We are about one-third of the way through Iran’s annual “Ten Days of Dawn” observation which celebrates the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The occasion serves as a platform for Iran to boast about progress under the Islamic Republic and demonstrate military, scientific and technical prowess. This, despite the West’s attempts to limit technology transfer in key areas, such as missile technology.
Day 3 of the celebration is set-aside as “Space Day” and yesterday, Iran’s President Ahmedenejad had three items of note/accomplishment to announce that:
Iran had launched a payload of animal specimens (a mouse, turtles and worms) into space and recovered them on a new research rocket named Kavoshgar-3 (Explorer-3);
Three new satellites were unveiled: the Tolou (Sunrise), the Mesbah 2 (Lantern 2), and the Navid (Promising Sign) and
A new space launch vehicle, Simorgh-3, which will serve as the launch vehicle for those satellites.
Kavoshgar-3 ("Explorer-3")
Simorgh SLV
Of these announcements, the last is the most interesting and perhaps, troubling. With the ability to loft 220 lbs into a 310 mile earth orbit (if it indeed works), that would move Iran into a new capability category with a nascent ICBM. The implications for the US and allies would be the impact on the European PAA and near term planning for the global BMDS, all of which (along with the BMDR) were predicated on a slower timeline for Iran to develop an ICBM capability, 2015 or ‘mid-decade.’ Tied with Iran’s continued intransigence on the nuclear front (aided and abetted by China’s continued refusal to support a sanctions regime) this is one announcement that has little upside to it. Russia, at least, is coming into alignment with the US:
“Mutual understanding between Russia and its international partners on additional sanctions has clearly improved,” Kosachyov said in an interview with state broadcaster Rossiya 24 today. “The situation is beginning to alarm us increasingly.”
A successful launch will likely bring pressure to bear on the US to step up the rate of deployment and development of both the sea- and land-based elements of the European PAA, leveraging increased deployment time on units that are already HDLD in nature and turning up the burner on the SM-3 Blk IIa program. It may also cause a reassessment of the plans for the ground-based BMD system to see if it still serves as a hedge in its current configuration as per the BMDR.
The continued advancement of Iran’s missile programs stands in defiance of the MTCR, a voluntary consortium of 39 countries regarding the export controls on technologies central to missile development. Of course, neither China nor North Korea are members and they are among the worst of the serial proliferators, North Korea especially so in the case of cooperative ventures with Iran. Also neither China, North Korea or Iran are parties to the follow-on regime, the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. The enablement of this unholy alliance of proliferators brings us to the Simorgh. Below are two images, one of the boost stage of the Safir-2, which placed a small satellite into earth orbit last year. The second image is what is presumed to be the business end of the Simorgh’s first stage — a cluster of four liquid-propelled rockets.
Safir 1st stage (Feb 2009)
Simorgh booster engines (Feb 2010)
Again, clearly it seems the Iran’s indigenous program is well underway in spite of these regimes.
The leading question then becomes, given the historical record of cooperative effort between North Korea and Iran, how related is/will be the Simorgh to the TD-2:
TD-2 Safir Comparison (2009)
. . . and that, as the saying goes, is the $64,000 question.
.WINTER STORM WATCH IN EFFECT FROM FRI MORNING THROUGH SATURDAY EVENING. THE NATL WEATHER SVC IN STERLING VA HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WATCH.WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM FRI MORNING THROUGH SAT EVENING.
* PRECIPITATION TYPE.SNOW.
* ACCUMULATIONS.THIS STORM IS LIKELY TO PRODUCE 12 OR MORE INCHES OF SNOW IN THE WATCH AREA.WITH A GOOD CHANCE FOR LOCALIZED AMOUNTS OVER 20 INCHES.
* TIMING.SNOW IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN AROUND DAYBREAK FRIDAY.CONTINUING THROUGH SAT EVENING.
* TEMPS.HIGHS AROUND 30 FRIDAY. FRI NIGHT AND SATURDAY.TEMPS WILL BE IN THE MID TO UPPER 20S.
* WINDS.EAST 5 TO 10 MPH FRI & FRI NIGHT.BECOMING NO. 10 TO 20 MPH SATURDAY.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS.
THIS STORM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE SIMILAR TO THE DECEMBER 19TH STORM. PLAN FOR SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTIONS TO TRAVEL FRI AFTERNOON THROUGH THE WEEKEND.”
