WOOOO!

Within 5 months of our revamp, we just reached 5,033 views! This is so much more than I expected for a part-time amateur milblog! Thanks for all the views ladies and gents, please keep spreading Zero Dark Thirty with anyone you feel would be interested in our content!

One giant loss for mankind

The world has lost yet another hero today.

In 1958, he was selected to be a part of NASA's ultra-elite Astronaut Corps, the original space cowboys. He spent a total of 8 days, 14 hours, 12 minutes and 31 seconds in space on two separate missions, Gemini 8 and Apollo 11, in which he became the first man to ever set foot on an extraterrestrial body, the moon.

Fair winds and following seas LTJG Armstrong.

The following is a statement from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden regarding the death of former test pilot and NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong. He was 82.

"On behalf of the entire NASA family, I would like to express my deepest condolences

 to Carol and the rest of Armstrong family on the passing of Neil Armstrong. As long as there are history books, Neil Armstrong will be included in them, remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own.

"Besides being one of America's greatest explorers, Neil carried himself with a grace and humility that was an example to us all. When President Kennedy challenged the nation to send a human to the moon, Neil Armstrong accepted without reservation.

"As we enter this next era of space exploration, we do so standing on the shoulders of Neil Armstrong. We mourn the passing of a friend, fellow astronaut and true American hero."

Iceman's Answers: Should I learn to shoot before I join?

Haven't done one of these in a while, so let's start with a question I see popping up somewhat frequently.

Will learning to shoot before I join give me an edge over fellow recruits, and possibly help me get through the advanced marksmanship schools?

Short answer: No.
This time round, I've actually got the input of two different people who've served in the military, and with their kind permission, I've posted it below:

Daniel (US Army, Infantry)- My dad taught me to hunt when I was really young. I developed habits with positioning of the rifle, my stance, and such, eventually all of which were broken and redeveloped on the range during Basic for me. The drill sgts have their own method of teaching you and they want you to perform a certain way. They expect you to be ready to fire your weapon in combat if the need arises. It isn't the same as carrying an old .30-06 with your pops and brothers around the woods looking for buck. So no, learning to shoot beforehand won't really give you any advantage. It might actually impede you a little. As for getting to SS school, that's all you. Learning to shoot a long gun before signing up may give you less of a hard time than others because if you look at it, the rifles our snipers use are pretty much hunting rifles except.. for hunting people lol. 

Len (Canadian Army, Infantry, sniper)- In all honesty it really doesn't make sense to learn something like that before you get over to BMQ. You'll learn the basics eventually, and it's not something that's overly difficult to grasp. I hadn't even seen a gun up close let alone touched one when I joined up in 05. My advice is to focus more on getting yourself physically prepared. For someone who's out of shape, that's going to be your worst enemy. It's very physically-demanding and your instructors aren't going to let up on you.

Ice on opinions and the internet.

Politics is a subject that isn't really something I'm too fond of talking about in person. It's not the job of the warfighter to get involved in politics. A lot of people don't really agree with my views, and I definitely don't agree with the views of a lot of others. But, there's a first for everything. So let's talk.

Well, recently, I've heard stories circulating around about a certain former Marine named Brandon Raub, who was detained by a combination of local police officers, FBI and Secret Service agents, due to the fact that his Facebook page contained suspicious material. That seemed to have taken off, and it's grown into a whole "NDAA/police-state" panic, mostly around the libertarian/Ron Paul support crowd. 

First off, I don't really agree with libertarians or Ron Paul... at all... mostly since I'm a strong conservative. I don't agree with their fear about the government turning into a Big Brother-esque police state where everything is controlled and regulated by the government, and those who voice their dissent are thrown in a dark hole. I don't agree with their opinion on the current Republican presidential nominee and his running mate. In fact, I have great respect for both those men. I don't agree with their views on foreign policy, which, let's face it, are absolutely positively messed  up. I'd honestly rather have a liberal Democratic president in office than a centrist who plays to both sides. If you take a look at it, the Ron Paul movement currently borders on anarchy.

