Ropeyarn was not passed on the virtual 1MC until the working party got wrapped up….

“Sea Story?”

Not a very exciting one, but a slice of life for sea going sailors, nonetheless.

Parking. Yes, a mundane part of life, but, back in the day, when the giant Soviet Union commanded most of our professional focus, and that of the nation’s leaders, we were headed for a 600 ship Navy. So, figure 600 hundred ship have sailors, and chiefs and officers. And some of these actually drove to work while the ships were pierside, the plant secured and shore services providing the “hotel services” needed to keep operating.

At all of the naval stations I was stationed at, the parking “scheme” was: Officer (blue sticker) parking up front, with Chief Petty Officer parking next, and then the enlisted/general parking. The game rules were:

Park where your sticker allowed, or get a ticket from Base Security.

If you were an officer, you had two places to park, Officer and Enlisted.

If you were a CPO, you had two places to park, CPO and Enlisted.

If you had a red sticker of the enlisted ranks, or were a visitor or civil servant, you had one place to park.

Makes sense. The modification to the rule was officers couldn’t park in CPO parking. That wasn’t as big an issue on regular days, but, when special occasions arose, such as changes of command, or ship arrivals (from deployment), the up front, closest to the ships parking was usually roped off for those the special occasion was being held for. The closet parking was, with minor exception, the Officer lots.

Arriving at work, to find cones/barricades/tape up, and usually a roving enlisted watch preventing you from parking in the officer’s lot, then you couldn’t “fall back” to the CPO lots. You had to go sharking for a spot in the general/enlisted lot. Somehow, it just didn’t make much sense, but it was what it was, because a large percentage of the Base Security force happened to be retired chief petty officers. The “club members” took care of the current up and coming retirees, who had made it through the process of the CPO Initiations.

That was one bite in the butt, and I survived, but another situation seemed to be rather prevalent, and, in a conspiratorial sense, linked to the issue brought up in the paragraph above:

On normal days at the pier, you might arrive and find all of the officer spots taken, or darn few left. While transiting from the vehicle to the pier between the cars, it became apparent there was a number of cars sporting red base stickers, not blue. Now, when turning and glancing at the vicinity of the CPO lot, you’d most likely see a ticket or two under windshield wipers for those brazen E-6 and below who dared to venture onto the hallowed ground, yet a dearth of same on offenders taking spaces from the arriving officers. Something about the Base Security force being largely comprised of retired CPOs….

It was what it was, but on some days, when the work before Officer’s Call was a large task, the frustration sometimes emerged in a vocal sense.

I did, having arrived at a reasonable Oh, Dark Thirty, time, before sunrise one fine Navy day, find the spot in the front row of the Officer’s lot, that had had a portable sign at the head of the spot, in accordance with the NAVSTA SOPA regulations, saying “CHENG, DD979,” laying face down on the ground and a car with a red sticker occupying the spot I was allowed. I drove around and found a spot in the way away at the back end of the Enlisted lot, then hiked, before the sun rose, to the ship at the D&S piers. I let the XO know this was unsat, and he looked at me and said something like: “Well, my spot wasn’t taken.” Note: SOPA allowed the CO, XO and CMC parking signed to per placed on the pier we were moored at. Not only was it separated from the other parking lots (obviously), there were guards posted (from the ship’s companies of the ships at the pier) who controlled who came on and off the pier, in vehicles or on foot. The XO seemed to have not grasped that fact in the moment.

Anyhow, later that day, I re-expressed my issue, pointing out the Base Security sure had time to ticket non-CPO vehicles, but couldn’t move their donut munching bodies a few tens of yards closer to the water’s edge to police the officer’s lot. I point out it was a matter of laziness, not the inability to patrol, because they had been making sure the CPOs had their lots protected from intrusion, and, on top of that, I got aboard about 20 minutes later, which cut my work time. He made a call.

It wasn’t like I needed the exercise, it’s more I always managed to make a long day longer, but getting there early enough to get a few “hours” of work done (I found out a Navy work hour was really about 10 minutes long, when the crew was aboard and it was “working hours” – when it was not work and not a duty day, I could get an “hours” worth of work done in about 10 minutes).