A. I am (censored) sick of bleeding snow. Period.
B. Thank God racing’s back beginning this weekend …
US officials have let it be known that it now has Patriot batteries in four Gulf states – Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. US anti-missile ships are also being stationed in the Gulf. All this comes as the impasse over Iran’s nuclear activities continues and amid efforts by the US and other Western countries to increase sanctions on Iran. (BBC)
The outreached hand has obviously been slapped away once too often. Iran’s continued intransigence on the nuclear issue combined with its growing inventory of ballistic missiles poses an implicit threat to the region. PAC-3 battery’s deployed to the four GCC states provide a tangible, visible presence on the ground with regional friends and partners. BMD configured cruisers and destroyers, armed with SM-3s extend that reassurance with a measure of deterrence for the region with their ability to intercept longer range MRBMs in the Iranian inventory.
All of this falls into two of the four priority objectives outlined in the 2010 QDR, released today:
Prevail in Today’s Conflicts
Prevent and Deter Conflict
Prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies
Preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force
Still, there are some who think that such a response will only strengthen the hand of extremists in Iran, emboldening them to crack down even harder on dissidents in general and the Green revolution in particular. The line of thought is that the hardliners believe that the absence of a viable alternative to the current rulers will prevent the West (and the US in particular) from effecting regime change as it did in Iraq. To wit, having observed Saddam survive the West’s repulsion of Iraqi forces in Kuwait (and suffering substantial damage at home to boot), only to be overthrown later in OIF the lesson they took away was Saddam survived the first encounter because the West believed there was no viable alternative government to take his place. Now, with a hardening of the US stance (ref: President Obama’s mention of growing consequences if Iran did not comply with UN resolutions) and apparent increase of forces in the region (“missiles are missiles and warships are warships whether their intent is defensive or not”) this might be the time to come down even harder, scattering those who would support Moussavi and thus insulate themselves from a US-led invasion.
Bit of a stretch, to be sure. But then, the survival instinct is a dominant feature not only in nature, but in politics too – especially in regimes characterized by tyrannical rule.
In the meantime, the deployment of BMD ships to the Gulf also offers us the opportunity to look at the BMDR –
2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review
The stated intent of the BMDR is to align U.S. missile defense posture with near-term regional missile threats, and sustain the ability to defend the homeland against limited long-range missile attack. In essence, this formalizes the change in direction announced last September by the Obama Administration and categorized under the so-called Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for Europe. The PAA (or EPAA as it is known in some circles) stepped away from a GBI system deployed in Europe (mid-course radar in the Czech Republic and 10 2-stage GBIs based in Poland) to one more focused on meeting the extant threat presented by MR- and IRBMs to our European friends and allies using tested and proven systems, like Aegis BMD. That shift however, did not place the current BMDS providing protection to the homeland in a decommissioned state. In fact, under the BMDR’s terms, that system can and will continue – with some provisos.
Supporting that change are six precepts that will serve to guide and direct US policy for development and deployment of missile defenses. Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, today described those six major priorities at a Pentagon news conference:
The first goes to the heart of defense and that is to defend the United States from a limited ballistic missile attack. The second is to defend against growing regional threats. A third priority is “to test new systems under realistic conditions before they’re deployed to ensure their effectiveness,” Flournoy said. The fourth priority is to develop new fiscally sustainable capabilities, while the fifth is to develop flexible capabilities that can adapt as threats evolve. Finally, the United States wants to lead expanded international cooperation on missile defense, she said.
“We believe this approach will provide reassurance to our allies that the United States will stand by our security commitments to them,” Flournoy said, “and will help to negate the coercive potential of regional actors attempting to limit U.S. influence and actions in key regions.”
It’s been said before on these pages that ballistic missiles have been a growth industry this past decade and the trend line has a positive slope to it. Not only are numbers increasing, but so too are ranges and sophistication. The old SCUDs of Gulf War I are rapidly being supplanted by solid propellant, mobile long-range missiles that have the payload and throw-weight for a variety of WMD, not least of which could be nuclear. Kinetic kill missile defenses remain but one (albeit an important one) way to defeat that threat. The BMDR looks to guide and direct efforts in that direction too as well as bringing others onboard in a a cooperative approach to defense. According to Flournoy, Russia and China (the latter one of the more egregious proliferators of missile technologies) factored into the review with an eye towards engaging them on a strategic level.
