Aw, c'mon, Mr. Secretary...

I'm certainly no stranger to cheap demagoguery, but this lump is a sad example of obfuscation and pandering at the same time.

If the Obama Administration had a jazzy slogan like that it might read: Every Farm Boy a Doughboy.That, at least, appears to be the policy of Obama’s Secretary of Agribusiness Tom Vilsack. For months Vilsack has been delivering the same speech at chicken and peas dinners across the country, the gist of which is that America’s farm mothers are brood sows, birthing sons to be recruited into the army and made into fertilizer. Said Vilsack:

The U.S. population is now categorized as 16 percent rural. Despite that low percentage, more than 40 percent of the men and women who serve in our armed forces are from rural America. Young men and women from America’s farms continue to lead the way in protecting our country and making us the top military power in the world.

Farm boys grow up with a sense of wanting to give something back, Vilsack says. If we lose that value system, we’ll lose our military might.Mind you, that’s the USDA chief talking, not the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. Welcome to America’s new agriculture policy: Grow large crops of farm boys for use as cannon fodder. [More]

Jeez - where to start!

A. The author of this article is totally clueless here as well, and apparently unable to google "rural". He conflates "rural" with "farm". Let's try some of that fancy arithmetic stuff: 16 percent of the US population (~320M) would be over 50 million people. WTF! WE constantly remind people only 2% are farmers and we know that's a wild overestimate of the number of actual producers. So where are all these folks?

B. To begin with, there are NINE (!) different USDA definitions of "rural". This excerpt leads me to believe Vilsack's speech inventor is using Definition 7. Wade through it yourself, but it's pretty clear it includes lots of what are clearly "city folk". It definitely doesn't mean "lives on a farm".

[Click to enlarge to barely readable]

Put simply, the current makeup of the all-vol­untary military looks like America. Where they are different, the data show that the average sol­dier is slightly better educated and comes from a slightly wealthier, more rural area. We found that the military (and Army specifically) included a higher proportion of blacks and lower propor­tions of other minorities but a proportionate num­ber of whites. More important, we found that recruiting was not drawing disproportionately from racially concentrated areas. [More]

[Note the above study also uses Definition #7 of rural]

C. I can't find a definitive source but anecdotal information suggests young people are not necessarily driven by fervent ideals so much as a lack of employment opportunity near home, the GI Bill educational benefits, and more chances of equal treatment for minorities.  I'm not discounting patriotic motivation but it is not the only factor and there is no evidence to suggest it is stronger in rural youth. A better link is the much higher unemployment in the rural South especially.

D. It is a tortured chain of logic to link national security to a farm bill and subsidies so farmers will keep supplying sons and daughters to fill soldier slots. Also a little nauseating, IMHO.

Vilsack is scraping the bottom of the barrel here. While I am glad I served, I joined because I was going to be drafted and frankly for a little adventure at 21. It was one of the best decisions of my life, but I did not then nor now imagine myself doing anything heroic. It was my job for 5 years. They paid me to do it.

The Secretary's cheap exploitation of military myths is undignified and uninformed by actual fact.

My only thought on Petraeus...  

When did we become the Soviet army?

 And compare to Ike:

Some of 'em aren't even US awards. A good discussion here, here and here.

File under "Holy S***!"...  

Not being a gun enthusiast, this item blew me away.

Earlier this month, a British Army sniper Corporal Craig Harrison broke the world’s record for superaccurate shooting, taking out a pair of Taliban machine gunners from a mile-and-a-half away. It was a one-in-a-million feat — one performed under “perfect” conditions, Harrison says: “no wind, mild weather, clear visibility.” [More]

But wait, there's more.

The U.S. military has been after self-guided bullets for years. Now, government researchers have finally made it happen: a bullet that can navigate itself a full mile before successfully nailing its target.
The breakthrough comes courtesy of engineers at the government’s Sandia National Laboratories. They’ve successfully tested a prototype of the bullet at distances up to 2,000 meters — more than a mile. The photo above is an actual image taken during one of those tests. A light-emitting diode was attached to the bullet, showing the amazing pathway that the munition made through the night sky. [More]

Between stuff like this and drones, is there a good argument against being paranoid?

