Quotulatiousness

November 28, 2021

A bit of perspective on the loss of the British F-35 from HMS Queen Elizabeth

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Weapons — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

At the Thin Pinstriped Line, Sir Humphrey offers a bit of historical perspective on peacetime aircraft losses:

Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) underway in the Atlantic on 17 October 2019, participating in exercise “WESTLANT 19”.
Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Nathan T. Beard, US Navy, via Wikimedia Commons.

If you look at historical data, then it shows that for decades, flying fast jets was an exceptionally dangerous occupation. In 1956 the RAF lost six Hawker Hunter aircraft in the space of just 45 minutes. These were just six of no less than 380 British military aircraft and helicopters lost in 1956, which averages out at more than one aircraft lost every day of the year – and this was not an unusual year.

Fast jet flying is and always has been an extremely dangerous business, which requires the highest levels of safety, standards and training to carry out. Over the intervening decades there has been a general decline in losses due to changes in equipment, reliability of machinery and different ways of operating, particularly with new technology, but there is still an element of risk. In particular the Martin Baker ejection seat is worth mentioning – this incident reminds us of the many lives this British company is responsible for saving over many decades.

Carrier aviation in particular remains an extremely dangerous occupation, even if crash rates have dropped. It is important to understand that the combination of fast jets, large warships and complex operating conditions can, and do, sometimes go wrong. We must not assume that aircraft will not crash anymore.

The Wikipedia page covering military aviation accidents for the period 2010-2019 is a good read to understand how risky military aviation is, and how many aircraft have been lost globally during this period.

That said, the current crop of modern British fast jets like the F35 and Typhoon have a phenomenal safety record, being operated in hugely demanding conditions around the globe for many years, and with only a handful lost. It is very telling that the loss of an aircraft is something that has gone from the utterly routine and barely newsworthy, to something that can dominate the media cycle for several days and generate huge national media coverage.

The theme on social media has been peculiar — there have been many posters talking about how embarrassing it is for the UK, or that its somehow a national disgrace that the aircraft crashed, particularly with the US embarked as well. This is utter nonsense – there is no embarrassment in a pilot taking a decision to eject in order to save his life. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly never been faced with the decision on whether to eject or not.

There has been some coverage suggesting that the F35 programme is troubled in some way and that this is a setback for it. Again, this is nonsense – the aircraft first flew 15 years ago, and well over 700 have now been produced flying over 400,000 flying hours. In this time, a total of 5 aircraft (3 American, 1 Japanese and 1 British) have been lost – this is an under 1% loss rate, or one aircraft lost for every 80,000 hours in the sky.

By way of contrast, the Sea Vixen, a British jet used for carrier operations was in service from 1959-1971. Of the 145 aircraft built and operated, no less than 55 were lost in accidents in this period – a loss rate of around 38% of the whole force in just 12 years.

Bigger Than Uranus? – Mars – WW2 – 170 – November 27 1942

World War Two
Published 27 Nov 2021

Last week’s counterattack was just the beginning, for the Soviets launch another giant offensive this week. And things look bad for the Axis powers in the south of the USSR. Meanwhile in France, the French scuttle their navy rather than allow it to fall into German hands.
(more…)

Cambridge University “uncancels” Jordan Peterson

Filed under: Britain, Education, Liberty — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Arif Ahmed explains why Cambridge originally “cancelled” Jordan Peterson and recently how that cancellation was overcome:

Jordan Peterson speaking at an event in Dallas, Texas on 15 June, 2018.
Detail of a photo by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

The Peterson cancellation was one of several troubling events at that time which spurred some of us at Cambridge to fight back. Not only because we wanted Peterson to be able to visit Cambridge, but also because we wanted anyone whom any academic saw fit to invite to be able to visit. It should never have been up to the university authorities to dictate what academics can discuss or whom we can discuss it with.

And so we began a long and at first lonely campaign to realign this ancient and great institution with freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

Our battle has borne fruit. In late 2020 Cambridge adopted a new, liberal free-speech policy that protected our right to invite speakers of our choosing, and prevented the university from cancelling an invitation that had been accepted. In May this year, the vice-chancellor took prompt and decisive action to remove a policy aimed at policing “microaggressions”. And then in the autumn, Jordan Peterson announced that he was planning to visit the university, at the invitation of Dr James Orr at the Faculty of Divinity.

That visit has now occurred. And thanks principally to the courage and energy of Dr Orr it has been a tremendous success.
I saw Peterson speak twice on his Cambridge visit. He spoke passionately, at length and without notes, to rapt audiences. He engaged the crowd with care and warmth. His seminars were a model of academic engagement. There was a lively, disputatious and often rigorous battle of ideas that ranged from the neuroscience of perception via William Empson and 17th-century counterpoint to Mesopotamian creation myths.

It seemed that everywhere Peterson went in Cambridge there were students who wanted to learn from him, to argue with him and sometimes to be photographed next to him (I advised him to check their t-shirts before posing). There were no protests, unless you count one silly but brave student popping up in a lecture wearing a lobster outfit.