Перспективный Авиационный Комплекс Фронтовой Авиации, Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsy, literally “Future Front-line Aircraft System”
As more video and still footage becomes available, some thoughts are emerging. First observation is that clearly this is just a flying prototype that focuses on the airframe and not much else for a 5th gen fighter:
Alexander Golts, an independent military analyst, said the T-50 is running on old engines, and the only major technological breakthrough was designing the airframe making the jet more difficult for radars to spot, in keeping with its U.S. counterpart.
Ergo, probably a cockpit not much removed from an Su-35, no 5th gen weapons system, e.g., AESA radar (yet), etc. Some other items stand out – like the notable presence of non-stealthy fasteners. Given that the PAK-FA is minus it’s war coat, that shouldn’t surprise. Note in the picture below the comparison of the prototype PAK-FA on the left and the notable presence of fasteners on the YF-23 prototype:
PAK-FA (left) YF-23 (looking aft) (right)
So, I wouldn’t go jumping to any conclusions just yet based on that observation.
Still, the basic airframe will define certain things that carry over to the production bird. Things like weapons storage:
PAK-FA/F-22A weapons bay comparison
Reportedly, one of the determining factors in the YF-22 over the YF-23 was its ability to hold up to 6 AIM-120 missiles internally. If the YF-23 had gone into production, the forward fuselage was to have been slightly enlarged to provide for a rotary launcher, a much more complex system than the simpler trapeze arrangement on the F-22. Given the size of the PAK-FA’s fuselage and apparent configuration of two weapons bays (two doors each) nestled in the tunnel between the engines, combined with the size of the AA-12 Adder, it would appear the initial carriage would be up to two AA-12/bay. Note also that the AIM-9X is carried in outboard internal bays on the F-22, again something the YF-23 appeared to lack.
Aerodynamic surfaces are interesting to compare — beginning with the tail-feathers of the PAK-FA. While the YF-22/F-22 used a conventional vertical stab/rudder arrangement, the YF-23 combined the vertical and horizontal stabs into an all flying combo, presumably to attain greater maneuverability without having to resort to thrust vectoring. Of course the YF-22/F-22A uses thrust vectoring and while it reportedly gave the YF-23 a leg up in subsonic maneuvering, the YF-22 was reportedly better in supersonic and high-alpha conditions. The PAK-FA appears to have chosen a middle ground, retaining horizontal stabilizers and having a moving vertical stab (not unlike the SR-71):
Tail comparisons: PAK-FA with Su-35, YF-22 and F-22A
The wing appears to be close to the F-22A’s modified diamond form (don’t be misled y the lighter colored leading edge in the video capture to think it is a cranked arrow). Certain aspects of the tail area also appear to derive from the Su-35 as well, which may lead us to draw conclusions about the degree of stealth currently obtained in that area and a probable target for more work as the project evolves.
Speaking of evolving, recall the F-22’s own evolution from the YF-22:
YF-22 vs. F-22A comparison
In reality, the PAK-FA is probably more closer in nature to the YF-22 or X-35 than it is representative of a true 5th generation fighter. As the US has found out in bringing the F-22 and the F-35 into operational form, that is a very difficult birthing process and given the very difficult time the Russians are having with net-centric-type weapons systems (one of the defining characteristics of 5th gen fighters — the net-centric weapons systems, not the difficulty in fielding them), it is very optimistic to suggest that a full-up 5th gen fighter will see IOC in 2015 as some suggest. Even with substantial involvement from India.
Tomorrow brings the much anticipated release of the first of three documents of significant import to the US Navy – the QDR for 2010 (Draft-QDR-2010-predecisional). Language in the draft highlights China as one of several state-actors that have acquired significant anti-access capabilities over the past ten years. Additionally, it points out that:
Chinese military doctrine calls for pre-emptive strikes against an intervening power early in a conflict and places special emphasis on crippling the adversary’s ISR, command and control, and information systems. (draft QDR 2010, p. 32)
The report also notes China’s expanding reach and growing interests abroad, and underscores the need for a two-track approach of engagement and prudent planning:
China’s rapid development of global economic power and political influence, combined with an equally rapid expansion of military capabilities, is one of the central and defining elements of the strategic landscape in the Asian region and, increasingly, global security affairs. China has begun to articulate new military roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its larger regional and global interests, which could enable it to play a more substantial role in the delivery of international public goods. The United States welcomes the rise of a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs. However, that future is not fixed, and while the United States will seek to maximize positive outcomes and the common benefits that can accrue from cooperation, prudence requires that the United States balance against the possibility that cooperative approaches may fail to prevent disruptive competition and conflict.