So long, jet jockeys...

As a submariner, I developed a lifelong antipathy to pilots, especially Navy pilots. Half-athlete and all-ego, they took arrogance as a primary virtue simply because they routinely accomplish stupefying feats of coordination and daring, such as landing on a carrier in high seas.

Underwater-nerds loathed them and their macho allure to women.

But the military of the future won't need these glamorous heroes very much, and when they do go aloft, their risks will be much worse than usual. To begin with, we're rapidly switching expensive fighters for cheap drones "piloted" by gamers is a basement somewhere.

The recent meteoric rise of UAV development, highlights an issue of the growing importance of UAVs in the future and leads to the corollary issue of whether UAVs will replace manned aircraft’s roles and missions.  The bottom line is that the Services still need an organic capability for a continuous, on-demand, all-weather platform to provide intelligence on the battlefield. In addition, the Services must execute these operations quickly, safely, and cheaply.  As such, UAVs may be a significant part of the answer since they have proven their combat mettle in Operations DESERT SHIELD, DESERT STORM, and now Bosnia.  Once a strike capability is fielded, then the manned aircraft community will be really threatened.  UAVs will continue to replace manned aircraft in many areas, but only time and technology will tell how much. [More]

Even when we do need full-sized planes, they won't need jockeys either.

The X-47B is a unmanned fighter sized aircraft developed by U.S. firm, Northrop Grumman. The vehicle is just a test bed but is hoped will lead to an eventual unmanned fighter aircraft. The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the use of UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) but thus far most UAV’s have been fairly primitive and used priarily only for recon or light strike support. Nothing designed thus far has really had the ability or purpose to replaced manned aircraft. The X-47B is a prototype which if successful will lead to the eventual replacement of manned aircraft in the United States Navy. [More]

But the real coup de grace will be the weapons they are up against. Dogfights with laser defenders aren't really movie-ready drama - they're split second target practice. And that very real possibility just became more possible.

Translated from the Nerd: Thanks to Hernandez, the Navy will now have a more powerful death ray aboard a future ship sooner than expected, in order to burn incoming missiles out of the sky or zap through an enemy vessel's hull.

"Five hundred [kilovolts] has been the project goal for a long time," says George Neil, the FEL associate director at Jefferson Labs, whose Rav 4 license plate reads LASRMAN. "The injector area is one of the critical areas" of the whole project.

The free-electron laser is one of the Navy's highest-priority weapons programs, and it's not hard to see why. "We're fast approaching the limits of our ability to hit manoeuvring pieces of metal in the sky with other maneuvering pieces of metal," says Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, the Navy's chief of research. The next level: "fighting at the speed of light and hypersonics" -- that is, the free-electron laser and the Navy's Mach-8 electromagnetic rail gun.

Say goodbye to an adversary's anti-ship missiles, and prepare to fire bullets from 200 miles away, far from shoreline defences. No wonder the Navy asked Congress to double its budget for directed-energy weapons this week to $60 million, most of which will go to the free-electron laser.

It won't be until the 2020s, Carr estimates, that a free-electron laser will be mounted on a ship. (Same goes for the rail gun.) Right now, the free-electron laser produces a 14-kilowatt beam. It needs to get to 100 kilowatts to be viable to defend a ship, the Navy thinks. But what happened at Jefferson Labs Friday shrinks the time necessary to get to 100 kilowatts and expands the lethality of the laser. Here's why.

All lasers start off as atoms that get agitated into becoming photons, light that's focused through some kind of medium, like chemicals or crystals, into a beam operating on a particular wavelength. But the free-electron laser is unique: It doesn't use a medium, just supercharged electrons run through a racetrack of superconductors and magnets -- an accelerator, to be technical -- until it produces a beam that can operate on multiple wavelengths.

That means the beam from the free-electron laser won't lose potency as it runs through all the crud in ocean air, because its operators will be able to adjust its wavelengths to compensate. And if you want to make it more powerful, all you need to do is add electrons.

But to add electrons, you need to inject pressure into your power source, so the electrons shake out and run through the racetrack. That's done through a gun called an injector. In the basement of a building in Jefferson Labs, a 240-foot racetrack uses a 300-kilovolt injector to pressurize the electrons out of 200 kilowatts of power and send them shooting through the accelerator.