That ties in to what I wanted to talk about today. 

Brandon Raub, a Marine with multiple deployments under his belt was supposedly arrested without his rights read to him, and is being held indefinitely for "voicing his opinion" on the current government. The libertarian crowd calls him a patriot. 

Well, that's where views take a change. I've seen far too many people post threatening, radical comments, statuses, messages, etc., calling for a revolution, violence against the government and such. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter, but when you get to the point where you're put on a district watch list by a federal agency or two, and they come knocking on your door to take you in for assessment, then you know you went way too far on what you were saying. Posting messages and statuses like that isn't patriotism at all, it's anarchy. It's a warning light that goes off on the boards of federal agencies that are established to protect the American people, not harass them as Ron Paul's fans would have you believe. 

In Raub's case, something that got especially highlighted, was that the USSS was in on the "arrest". That should tell you a few things. If the Secret Service got involved, then he was either doing something extremely dirty with money or he was making credible threats of violence against protectees of the USSS. If the Secret Service got involved, then it's nothing new. It's part of their SOP concerning protectees. They get tons of threats every day but there are few that stand out enough to get them concerned to check out the guy to make sure if he's mentally stable or completely serious. Not to mention, with the FBI itself, it takes A LOT of paperwork and going through channels before any special agent gets the authorization to step out on official business. So there's a good chance that what this guy posted online be it on Facebook or whatever website it was, was heavy enough to turn a few higher ups' heads. Waaaaaaait a second, the FBI were the ones leading the detainment, right? What does that tell us? If Raub was only about politics, then he might've presented himself as a domestic terror threat. That's reason enough for just the FBI and local LEO to get involved. Then the Secret Service steps in, so that means he was actually threatening someone of governmental importance.

Don't see any threats on his page? Well, you know... Facebook does have a "delete" option...

When you post anything about a revolution, add a few more words to that subject that hint at violence, etc, now you're getting those federal LEOs worried. For all they know, you could be a terror threat. What some people don't realize, is that EVERYTHING is monitored on the internet these days. It's been this way since 9/11.

And for good reason. I don't mind the alphabet soup agencies monitoring the airwaves at all, if it's to safeguard the nation and those the people elected to serve them in office. I would mind when it gets to personal harassment, just for the hell of it or on a whim, or whatever. That's when things get too far. But the fact is, things haven't gotten that way AT ALL. The FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA, ABC 123, whatever they are, are there for your protection. Seriously. They don't have it out for anyone but the bad guys, so try and remember that. 

Back to the point, anything you say can be misconstrued or taken out of context. But, if you keep posting that stuff, people are going to get more concerned. 

The point is, especially for ex-military and current active/reserve, don't go around voicing radical opinions on the internet, threaten anarchy veiled as a "revolution", then raise mass panic about getting taken in for questions because of the things you say. 

Alright, that's enough for now. Time for a few beers and a BBQ.

Iceman out.

Myths of the Arrow.

Just a day back, I took a trip over to the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum just on the outskirts of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. After a personal tour and a most exhilarating joy-ride in an older trainer, I noticed a group heading out onto the tarmac to see some of the static aircraft parked outside. As the outside tour was coming to a close, there were a few of us walking with the guide, listening in to what he had to say about the Avro Arrow. A gentleman piped up and seemed to be extremely supportive of the Arrow, sorrowful for its demise and adamant that it could "fly circles around ANYTHING the Americans have flying today" ('anything' is capitalized, as at that point in time, the guy got a little loud in support of his beloved aircraft).