The limited transparency of China’s military modernization – in terms of its capabilities, intentions, and investments – remains a source of growing concern in the region, which increases the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation. Our relationship with China must therefore be multi-dimensional in scope and undergirded by a process of building and deepening strategic trust that seeks to reinforce and expand on areas of mutual interest, while sustaining open channels of communication to discuss sources of friction in the bilateral relationship, and manage and ultimately reduce the risk that is inherent to any relationship as broad and complex as that shared by the United States and China. (draft QDR 2010, p. 53)
This is all well and good, especially in light of writings such as this which advocates a very Mahanian view of the Chinese Navy and establishment of overseas bases. Justification, according to the writer, Dr. Shen Dengli, rests on 4 strategic precepts of China’s overseas interests:
With the continuous expansion of China’s overseas business, the governments are more accountable for protecting the overseas interests. There are four responsibilities: the protection of the people and fortunes overseas; the guarantee of smooth trading; the prevention of the overseas intervention which harms the unity of the country and the defense against foreign invasion. The purpose of the tasks is to deter the threats posed on our legal interests.
Guaranteeing these precepts is a function of a comprehensive approach to power that includes a military with wide-ranging capabilities from defense in close to the ability to strike at the attacker’s homeland. We see this being accomplished with the previously mentioned anti-access capabilities China is developing to deny the ability of naval and
China's Basing Agreements in the Indian Ocean AOI
air-forces to conduct operations at and inside the first island chain, and at the other extreme, China’s own ongoing nuclear force modernization. And the navy?
Obviously, navy is crucial in safeguarding the security of the country. When our country’s core interests are harmed, the navy is responsible to conduct retaliatory attack including blocking the enemy’s sea traffic.
Wrapping into a discussion of piracy, the author notes that the concern for overseas bases rests not on piracy issues of Somalia (at the core of the current discussion), but rather a greater threat posed to China’s trade routes:
When the public discusses overseas military bases, they refer to the supply base for the navy escorting the ships cruising in the Gulf of Aden and Somali. The discussion shows people’s enthusiasm in defending the interests of the country. Yet their worries are not the most important reasons for the setup of an overseas military base.
It is true that we are facing the threat posed by terrorism, but different from America, it is not a critical issue. The real threat to us is not posed by the pirates but by the countries which block our trade route. (emphasis added)
The threats also include secessionism outside the Chinese mainland. The situation requires us be able to hit the vulnerable points of our potential opponents by restricting their international waterway. So we need to set up our own blue-water navy and to rely on the overseas military bases to cut the supply costs.
Whom might those countries be? Obviously the US, especially in the case of the “secessionism” issue (code for the Taiwan issue). India too is a major consideration and there has been considerable discussion after the TBM shot earlier this month that it was more directed at India than the US. Of course, India’s announcement toward month’s end of intent to continue with the Agni-III and -IV IRBM and ICBM with language directed at China may have been more than a tacit response as well. The fact that a considerable portion of China’ overseas routes transit the Indian Ocean, especially those tied to her energy imports from Africa and the MidEast combined with India’s avowed intent to expand her presence and denial capabilities in that regionunderscores not only China’s security concerns, but those of the US as well.
The implications for US naval forces of a widespread network of overseas bases stems not just from the enabling action provided to Chinese naval forces overseas, but a more subtle one of its relationship to the Chinese maritime reconnaissance strike complex (MRSC). An MRSC is geared to the near-real time localization and tracking of high value units. information is fed into the complex from anyone of a number of different nodes – maritime patrol aircraft, satellites (ELINT and IMINT), OTH-R and plain old HUMINT, whether it be from a fishing fleet or a port authority from an overseas base that supports said fleet. It all feeds into a command and control system that in turn, provides the kind of granular targeting accuracy necessary to employ anti-access weapons such as ASBMs or ASCM carrying subs to counter those forward-deployed naval forces. This constitutes a direct challenge to one of the four strategic imperatives cited in the QDR, “prevent and deter attack” and specifically to one of the central tenets to that imperative, namely forward-stationed and rotationally deployed U.S. forces.