Now that we have fewer ships, and even with the base consolidations, I know (and saw last year), such turf wars are not as big of an issue, because on a “work day” around the D&S piers on Norfolk, the enlisted lot was only half full. Plenty of parking to go around. I guess I’m only left to wonder if the same retired CPOs are still patrolling the lots….

In April 2006, Park Service Director Mary Bomar ordered an internal investigation into claims that the planned Flight 93 Memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, built abound a giant Mecca-oriented crescent. Bomar’s investigation was a total fraud, concluding, for instance, that it isn’t possible to calculate the orientation of the crescent because the site-plan has not been geo-referenced. (Page 2, PP2 of September 2006 summary report. Page 1 here.)

In fact, the original Crescent of Embrace site-plan was drawn on a topo map that the Memorial Project provided to all participants in the design competition. A topo map is the epitome of a geo-referenced map. North marked on a topo map is true north, which is the only piece of information needed to calculate the orientation of the crescent. Just connect the tips of the crescent, form the perpendicular bisector, and calculate how many degrees it points from north (53.4).

Also known are the crash-site coordinates, which is all that is needed to calculate the direction to Mecca (55.2° clockwise from north). All of this is trivially easy to verify. Just use the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com to get a graphic of the direction to Mecca from the crash site and place it over the crescent site plan:

Somerset PA is ten miles from the crash-site. The “qibla” is the direction to Mecca. Red lines show the orientation of the crescent. The crescent points 1.8° north of Mecca. (Click for larger image.)

A request for oversight

Because it is the director’s office that has been covering up the Mecca-orientation of the crescent, oversight can only come from Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne himself. Several people sent letters to Secretary Kempthorne two weeks ago, showing how the giant Mecca-oriented crescent remains completely intact in the so called redesign. But Mr.
Kempthorne also needs to know that he is getting bad information from his subordinates in the Park Service. Thus a request for all readers of this post: if you have a minute, please copy and paste this entire post into an email for Secretary Kempthorne.

We don’t need for the secretary to understand all the terrorist memorializing features in the design, or the numerous proofs of intent that architect Paul Murdoch included so that his accomplishment will be undeniable once it is a fait accompli. It is enough that he be concerned about features that can be readily interpreted as terrorist
memorializing, whether they are intended or not. As Congressman Tancredo put it: we need “a new design that will not make the memorial a flashpoint for this kind of controversy and criticism.”

But even getting to the most basic facts about what is in the present design requires getting past Mary Bomar’s fraudulent report, which tries to pretend that there is nothing that can even be interpreted as untoward.

Mary Bomar’s intellectually dishonest “experts”

In addition to claiming that topo maps are not geo referenced, Mary Bomar’s internal investigation cites a small number of academic experts, all of whom spout nothing but the most absurd non sequiturs. One is Dr. Daniel Griffith, professor of “geo-spatial information” at the University of Texas. About Alec Rawls’ analysis of the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent,
Dr. Griffith writes:

… Mr. Rawls’s arithmetic calculations appear to be correct … [but] … just because calculations are correct does not make the resulting numbers meaningful.

Dr. Griffith’s point, it seems, is that the mere fact of Mecca orientation does not imply intent. Who said it did? The way Murdoch proves intent is by repeating his Mecca orientations (scroll down to the last section here). But intent is not the only thing that matters. Even without terrorist memorializing intent, it is inappropriate to plant a giant Mecca oriented crescent on the crash site.

The Memorial Project knows this, but it is committed to defending the crescent design, so it keeps using its doubts about intent as an excuse for denying the facts. Dr. Griffith, for instance, is telling every reporter who will listen that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca. “Anything can point toward Mecca,” he told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “because the earth is round.” One billion Muslims face Mecca five times a day to pray, and Griffith pretends there is no such thing as facing Mecca!

Of course he knows better. The first thing that Griffith’s report does is calculate the direction to Mecca:

I computed an azimuth value from the Flight 93 crater site to Mecca of roughly 55.20°.