This isn't the first time I've heard such support of the Arrow. I used to work at a museum that housed a full-size replica of the Arrow itself. In fact, just as a kind of a cool side note, one of the guides at that museum was one of the original engineers working on the Arrow's wing structures. It was a truly amazing opportunity to get to speak to such a man and learn what he had to say about his career and the various airframes he worked on.
I've seen words likes the ones the man at the CWHM voiced, in textbooks! No kidding! So, do they have any justification or backing behind them? I mean, was the Arrow such an advanced jet? Was there a conspiracy behind the program's shutdown?

Let's talk.

According to the website CanadianBullshit.com (aptly named, it seems), the CF-105 apparently was "the most advanced aircraft of it's type in the world". Granted, the Arrow was ahead of it's time in some aspects, most notably its employment of a fly-by-wire flight control system. First non-experimental aircraft to use it, actually. Pretty cool, considering the next airframe to incorporate FBW was Concorde, 11 years later in 1969. The Mk1 Arrow was equipped with twin Pratt&Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets, outputting 23,500 lbs of thrust with afterburners engaged. That'd be able to push it to around Mach 2+. In tests, the Arrow came to about Mach 1.98, but was built to go a little faster. Supposedly, the Orenda engines that were designed to be fitted into the later models could give the 105 a supercruise capability, but in the end, barely anything came from that. Not to mention, the Arrow was a seriously large aircraft... relatively gigantic compared to other fighter aircraft of the time, and onward. The Arrow would've been pretty outgunned in a dogfight, unable to maneuver tightly.

For its mission, it was pretty well-built. It needed to operate from remote northern bases, intercept Soviet strategic bombers and engage other fighter/interceptor aircraft escorting said bombers. It had the engines to reach the incoming attackers relatively fast, and it was capable of a sizable weapons payload. Not bad at all. It was Canadian-designed, manufactured and a source of national pride. I'd definitely agree with it being a pretty swell jet. But, there wasn't anything to show for all the millions of dollars poured into the Arrow program. The unit cost steadily rose to $3.5 million, and that's when the Canadian government decided to cut the program. Our "buddies" over at CanadianBullshit.com list the price of the 105 (in 1958 Canadian Dollars) and compare that to the current general cost of an F-35 Lightning II (according to them, it's around $115 mil US).

Really?

Taking into account, inflation, economic growth, etc, the Arrow would've cost more than $26,087,869 to build in 2010. Fair price... for an archaic, outclassed piece of machinery. I mean, how in the hell can you compare an F-35, the next generation of air-superiority fighters to something so outdated and obsolete? Is the Arrow a multi-role capable aircraft in the same manner an F-35 is? Is the Arrow built with advanced stealth technology? Is the Arrow built with ultra-sophisticated targeting and e-warfare systems? Not only no, but hell no!

At this point, you're comparing apples to refrigerators. Yeah. Refrigerators.

They go on to talk about how the 105 is bigger and faster than the F-35, voice an opinion on how the US bribes Canadians to buy their aircraft, and talk in a pretty uneducated way concerning the development and procurement of fighter aircraft.

Okay, let's get back on track.

Yeah, the Arrow was definitely worthy of the attention and Canadian pride it received. The sad reality, however, is that when they attempted to sell the Arrow to foreign buyers, nobody wanted it. Why? Cause the French, American and British were building aircraft that were slightly cheaper, a lot more agile, fuel-efficient, and equally (if not more) fast. There WERE worthy competitors to the 105.

As for the conspiracies... American bribery, jealousy, etc.... unfounded. Were other countries so jealous of a fighter that they'd pressure the Canadian government into closing the program down? Highly doubtful. As I said, other NATO countries were building highly-capable aircraft that could match and in some cases, exceed, what the Arrow could do. Reasons for fear? I can't really think of any good ones. Bribery? Doubtful. The Canadian government could have just as easily started a newer fighter design and procurement competition, then project, and have come up with another jet.

Check out the following link for an interesting comparison between the Arrow and other fighter jets of the era, and more modern ones.

Comparing the Arrow to other fighter jets.

CanadianBullshit.com's take on the Arrow