The past few years there has been a bit of internecine warfare underway between OSD, the Joint Staff, COCOMs and Services over the future direction and composition of forces. One side has focused on the wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the more nebulous GWOT and the other on more conventional threats (read: China) and Major Combat Operations, or MCO. The competition, of course, is over scare resources, be they current forces (and especially those High Demand/Low Density ones like ISR platforms) or funding for future forces. The release of the 2010 QDR ostensibly settles that dispute in a not-quite Solomonesque way of dividing up focus and direction by first highlighting the need to win the wars we are currently engaged in, but also preventing and deterring more conventional conflict. The reality of the situation is that the “dog closest to the sled” will get the most attention and focus on threats over the horizon will necessarily blur in the interim. The inherent danger in such a practice is the strategic space it gives potential adversaries to maneuver and accomplish long-term goals – like establishing overseas bases. A navy that faces declining numbers and increasing requirements (as of the end of January, over one-half of all ships in the Navy’s inventory were deployed) will be significantly challenged already. Having to face the prospect of an enlarged and robust MRSC will only exacerbate that condition.
Lots of comparisons to the F-22 based on the front end shots and planform, but I’m also thinking that Sukhoi took some cues from this bad boy0:
based on a comparison from the tailfeather POV:
for comparison, here is an in-flight of the YF-22 and YF-23:
Things that make you go hmmm….
In this photo released by the Sukhoi Company Press Service and taken Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010, a Russian-made Sukhoi T-50 prototype fifth-generation fighter jet is seen at a test airfield near the Siberian city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia. Russia’s new fifth-generation stealth fighter made a successful maiden test flight on Friday, the manufacturer said. (AP Photo/Sukhoi Company Press Service)
From Ria Novosti comes word that Russia’s bid in the 5th generation fighter game has been cast:
Russia’s prototype fifth-generation fighter made a 45-minute maiden flight on Friday in the Far East, Russian television reported.
The flight had been postponed for 24 hours due to poor weather conditions in Komsomolsk-on-Amur where the prototype is being tested.
“The plane showed a superb performance. It has met all our expectations for the maiden flight,” said Olga Kayukova, a spokesperson for the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer.
Russia has been developing its newest fighter since the 1990s. The country’s top military officials earlier said the stealth fighter jet, with a range of up to 5,500 km, would enter service with the Air Force in 2015.
Russia’s fifth-generation project is Sukhoi’s PAK FA and the current prototype is the T-50. It is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor, so far the world’s only fifth-generation fighter, and the F-35 Lightning II.
The PAK FA is to be equipped with the most advanced technology and armed with next-generation high-precision weaponry.
And India is working with the Russians on a collaborative version:
India, which has a long history of defense relations with Moscow, remains Russia’s sole partner in the project.
India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was reported to be seeking a 25% share in design and development in the project. It has also sought to modify Sukhoi’s single-seat prototype into the twin-seat fighter India’s Air Force wants.
27 Jan 1973: The Vietnam cease-fire, announced four days earlier, came into effect and the carriers Oriskany, America, Enterprise and Ranger, on Yankee Station, cancelled all combat sorties into North and South Vietnam.
The cost of this endeavor in terms of lives and treasure was indeed dear. From 1961 t0 1973 the Navy lost 896 aircraft in theater during this time — 523 fixed-wing aircraft and 8 helicopters to hostile action:
Operation Homecoming, the repatriation of U.S. POWs between 27 January and 1 April, began and NVN and the Viet Cong released 591 POWs. Of the 591 POWs released during Operation Homecoming, there were 566 military personnel and 145 were Navy personnel. Naval Aviation personnel accounted for 144 of the 145 Navy personnel.
Admittedly, there has been a bit of light posting around here of late – but with good cause. With the new year we shifted location and jobs, moving from the purple world back to Navy blue and gold. Still very much involved in the operational world and much more analytical work, but from a different perspective. That and a much longer daily commute though have served to lessen the available hours during the week for writing.
About that writing – the project I was involved with last year is reaching fruition in March, via Stanford University Press. Securing Freedom in the Global Commons is the title and I wrote one of the chapters:
The new millennium has brought with it an ever-expanding range of threats to global security: from cyber attacks to blue-water piracy to provocative missile tests. Now, more than ever then, national security and prosperity depend on the safekeeping of a global system of mutually supporting networks of commerce, communication, and governance. The global commons—outer space, international waters, international airspace, and cyberspace—are assets outside of national jurisdiction that serve as essential conduits for these networks, facilitating the free flow of trade, finance, information, people, and technology. These commons also comprise much of the international security environment, enabling the physical and virtual movement and operations of allied forces. Securing freedom of use of the global commons is therefore fundamental to safeguarding the global system.