Bomar expert #2

Dr. Kevin Jaques, specialist in Islamic sharia law from the University of Indiana, acknowledges that the Mecca-oriented crescent is similar to the mihrab around which every mosque is built, but says:

…just because something is ‘similar to’ something else does not make it the ‘same’.

Yes, well, similar–very, very similar–is exactly the problem.

Like Daniel Griffith, Mr. Jaques is trying to make hay of the fact that Mecca orientation does not by itself imply intent. So what? Intentional or not, it is unacceptable for the central feature of the Flight 93 memorial to be a geometric match for the central feature of a mosque. Jaques is pretending that the questions he raises about intent somehow make the facts irrelevant.

Professor Jaques also dismisses the likeness between the Mecca-oriented crescent and a traditional Islamic mihrab

Population 436 the movie

by noting that lots of religious structures have prayer-direction indicators, not just mosques:

The biggest hole in [Rawls’] argument is that all of the elements he points to are common architectural features that one would find in a church or synagogue. The mihrab originated in pre-Islamic buildings and can be found in temples, churches, and synagogues around the Mediterranean.

This is logic? Because Christian churches are often oriented to the east, that somehow makes it okay to build the Flight
93 memorial around a half-mile wide Mecca oriented crescent? If this is “the biggest hole in [Rawls’] argument,” then there are no holes in Rawls’ argument.

Project spokesmen know the truth, and are lying about it

Memorial Project spokesmen have followed the lead of these academic frauds, using doubts about intent as a pretext for denying the facts. Asked about Rawls’ Mecca orientation claim, Patrick White, vice president of Families of Flight 93, denied it:

Rawls’ claims are untrue and “preposterous,” according to Patrick White, Families of Flight 93 vice president. “We went through in detail all his original claims and came away with nothing.”

In fact, Patrick White is fully aware of the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. At the Memorial Project’s public meeting in July he argued that the almost-exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent cannot be intended as a tribute to Islam because the inexactness of it would be “disrespectful to Islam.”

Joanne Hanley has done the same:

“Alec Rawls bases all of his conclusions on faulty assumptions,” said Joanne Hanley, the superintendent of the Flight 93 National Memorial. “In addition, the facts are twisted and people are misquoted, all to serve his intended purpose.”

But she too has admitted the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent, telling Mr. Rawls in a 2006 conference call that she wasn’t
concerned about the almost-exact Mecca orientation of the crescent because:

“It isn’t exact. That’s one we talked about. It has to be exact.” (Crescent
of Betrayal, download 3, page 145.)

These are your subordinates Mr. Kempthorne. Please do not let them get away with this fraud. Congressman Tancredo is demanding answers from Director Bomar and many of us are hoping that you will do the same. There is not much
time. Construction on Paul Murdoch’s terrorist memorial mosque is about to begin.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

Before we go to unmanned combat aircraft, the F-35 is coming online. I’d speculate it may well be the last manned fighter we put into service. But, that’s not the point. It brings some incredible technology to the table, and will serve the USAF, USMC and Navy in three different modifications.

Specifically, the really interesting technology that “caught my eye” was this:

Designed for a “HUD-less” cockpit, the heads up display travels with the pilot’s head, yielding pictures like this to the occupant: Heck, not only will you be able to see vital info, regardless of where you position your head…you’ll be able to “talk” to the plane….Next: The development of the “sensitivity module” to detect when you are verbally abusing your ride….and the CDR thought alcohol abuse was a too intrusive issue…Moving pictures, that talk to you, about the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter:

embedded by Embedded Video

Albert J. Myer, born Sept 28th, 1828, grew up to be a very accomplished citizen of this United States. So much so, a ship was named after him. You see, Albert Myer began his career in the US Army as a surgeon, but later, as a Major, became the father of the US Army Signal Corps just before the Civil War began. But, if that wasn’t enough, he also spawned the US Weather Bureau, which we know today as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).For those of you who were part of the Boy Scouts, you might recall the practice of “wig wag” to send Morse code across long distances. Albert Myer was also the inventor of this form of communications. In fact, it was that specific innovation that got this Army surgeon the post to begin the Signal Corps. From Wikipedia:

In 1858, the Army expressed interest in Myer’s invention and appointed a board to examine “the principles and plans of the signalling, mode of use in the field, and course to be pursued in introducing to the army.” Myer appeared before the board, chaired by Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee, in 1859 and convinced them to authorize field testing of his invention. He conducted field tests starting in April of that year around New York Harbor. The tests were successful and Secretary of War John B. Floyd recommended to Congress that the Army adopt Myer’s system and that Myer be appointed as chief signal officer. Congress approved Myer’s appointment as major and chief signal officer and the Signal Corps was formed, despite opposition in the Senate by Jefferson Davis from Mississippi. Myer was sent to the Department of New Mexico for further field trials of his system in a campaign against the Navajos.

The story of the “wig wag” system’s use, it not without its irony. Also noted in Wikipedia:

Ironically, the first use in combat of Myer’s signaling system was by Confederate Captain Edward Porter Alexander at the First Battle of Bull Run. Alexander had been a subordinate of Myer’s and assisted in the New York field trials.

Following the Civil War, General Myer was then charged with setting up weather monitoring stations to warn mariners of bad weather:

The U.S. Congress, on February 9, 1870, authorized “… meteorological observations at the military stations in the interior of the continent and at other points in the states and territories of the United States, and for giving notice on the northern lakes and seaboard by telegraph and signals of the approach and force of storms”. This duty, previously conducted by the Smithsonian Institution, was assigned to General Myer’s Signal Corps, due in part to his previous interests in storm telegraphy. It was the birth of the U.S. Weather Bureau, now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Myer headed the Signal Corps from August 21, 1867, until his death of nephritis at Buffalo, New York, in 1880. He is interred in the Walden-Myer Mausoleum at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Buffalo.

The legacy of General Myer’s accomplishments are remembered by honoring him with the renaming of Ft Whipple at Arlington, VA to Ft Myer. You might have heard of it, or visited there while in DC.

The Army named a ship after General Myer, too. No, that’s not a typo. The Army has many ships, but that’s a topic for another post, another day. The ship, USNS ALBERT J MYER (T-ARC 6) was a cable laying ship.Initially completed in late 1945 as one of the NEPTUNE Class cable ships, built for the US Army, but was put up in Fleet Reserve. She was put to active use sometime in 1950 in the North West Pacific. In 1952, she was transferred to the US Navy and the Military Sealift Command for the deployment of the submarine cables for the sensor arrays of SOSUS.

The MYER remained in the service of the country until 1994, conducting cable laying and repairs before decommissioning that year. In 2005, she was broken up for scrap.

Some additional research on the ALBERT J MYER can be found here

Lex is discussing an article by Ralph Peters regarding the old and new worlds.

One of Lex’s commenters, John, says those who want to get involved should have “experience” in the real ejection seat, before being in charge of the UAVs:

Insist that anyone above the video game player level for UAVs have recent seat time as an attack, FAC, ANGLICO to keep the focus and urgency on supporting the guys [and gals] in the mud.

Good comment, but the opportunities to have this sort of experience to execute oversite diminish quickly as the UAVs are brought online. In the beginning, there will be lots of “old hands” with the time in the saddle, given the current global unpleasantness, but once that settles down, they will work their way up the ranks, and have less time in the cockpit, and more holding a pen of pounding a keyboard.

It’s the next big challenge.

I began to comment, but, suffering from a little bit of blogger’s cramp, thought it might work over here, to get another post on the board.

Granted, my “stuff” was really low speed, high drag in comparison, yet, it’s all about the mindset. Some of the transitions in how we, as the Surface Warfare community had to rethink the “world:”

Moving from “conventional CICs” to the NTDS world was another. The data link surely put more info in the hands of “higher,” that had previously been the domain of the all knowing, on scene commander. I was around for that transition, to some degree, when the bulk of the destroyer fleet became so enabled with the introduction of the 963s. Blogged a few of the observations of the beginning and 5 years later conditions, too.