Currently, the free-electron laser project produces the most-powerful beam in the world, able to cut through 20 feet of steel per second. If it gets up to its ultimate goal, of generating a megawatt's worth of laser power, it'll be able to burn through 2,000 feet of steel per second. Just add electrons. [More]

Pilots will not release their grip on the stick easily. The Navy is top-heavy with ex-pilots at the flag rank, and their community is pretty solid. And this labor demand problem is even more troublesome to the USAF. But sooner or later the lack of rides and the problem of defense budgets will make them quaint reminders of how Grandpa used to fight wars.

Like cavalry.

(I hate horses, too)

I am officially antediluvian...

Not for the faint of heart.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent a letter to lawmakers notifying them of the decision by the Navy, which could see the first women on nuclear submarines next year.
"This is fundamentally a Navy initiative, which they recently briefed to the secretary of defense. (Gates) supports it and he notified Congress of the Navy's plans," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.
Women account for about 15 percent of the more than 336,000 members of the U.S. Navy and can serve on its surface ships. But critics have argued that submarines are different, pointing to cramped quarters where some crews share beds in shifts -- a practice known as "hot bunking."
A likely scenario would see female officers becoming the first to join crews on the Navy's fleet of 71 submarines, since officers have separate accommodations, a U.S. defense official said. [More]

You know what this means, don't you?



And Jan merely smiles enigmatically.

Indians and chiefs...

This e-mail from an old Navy buddy (and my former boss):

I just finished reading my January  “Seapower 2010 Naval Almanac”, in which the Navy League national president, Dan Branch, laments that the current building rate will not maintain the CNO’s stated goal of 313 ships. He writes that the current building rate will sustain a long term level of only 240 ships.

In the back of the same magazine I found the listing of flag and general officers in the Navy Department. I counted 325 flag officers. Am I the only one who thinks this ratio (313 to 325) is really screwed up? What do you say we trade some flag officers for some ships?

I rely on my friends to tell me when I am mistaken. What do you think?

J-----

P.S. I also counted the blue-water, power-projection ships (i.e. FFGs or better) and came up with less than 200.

P.S. I can remember when I was working in the Pentagon and John Lehman was trying to build a 600 ship navy. At the same time we were joking about the Air Force having more General Officers than aircraft. Now, I guess the joke is on us.

[Note: for non-navy folks, flag officers are admirals]

It reminded me of the curious tipping point academia reached a few months ago.  I cannot find the link, so feel free to be skeptical, but it explained there are now more tenured professors in administration than teaching.

This pattern, I think asserts itself in protected sectors. Certainly the military is one - who would argue for defense frugality with 2 wars in progress?  Another sector has been higher education which has been able to operate outside the normal laws of supply and demand for some time.

That may be ending for universities as both endowments and state aid are plummeting.

An economist with the state's Legislative Finance Committee met with the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents this week and suggested nearly in $10 million cuts.
The LFC said that UNM could make up some of those losses by raising tuition.
High education could be hit hard when lawmakers convene for the legislative session in Santa Fe next week to cover the state's multi-million dollar budget deficit.
One proposal calls for steep tuition increases at universities and two-year colleges.

Included in the recommendation would be a two percent wage cut for all state employees, including teachers and professors. [More from one of any number of similar stories]

There tends to be a delayed reaction to economic downturns in certain sectors. As the slow budget cycle of state legislatures grinds to an ugly end, higher education is facing some seriously bad news. 



Meanwhile, the military is obviously adding forces at the top.

Complete with swimming pool...

I had never seen photos of a Russian Typhoon class submarine. 

Typhoon class submarines feature multiple pressure hulls that simplify internal design while making the vessel much wider than a normal submarine. In the main body of the sub, two Delta class pressure hulls lie parallel with a third, smaller pressure hull above them (which protrudes just below the sail), and two other pressure hulls for torpedoes and steering gear. This also greatly increases their survivability - even if one pressure hull is breached, the crew members in the other are safe and there is less potential for flooding.