The book is written for security professionals, policy makers, policy analysts, military officers in professional military education programs, students of security studies and international relations, and anyone wishing to understand the challenges we face to our use of the global commons.
The really good news is that this project is going to dramatically expand in the coming year, with more writing and other responsibilities — in other words, whole new avenues have and are opening up in ways not imagined even a year ago. And yes, there is also a novel underway as well as other venues0 too.
All of which, of course, will also impact free time for posting. Yet it remains a target rich environment, so to speak, and I have no intention of stepping away from here either. There had been some consideration about short posting – two or three lines and a link or two, to keep the daily count up, but that runs counter to the original intent of honing writing skills with thoughtful, meaningful posts that offer insight and understanding on critical subjects as well as historical perspective.
So, to our vast readership of five or so, fret not, the posts will continue in the coming year, albeit on something less than a daily basis.
Readers here will recall the petition we launched last July when it came to light that there was a “sense” of Congress motion passed that the next ship following the Gerald Ford (CVN-78) should be named after Barry Goldwater. You will recall we were, well, less than enthusiastic (to put it charitably) that yet another capitol ship was going to be named after a politician, when there was a prospect we’d be without an Enterprise in the fleet of carriers envisioned post-2013 (CVN-65’s presumed decom).
Evidently, many more of you feel the same way – emphatically so by the comments on the petition. At almost 6 months to go, we are closing in on 2,000 signatures (1,986 as of 18 Jan 2010). Outstanding as that is, I’d like to see if that can be doubled in the remaining six months. My intention is to print out the petition for delivery to the Secretary of the Navy, CNO and Senator Webb (my senator and a former SECNAV), hopefully in person, as a direct and tangible “sense” of both our nation and friends abroad (check the countries of some of the signers). But that’s not all – I want to do this before the 50th Anniversary of the christening and launch of the current USS Enterprise (24 Sept 1960).
Time is pressing – there are no namings for a carrier slated for this year, but that is no guarantee that something won’t be pulled behind closed doors. Just take a look at this document and see what is in the wings: RS22478_20091223_Navy-Ship-Names_23Dec09 (downloads PDF)
So please, lend a hand, post an article or link, advocate, write your Senators and Representatives.
Write SECNAV.
Let’s see if we can get 4,000 – 5,0000 or more signatures on this petition! (ed. BTW, we are one of the top 10 petitions at epetitions.net! – SJS)
Let our effort be the very definition of the word — and in the spirit of the ship we would see named “ENTERPRISE”!
Update (24 Jan 2010): 2100+ signatures and climbing! Along with the support in the comments section, the following arrived this week as well:
Steeljaw,
My name is Austin. I have been lurking on the Navy blogs for awhile. I don’t usually comment, just read what people with a lot more experience than me have to say. I came across the Petition for the Enterprise at the USNI board and then yours. If you have noticed lately, it seems to be hijacked by a mysterious entity called Webb Institute. I graduated in 2009 and am responsible for the influx of Webb students, alumni and family that have signed the petition in the past few days. Webb is solely a naval architecture school. I was the 113th graduating class and there are a little over 1000 living graduates. Its small. But I sent the petition to the current classes and my class and we have made an impact on the petition. Many graduates work for the Navy as civilians (myself included), a couple active duty nuke officers, and lots of DoD contractors. I have no doubt a Webbie or 10 has worked on the various Enterprise’s through the years and are currently working on the Gerald Ford. We are proud of our founder’s and our own accomplishments and contributions to the US Navy and would like to see it continue in the proud traditions that it should hold dear.
Thanks to you and the Navy blog community in general.
Austin – thank you and all the good folks at the Webb Institute for your support. – SJS
Guests look on from the terrace of Operations Support Building II as space shuttle Endeavour launches on the shuttle program's last planned night launch. Endeavour launched from Kennedy Space Center's Launch Pad 39A to begin the STS-130 mission early Monday, Feb. 8, 2010. Mission STS-130 will deliver a third connecting module, the Italian-built Tranquility node and a seven-windowed cupola, which will be used as a control room for robotics, to the International Space Station. Image Credit: NASA/Paul E. Alers Read More
Stumble It!
Stumble it!
Vox Populi