I was an “early adopter” of the over-the-horizon capability as a LTJG with the control of 8 RGM-84 HARPOONs, too. I went from that job, where it was all shiny and new, where we got litlle more instruction on how to point and shoot, to a training command where I saw some really innovative tools developed (the “Harpoon Interactive Tactical Simulator” (HITS)) that helped us wrap our brains around a moving search pattern, that couls also be static, even with the .85 mach “sensor platform” underway to the vicinity of the target. Years later, with improvements suggested to us (and paid for) by the Brits, the B models added to our ability to get 500 lb warheads on target. The came fancy tools like the AN/SWG-1A to interface with the seekers. Now we could engage with simultaneous precision, from one platform.

Not so fancy? Well, before that was 5″/38s and /54s at not much more than the horizon visual ranges. Now we were out in the 60+ mile realm and we needed off ship “eyeballs” to help out. A transition.

I was part of a staff sent to sea to figure out BBBG tactics with Tomahawk, when doing “OTH-T” with mountains of national sensor data coming in via hard copy from Radio was the order of the day – oh, and the info was then plotted on paper charts. That had been good for the old gunnery days, but wholly unsatisfactory for the missile age. As a result, a magic computer came from behind the Green Door to help out: POST. Now we had to teach ourselves really technical stuff about emitters, so operators could set the right filters to locate and engage targets. A transition. Along the way, then LCDR Harry Harris, now of GTMO fame, made an interesting remark when I finished my briefing to ADM Jerimiah.

After the Gulf War, pilots had an entirely new appreciation for the TLAM variant of the Tomahawk cruise missile, the thing that, before that war, couldn’t possibly do the job TACAIR was there for. A transisiton (and more pilots coming home).

Later, I was around when the CEC system, integrated into the NTDS networks, which was a (insert sailor adjective here) mess the first time they tried it. I was there. I had told them at the planning meeting there was going to be a problem and they needed to do some more analysis (i wasn’t nay saying, just looking for success). They told me not to worry. In the test, they told the NTDS side to shut down. It’sa ll been worked out, but it took some rethinking when a really novel system entered the arena of tactical tools for a fast paced world. Before I had been at that level for the safety of CEC, one of my project manager worked it, and I saw some incredible briefs on the technology. We, back then in the early 90s, were putting a lot of stock into computing technology to help us down high speed, sea skimming threats. Has I been on the sea going side, I’m sure I would have had some qualms about trusting Eddie Electron so much. A transition.

In another job, I had to tell ship COs that the only way they were going to save their ship from Exocets was to put NSSMS into a full auto configuration. I had some COs tell me to stuff it. I held up the TACMEMO, paid for with a lot of taxpayers money, that proved it was the only hope. I suspect we use more auto features these days. A transisiton.

My interests in computer technology tends to heavily lean towards display technology, to include virtual environments. I have a bad habit of paying more for video and sound cards for my systems as most would plunk down for a whole computer system. I had my first hands on experience with a personal VR system in the 1993 time frame. Since then, not only has the display technology improved remarkably, but the rate of data transmission and bandwidth has increased. Those are things that will make the combat UAVs (CUAVs) a reality. Challenges to overcome as to the employment, the supporting data transmission paths, and the like? Oh, yes. Can they provide the same “quality of service” to that ground pounder with and enemy looking to grab him by the belt buckle? With time, I’m sure it will happen. Along the way, there will be barriers and hurdles to clear. Along the way, some really smart young people will show up and tell us how to use them in ways our old paradigms would never allow us to see. The convergence of so many new, light-weight capabilities and materials is incredible. That will all lend itself to this next leap forward.

I suspect the technology will allow a “driver” to be immersed to such a degree, he or she will get a startlingly accurate feel for the environment, and the soldier or Marine on the ground will be happy with the results.

For years, the military and the computer gaming market have been headed for the same end game. Along the way, they have joined forces, and it was over a decade ago that that happened. Net result? Look at some of the UAV hand controllers….

The first challenge: Think how to employ this technology, not why we shouldn’t….and let our junior speak their minds, too.

FbL has the “gouge,” and we all know an ounce of gouge is worth ponds of other stuff…

It is reason to celebrate, the big total was over $192K, with >$32K arriving for the cause, without “team” designation.