Six Typhoon class submarines were built, with each carrying 20 R-39 missiles (SS-N-20) with a maximum of 10 MIRV nuclear warheads each. Originally, the submarines were designated by hull numbers only. Names were later assigned to the four vessels retained by the Russian Navy, which were sponsored by either a city or company. The construction order for an additional vessel (hull number TK-210) was canceled and never completed. Only the first of these submarines to be constructed, the Dmitriy Donskoy, is still in active service with the Russian Navy, serving as a test platform for the Bulava (SS-NX-30) missile which is currently under development. The Arkhangelesk (TK-17) and Severstal (TK-20) remain commissioned, though not currently active with the Russian fleet. All the R-39 missiles have been retired. The Typhoons are slated to be replaced by the Borey class starting in 2009. [More]

They came and went after my service (but then so did a LOT of stuff).  These boats were huge!

(Not the best welding I've seen for an outer hull)

[Lots more pics - including the pool/spa]

[via atlasobscura]

I am officially an old fogey...

The last great bastion of "men-onlyness" is about to crumble.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Thursday in a statement to the Navy Times, ““I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines.”.
According to the Navy Times, his comment comes one week after Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told congressional lawmakers that he thought it was time to end the ban against women on submarines.
Mullen’s successor, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, also said he is “very comfortable” addressing the crewing policy.
The Navy has 7,900 female officers and 44,000 female sailors, making up about 15 percent of officers and sailors in that active component.
How about the exceptionally close quarters and extended duration of submerged duty aboard submarines, etc., etc.?

Admiral Mullen and others think those issues can be resolved. [More]

Pretty soon they will want to farm and have their own opinions...


I wonder if they polled submariner wives about this?

Flying deaf...

An underwater bullet-train doing 115 mph.

Currently, the Navy's fastest submarine can only travel at 25 to 30 knots while submerged. But if everything goes according to plan, the Underwater Express will speed along at 100 knots, allowing the delivery of men and materiel faster than ever.
The DARPA program, first announced in 2006, has finally reached the testing phase. Electric Boat, the company contracted to design the Underwater Express, is producing a quarter-scale model of the speedy sub, to be tested next year off the coast of Rhode Island.

The sub utilizes the phenomenon known as supercavitation. Supercavitation is the process wherein an object moves so fast through the water that it creates a gas bubble around itself, nearly eliminating drag. Unencumbered by the high drag of water, the object is free to speed along at much higher speeds than otherwise possible. Supercavitation has been known since the end of World War Two, and the Soviets succeeded in creating a torpedo that utilizes supercavitation for high-speed travel, but so far no one has succeeded in scaling the effect up to the size of a whole submarine. [More]

I'm sure the sonar has improved in the last 4 decades, but I'll bet this thing is not just zipping through the water blind, but deaf.  OK when deep, I guess, but I wonder what happens if you hit a whale at that speed?

Is it the underwater equivalent of a deer?


[via sullivan]

So that's what Fred did...

In a cautionary tale of throwing away more than a health insurance liability when you lay off older workers, this disconcerting little note from our nation's nuclear weapons industry.

In 2007, as the government began overhauling the nation's stockpile of W76 warheads—the variety often carried by Ohio-class submarines—officials at the National Nuclear Security Administration realized they couldn't produce an essential material known as "Fogbank." What purpose this substance actually serves is classified, but outside experts have suggested that it's a sort of exploding foam that sits between the fission and fusion portions of hydrogen bombs. The Government Accountability Office reported in March that NNSA's effort to recover its Fogbank-making ability had resulted in a yearlong, $69 million delay in the refurbishment project. And a government official with knowledge of the situation tells Mother Jones that further Fogbank-related delays are imminent.
The US government's Fogbank snafu has stunned nuclear policy experts. "What the story ought to tell people is that the institutions that we've built to oversee development and maintenance of our nuclear weapons are incompetent," says Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the nuclear strategy and nonproliferation initiative at the New America Foundation, who has written about the episode.
So how did America's three nuclear weapons design laboratories and four nuclear weapons manufacturing plants—the institutions collectively known as the nuclear weapons complex—simply forget how to make a crucial component of one of the military's most important warheads? "It seems like it was a case of ten-year-itis," says Phil Coyle, a former assistant secretary of defense who worked in the nuclear weapons complex for 33 years. "Ten years go by and people forget things that they used to know how to do."