One striking thing about Peterson’s lectures is the contrast between the forcefulness of his speech and the moderateness of the content. He espouses a moderate conservatism focused on self-discipline, on seeing the value in yourself and in others, and on finding meaning in life. And he connects religion with all of these things. He is no right-wing firebrand.

At his lecture on Tuesday night it became clear how much the tide has turned. In Cambridge’s largest lecture hall, before a sold-out audience, the first people to speak were the university proctors. The proctors hold an 800-year-old office whose principal duty is to uphold free speech in the university – as they reminded us in their speech. Their presence was the clearest possible signal that, this time around, the university fully supported Peterson’s invitation and his right to speak. The contrast with his cancellation just two years ago could hardly have been greater.

Free speech has won another victory at Cambridge.

SA80 History: XL70 Series Final Prototypes (Individual Weapon and LSW)

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Weapons — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Forgotten Weapons
Published 13 May 2017

Armament Research Services (ARES) is a specialist technical intelligence consultancy, offering expertise and analysis to a range of government and non-government entities in the arms and munitions field. For detailed photos of the guns in this video, don’t miss the ARES companion blog post:

http://armamentresearch.com/british-e…

By 1980, the scheduled deadline for adopting the L85 and L86 was rapidly approaching, and the weapons should have been in the last stages of fine-tuning before production began. This was not the case, however — testing was still uncovering critical problems in the guns.

The goal for these weapons was 8000 MRBF (Mean Rounds Between Failure) for the LSW and 2500 MRBF for the IW. As real testing began, the numbers were actually 100-300 MRBF. In many cases, the guns could not run three magazines in a row without a malfunction, and this was literally an order of magnitude below the requirements. But what truly led to the massive problems with the L85/86 was that RSAF Enfield did not fix these problems. Instead, they moved the goalposts. With so many problems, it was decided to only count malfunctions that occurred in the endurance testing (ie, when the guns were not put under any environmental stress at all) and to only count “critical” malfunctions in the tally. A “critical” failure was one which could not be resolved by the shooter, such as a split barrel. Simple feed or ejection failures were not counted, nor were malfunctions that required gun disassembly to correct. Even under this new paradigm, MRBF over 3000 could not be achieved.

In addition, the LSW was showing a problem that would become endemic; split groups. The weapon shot very good groups in semiautomatic, but in full auto fire it would produce two discreet groups. The first shot in each burst would land about 6 minutes of angle low and right compared to the remaining rounds in the group. This would be the subject of significant work, and was never fully rectified.

http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons

Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…

If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! http://www.youtube.com/InRangeTVShow

QotD: Hidden political pay-offs as “book advances”

Filed under: Books, Business, Media, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Anyway, as I’ve complained many times before, these “advances” given to leftwing figures are not advances at all.

True advances are, well, advances against expected future royalties. That’s why they’re called “advances”.

People expect that a J.K. Rowling book will produce at least $5 million in royalties, so you give her a $5 million advance on those royalties. You’re giving her a payment on her royalties in advance of actually seeing those sales.

But you do expect them.

You don’t pay her fresh royalties until the royalties she generates exceeds the initial advance on royalties you paid her.

When she makes $5 million and one hundred dollars, you send her a fresh check for one hundred dollars.

When these major media conglomerates, all left-leaning and most with business before the government, give millions to Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden and Andrew Cuomo, there is no one at that company that expects the books will ever make that much in royalties.

They’re just payoffs. Or disguised political donations.

It’s not an “advance” if you cannot show a plausible stream of sales which will meet or exceed that “advance”.

Personally, I’d love to see some kind of law on this subject to force these large media corporations to prove that they have a genuine, rational belief that a Hunter Biden book will make $10 million in sales (which would justify a million dollar advance, assuming a royalty of 10%).

And I’d like to see their corporate officers sign certifications for the government that they’re not fudging the numbers. And that they understand that there might be prosecutions for perjury if they do lie about expected future royalties.

Much like people in the financial sector are constantly required to sign.

Why should media corporations be immune from such requirements?

And I’d love to see these disguised campaign donations treated and limited just like actual campaign donations.

Or, better yet: No “advances” for serving politicians, declared politicians who are running, or any politician ten years after his term of service ends. They can just take their royalty checks as royalties actually accrue.

If Hunter Biden really sells $10 million in books — LOL — then he’ll get that million dollars eventually in royalty payments. They’ll just come over the course of a year or two rather than all at once in an “advance” on future earnings.

If not — then not.

This isn’t stopping them from getting paid for books they sell — it’s to stop mega-media-corporations with business before the government, and a strong desire to pay off politicians they like, from giving “advances” to favored politicians that bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual expected royalties the books will generate.

Ace, “Ethics Agency Might Claw Back Cuomo’s $5 Million ‘Advance’ For His ‘Book'”, Ace of Spades H.Q., 2021-08-27.

Powered by WordPress