Don’t forget, this is a year ’round need, so keep the interest up as you can all year long!

Memorial superintendent admits giant crescent still present in memorial design

No comment from the Park Service yet on Congressman Tancredo’s request for a new Flight 93 Memorial. We did a little better with last week’s blogburst letters. Some emailers got a response from Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley, answering Mr. Tancredo’s contention that the original giant crescent is still present in the redesign. Interestingly, her description of the redesign actually admits that the giant crescent IS still present, both geometrically and thematically.

In 2005, architect Paul Murdoch explained his original Crescent of Embrace design in terms of the flight path: as the hijacked airliner came over the ridgeline above the crash site, its flight path symbolically broke the circle, turning it into a giant crescent. In the original design, the broken off part of the circle was removed entirely:

Flight 93 came down from the Northwest (the upper left). The flight path breaks the circle at the upper crescent tip, says Paul Murdoch, then continues down to the crash site, which is located between the crescent tips (roughly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag).

In describing the barely altered redesign, Superintendent Hanley uses the exact same “breaking the circle” language that Paul Murdoch used to describe the original design, only now the broken off part of the circle is not completely removed. A broken chunk of it remains, so that the design now includes “two breaks” instead of one:

The most prominent refinement was in the treatment of the naturally occurring bowl-shaped landscape feature. The design now surrounds that area with a circle of trees which is broken in two places – the location which marks the flight path as it breaks the circular continuity of the bowl edge, and the Sacred Ground where the crash occurred. The locations of the two breaks in the circle are based on the flight path and crash site of Flight 93.

The site plan graphic for the redesign was dramatically re-colored, making the crescent LOOK more like a circle. You have to examine closely to see that the original break in the crescent is still there, along with the new “second break.” But as Superintendent Hanley admits, the original break IS still there, and it is still intended to be seen as being there. Hanley is directly admitting what Congressman Tancredo is complaining about, that the original crescent has only been disguised.

A side-by-side comparison of the Crescent of Embrace site-plan and the redesign site-plan confirms that the only change was to include a chunk of the symbolically broken off part of the imaginary full circle:

Ignoring the re-coloring of the image, the only change is the additional arc of trees to the left side of the crescent. (Click pic for larger view.)

Including a chunk of the broken off part of the circle does nothing to remove the original crescent, but on the contrary is perfectly consistent with it, both geometrically and thematically. The terrorists are still depicted as breaking our humanitarian circle and turning it into a giant Islamic shaped crescent.

Just to make sure people get it, Paul Murdoch has placed a huge glass block at the spot where this circle-breaking, crescent-creating feat takes place. It is the 44th translucent block emplaced along the flight path (matching the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists) and is inscribed: “a field of honor forever.”

Earlier admissions that the redesign retains the crescent and star configuration of an Islamic flag

An August 18th article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette quoted Superintendent Hanley denying the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent:

“The only thing that orients the memorial is the crash site,” she said.Mr. Murdoch reinforced that idea.

“It’s oriented toward the Sacred Ground,” he said. “It just couldn’t be clearer.”

The symbolism of the memorial, he continued, is representative of the geography of the crash site, an idea that predates Islam or any other major religion.

They are not calling it a crescent and star configuration, but that is what they are describing, and what they are talking about here is the redesign. They are admitting that the design still has the arms of the crescent reaching out towards the crash site, which sits between the crescent tips, in the position of the star on an Islamic flag. “It just couldn’t be clearer.”

Connect a line from the lower crescent tip to the thematic upper crescent tip (the 44th glass block, commemorating the spot where the flight path breaks the circle) and a perpendicular to this line (the direction of a person facing directly into the giant crescent) points exactly to Mecca. Thus does Paul Murdoch tie the Islamic features and the terrorist memorializing features of his design into a perfect bin Ladenist embrace. The 44th block defines the exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent.

Very simply, we hosted an open design competition in time of war. Of course the enemy would enter. The only thing that is hard to understand is why the Memorial Project is willfully blind to this ploy.