"You have to keep people who know how to do these things and when people get too old or they retire you have to train new people to take their place," adds Coyle, now a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank. But NNSA failed to do so, according to the GAO. The agency "kept few records of the process when [Fogbank] was made in the 1980s and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency" by the 2000s. [More]

But wait, there may be a saner approach buried in the new federal budget.

Anti-nuclear weapons advocates warmly welcomed President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget as it has eliminated funding for research and development of a new-generation nuclear warhead called the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

"Development work on the Reliable Replacement Warhead will cease, while continued work to improve the nuclear stockpile's safety, security, and reliability is enhanced with more expansive life extension programs," the budget document said. [More]

Maybe some knowledge should be forgotten.

A collision at sea...

Can ruin your entire day.  The news about two VERY lucky boats.

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic, the MoD has confirmed.

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash in heavy seas earlier this month.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the submarines came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported.  [More]

The article wonders why sonar didn't help them.  Unless things have changed it would be because you don't cruise around with active sonar like a game of Marco Polo. You just listen. As boats get quieter, this type of incident is mostly prevented by the sheer unlikeliness and the size of oceans.

Hmm. First satellites, then subs.  Is the moon in some strange phase right now?  These are pretty low probability events here.

Maybe corn can hit $5 after all.

There seems to be a pattern here...

So this time I'm reading about cutting edge surveillance techniques used to analyze video for susppicious behavior...

Human gaits, for example, can provide a lot of information about people’s intentions. At the American Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, a team of gait analysts and psychologists led by Frank Morelli study video, much of it conveniently posted on the internet by insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. They use special object-recognition software to lock onto particular features of a video recording (a person’s knees or elbow joints, for example) and follow them around. Correlating those movements with consequences, such as the throwing of a bomb, allows them to develop computer models that link posture and consequence reasonably reliably. The system can, for example, pick out a person in a crowd who is carrying a concealed package with the weight of a large explosives belt. According to Mr Morelli, the army plans to deploy the system at military checkpoints, on vehicles and at embassy perimeters. [More]

And I realize what this department really is:



Of course, maybe I'm making fun of it because the actual goings-on in our surveillance research is gosh-darn creepy. (Read the linked article for starters)

It seems God is not the only one watching us.

All dressed up...

And nowhere to sail. The improbable navies of landlocked countries:


(I looked for Switzerland, too)

Very impressive, mildly creepy...

Meet Big Dog.



The illusion of two people dressed up in a costume is hard to shake, isn't it?

I don't get the PR strategy here...

I am fascinated by the idea of trying to shoot down a satellite as it falls out of orbit.

If a missile launched by the Navy succeeds in taking out the bus-sized satellite as streaks across the sky 150 miles up, it will be one of the longest shots ever.

But the Navy is pretty confident it won't miss. In fact, the Navy has decided to go with only one ship instead of the three it originally planned to send out on the mission. [More]

Opinions vary on the political wisdom of this attempt. But at the risk of being seen as a jealous submariner, one small question:

What if we miss?

I'm not the only nervous Nellie either.

The good news is: The government has a plan. The bad news is: The government has a plan. It involves shooting missiles into space with the hope of blowing the satellite to smithereens, a technical term for "very small reens."

Experts say there is an 80 percent chance of success. While that sounds pretty good on the surface, we are talking about a 5,000-pound paperweight here, and if my math is right, there is still a 40 percent chance it could wrinkle my rhododendrons.

A Navy missile known as "Standard Missile 3" will be used to shoot the satellite before it crashes. Wouldn't we all feel better if the missile was called "Interceptor" or "Sure Shot" or "Satellite Annihilator"? Somehow, I get the impression "Standard Missile 3" has the words "ACME ROCKET CO." printed on the side.

As confident as the government seems to be, I noticed in a related story that the members of the space shuttle crew hastily are packing their bags to get out of the satellite space-vicinity before the shooting starts. The astronauts were quoted as saying: "We just waxed the shuttle and promised NASA we'd bring it home without any smithereens stuck in it." [More of an irreverent , albeit humorous essay here]

But seriously, folks. By broadcasting this plan widely, the stakes are now high for US military prestige and the Navy in particular.

