed performance. That combination has historically been important in a dogfight and, occasionally, in air attack regimes as well.
One difficulty designers of supersonic aircraft have always had to confront was the fact that going fast and making really hard turns suggests two different solutions. To give kind of gross example of what I'm talking about, consider the F-104 Starfighter - in my mind of the coolest Cold War aircraft ever - and the A-10A (now A-10C) Warthog - oh excuse me, the official name is Lightning II. (Also an extremely cool aircraft.)
The Starfighter is svelte and skinny, with tiny wings. It goes very fast - in a straight line. It turns - let's just say you dial that turn in way before you make it.
The Hog is ugly** for a lot of reasons. Its long straight wings aren't part of that, I don't think, but they sure do make the plane look like a throwback. No jet aircraft had had straight wings since the very early days of development during and just after WWII.
But those wings are one reason the Hog is such a maneuverable aircraft at slow speeds. The A-10 truly is stick and rudder beast, as close to a gymnast in the sky as you'll see. (And brother, you do NOT want to be in front of her when that cannon starts turning.)
Designers have tried to reconcile the problem of speed and maneuverability through all flight regimes in a variety of ways. In the 1970s, American engineers started playing with this puppy, the X-29:
That is one seriously weird and beautiful aircraft.
At least in theory, forward-swept wings would solve a good portion of the speed/maneuverability equation. But like everything else in aerodynamics, they come with their own set of peculiarities. The primary one is that as both speed and maneuverability increase, separately or together, the amount of force exerted on the aircraft increases. And forward swept wings generate, at least in most configurations that I've seen, even more force than the more conventional choices.
You can fight those forces in a number of ways - strengthening the wings, for example - but you pay a price for those fixes. If you make the wings stronger, you make the plane heavier. If you add more control surfaces, for example, you add complexity. (Both strategies were part of the forward-swept wing equation.)
It was thought in the '70s and '80s that new lightweight and incredible strong materials, along with computerized controls, would solve the problem. They didn't - or at least they didn't to the point that they provided a solution that is any better than more conventional designs.
(Note here that we're not talking about canards, those cool forward winglets that are on both of the aircraft above, and can be seen on everything from the Su-29 (and successors) family to the F/A18 Rhino's snake-like cowling. In fact, the canards are at least a partial solution to that problem, without some of the more significant drawbacks.)
Presumably, the Russians came to basically the same conclusions that the U.S. did when they built the Golden Eagle - that's what Berkut means - in the 1990s. But the aircraft looked so cool and so unusual, plus had so much potential, that it took on a life of its own among aficionados. Then the Internet came along, and games (including Ace), and a star was born.
Today, the real problem with the forward swept wing designs isn't so much the difficult engineering problems that it raises. The problem is that the equation it tries to solve no longer needs to be solved, or I should say doesn't need to be solved at this moment.
Speed and high-g agility are critical in close-up dogfights or "furballs" - your basic aerial knife fight at close range. And those simply don't happen any more. The most important system in an aircraft today - after the pilot - are the radars and detection devices that reach out and touch the enemy beyond visual range. Way beyond it. A modern dogfight between the best aircraft in the world - say the F-22 and the PAK-FA (or PAK-50, etc.) if it ever becomes operational, or the Su-35xx if it doesn't - would take place without the airplanes ever seeing each other. Same for a fight between an F-16 and a MiG-29, etc.
That's why stealth - or relative stealth - and fancy detector arrays are the "sexy" things in modern air combat. Alas, they don't really make for a lot of romance of the skies.
But that's real life. We still have the romance of close-in dogfighting in books and movies, and games like Assault Horizon. And in those places at least, the forward-swept wing may indeed dominate.
* - In the game, the Berkut is the Su-47. In real life, it had a few different designations.
** Good ugly. I really do like the Hog - after all I did write six books about it.
Modern war
You can't fit everything in a book, even a novel.
I lost this bit yesterday (or the day before - they blur together down toward the end).
You can't fit everything in a book, even a novel.
I lost this bit yesterday (or the day before - they blur together down toward the end).
“Modern war is five percent fighting and ninety percent public relations,” President Greene told Dickson. “I haven’t figured out the other five percent yet.”
Neither have I.
(It's from the Red Dragon Rising, book 4. Book 2 just went to paperback; book 3 will be out at the end of the year.)
The old California
When the Navy commissioned the attack submarine California over the weekend, some of the remarks gave tribute to an earlier namesake, BB-44, seen here in a photo before World War II.
The battleship California was one of the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor. She was in relatively shallow water, however, and was resurrected and refurbished. Like most battleships in the latter stages of the war, she was used primarily as a gun platform, supporting American landings in the Pacific. She was scrapped a few years after the war.
The present day California packs a hell of a wallop herself, thanks to the cruise missiles that can be launched from her torpedo tubes. Her range is further, she can stay hidden for weeks and weeks, and she's faster submerged than BB-44 ever dreamed of being.
Still, you have to love the old ship. Check out those "control tower" masts above the superstructures. (Removed when the ship was refurbished after the attack.)
An interesting footnote - the new California is based on the East Coast.
Worried about China?
Should you be?
Everything you ever wanted to know about China, but didn't know to ask, here. (The page is formatted as a pdf file, so it may take a bit to load.)
By my friend and collaborator, Larry Bond, and Chris Carlson.
Should you be?
Everything you ever wanted to know about China, but didn't know to ask, here. (The page is formatted as a pdf file, so it may take a bit to load.)
By my friend and collaborator, Larry Bond, and Chris Carlson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