Blogroll for Wednesday “stop the crescent memorial” blogbursts

1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
And Rightly So
Big Dog’s Weblog

Big Sibling
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Error Theory
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Four Pointer
Ft. Hard Knox

GM’s Corner
Ironic Surrealism II
Jack Lewis
Kender’s Musings
My Own Thoughts
Nice Deb
Ogre’s Politics and Views

Part-Time Pundit
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run

There is no fee, tariff, or charges to flog your blog here…Open Trackbacks are, like the air you breathe, free.

LCDR Hobbs, at the end of last week, had just finished shredding one overly full of himself Fleet LT, and a fine job she did, merely by directing his attention at the time honored (and higher authority directed) manner in which qualifications were to be documented.

Lunch happened and then the crew of the WAINWRIGHT mustered the Combat Systems Training Team (CSTT) to brief the drills they would run on two sections of the crew. For you readers who might not have had the pleasure of a Combat Systems Assessment (CSA), the drills were run just like the Engineering Casualty Control Training Teams (ECCTT) did in days gone by. My team listened to the setup for the scenarios, the safety checks, and the training objectives. We took notes now, and wouldn’t say anything until the drills were all over and debriefed. Kathy sat in with us, as we listened carefully to all that was said. She tagged along behind me, as I went with the CSTT Leader and found a fairly unobtrusive place near the Tactical Action Officer in the Combat Information Center (CIC). The afternoon drill set was run and copious notes taken, by my team and the CSTT. Evening meal was quickly eaten and the Wardroom set up for the next briefing. We did it all over again, ending the second drill set near 2200. At this point, my team and I split off to have our discussion on how the crews performed, and early comments on the CSTT’s performance.

About an hour later, we and the CSTT, the CO and XO all met in the Wardroom to hear the evaluation of the two drills. CAPT Fahey offered LCDR Hobbs a tour of the Main Spaces (Main engineering spaces) and she accepted, with one of the Engineering Department Officers leading her below to the hot places where the Snipes lived and worked. We went on with the debriefs.

I can’t recall the exact issue, but something hadn’t gone well and “Iron Mike” made it clear he wasn’t going to consider it acceptable. Pretty striking, yet dead on target one way commentary flew for a few minutes, then it was back to work. Kathy returned about an hour later. We were still at it.

Sometime around 0100, she leaned over and whispered “I had no idea this took so long.” IN the grand scheme of things, that had been my point, for her to understand a little extra long smoke break at the office was already comped by the time put in at sea for those who did the CSAs and many of the training evolutions of the rest of the command.

Sometime around 0200, we headed off to get a few hours rack time, with an on the deckplates for the Detect to Engage runs at 0630. She was there, ready to observe on time later that morning. She didn’t just watch, she hung over in “Tracker Ally” with OSCM(SW) Roddy, asking some questions. While she didn’t have all the terminology down, the questions were all thought provoking and more detailed than we ever might have expected.

To wrap this several week “sea story” up, we got to the piers in Norfolk and picked up to head back to the office at NAB Little Creek late in the day. Arriving there about sunset, we had put in about 38 hours from the time we arrived for our boat the prior morning. To my team, it was normal. To LCDR Hobbs, it was an appreciation for the effort of the guys on “shore duty.”

For me: I came to look at the women around me very differently. From then on, I realized hard workers come in all shapes, sizes and genders. So did whiners and complainers. No longer did I just act polite to LCDR Hobbs in the building, I treated her as a professional, like she always had been, before I had managed to accept that premise.

Take a break. Get over to LGF and read the article, but have fun with the comments…

Makes you wonder…was Pearl Harbor an “inside job?”

Some guys with lots of time on their hands, or a pressing need to complete their academic research papers have devised a way to make a projected image show correctly on a screen/surface at varied angles. Specifically, these smart people are: Johnny C. Lee, Paul H. Dietz, Dan Maynes-Aminzade, Ramesh Raskar, and Scott E. Hudson.

So, PowerPoint Rangers, no need to fret when the heads of the audience will absorb the light energy you desired to show on the screen! Just hang the projector so it has a boresight view of the screen.

embedded by Embedded Video

Find this intriguing? Here’s the technical paper in a .pdf