It could be the Navy is feeling slightly left out in recent years. The Army and Marine Corps. are stretched to the max and showered with resources (and medals). Even the loathsome flyboys (USAF) are seen as essential to supporting the troops. But since we stopped "shocking and awing", the workload for Naval air and ships has been much lower and definitely lower down the news chain.

With budgets always problematic the ol' USN needs a winner image, and I think they are betting a serious part of the farm on a showy display of firepower. A safer route would have been to shoot the rascal down and then start bragging.

I hope it works, for whatever reason it is being planned. But given the Chinese success at a similar mission, it better.

All submarines, all the time...

Keeping you all up to date in the often invisible world of submarining.

• Think rebilding old tractors is weird? How 'bout old submarines?

The vessel is an 8-foot replica of the 1776 submersible known as the Turtle, said Petty Officer Seth Johnson of the U.S. Coast Guard. It was unclear what the people were doing, but there was no indication of any connection to terrorism, he said.

The vessel "is the creative craft of three adventuresome individuals," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a statement, according to WABC-TV. "We can best summarize today's incident as marine mischief." [More]

• Russia claims the Arctic by planting a flag 13,000 feet below Santa Claus' workshop.

The first mini-sub dived to a spot 2.65 miles below the surface and the second sub to a nearby location 2.67 miles below the surface, Russia's NTV television reported. The subs spent about nine hours underwater.

Before beginning the descent, Chilingarov, who is also a deputy speaker of the lower house of parliament, declared that "every dive is a heroic deed — a heroic deed of those who dive for the sake of science and for Russia's presence in this region."

The expedition was part of an effort to bolster Russian claims to about 460,000 square miles of sea floor believed to hold lucrative deposits of oil and natural gas. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Russia's claim depends not on dropping the Russian flag, but on proving that its continental shelf extends to the pole. [More]

Wait - doesn't this mean the US owns the moon?

• All those video games could pay off. Our new Virginia Class subs are controlled by a pilot with a joystick, instead of traditional airplane-like controls.

The submarine is fitted with modular isolated deck structures, for example the submarine's command centre will be installed as one single unit resting on cushioned mounting points. The submarine's control suite is equipped with computer touch screens. The submarine's steering and diving control is via a four-button, two-axis joystick. [More]

Remember, there are basically two types of naval vessels: submarines and targets.

Personally, I wouldn't miss 'em...

One big success secret from our Mideast military adventures is high-altitude precision bombing. The reason for this could be that it makes the existence of hot-shot fighter jockeys much more precarious. Dropping GPS-guided munitions from a B-52 miles up has all the excitement of driving a school bus.

In the late 1990s, technical trends changed the picture. First, satellite guidance from the global positioning system became effective and inexpensive. A bomb called the JDAM was developed that locates itself in three-dimensional space using GPS signals, and continuously corrects its position via satellite guidance as it falls. First dropped in 1999 during the NATO campaign to force the Yugoslavian army out of Kosovo, the JDAM proved almost eerily accurate, reliably striking within about 10 feet of its target. And because JDAMs have no engines—little fins adjust the bomb's position—these munitions aren't expensive by military standards, about $30,000 each. Other advances, like the development of tracking devices that work at high altitude, made bombers even more attractive. Suddenly lumbering, high-altitude bombers could do what only low-flying fighters with crack pilots had been able to accomplish, putting bombs exactly on the aim point. And the bombers could do it much cheaper, with much less risk of being shot down. [More]

And of course, heaven forbid we should build military hardware to fulfill a mission - the real reason for planes is to add jobs in a congressional district.

For my perspective, fighter pilots were tough guys to be around at the Officers Club. They told wild stories in loud voices:

A military pilot called for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." Air Traffic Control told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down. "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine approach." [Way too much more air traffic controller humor]

They rippled with manly muscles and thought they were God's gift to women. In fairness, the women tended to agree. All I know is they made us submarine nukes nervous.

Looking back, I probably shouldn't have worn my pocket protector...