POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

22Oct/094

LCS trials are speeding along…

LCS 2 underway during builders trials in the Gulf of Mexico

LCS 2 underway during builders trials in the Gulf of Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

 

In recent sea trials prototypes of the Navy’s newest surface vessel concept, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), have performed very well, one variant maintaining speeds in excess of 40 knots for more than 4 hours.  I don’t think that a majority of the available ski-boats could match that.

 

 

 

Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

Independence is an aluminum, tri-hulled warship built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. The lead contractor is Maine's Bath Iron Works, a subsidiary of General Dynamics.  Lockheed Martin Corp. is leading the team that built Freedom in Marinette, Wis. It looks more like a conventional warship, with a single hull made of steel.

Both ships are built to accommodate helicopters and mission "modules" for either anti-submarine missions, mine removal or traditional surface warfare. The modules are designed to be swapped out within 24 hours, allowing the ships to adapt quickly to new missions.

 

I’d like to first state that while there are faster surface ships in the Navy, to say that something that large moving at 45 knots is impressive is an understatement.  And I’m sure that both entrant’s prototypes have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  From an engineering perspective, I am intrigued by the tri-hull of the Austal entrant.  But, I am definitely skeptical of the aluminum construction.  Aluminum has a much lower melting point than steel, and in the 1980’s Falkland’s war some British warships were irrevocably damaged due to the aluminum degrading, and in some cases actually burning, as a result of on board fires following Exocet missile hits.  Still, there are those that know better of this than I, and I must trust them to take whatever decision is in the best interests of our sailors and our nation.  And while I’d prefer that LMC not receive yet another DOD contract, that decision too is above my pay grade.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Moe Lane for the hat tip at his site.

(H/T "Hap Smithers" in the comments)

Share
Tagged as: , , , 4 Comments
22Oct/090

I Obama…

Check out this funny take off of "Star Trek" at IMAO, starring Kirk, Spock, and...Obama! As far as ridicule goes, t's not exactly as catchy as Chimpy McBusHitlerBurton; but it's a great start...

Also residing in the "funny" column is Moe Lane's musing over the results of a USA Today/Gallup poll, and whether it means that 60% of Americans are actually un-American.  I don't know about un-American, but I'm sure that there are those who would characterize them as RAAAAAAACISTS!

Share
22Oct/092

More Mmm Mmm Mmm Expected

My baloney has a first name, it's B-R-A-C-K!
My baloney has a second name it's O-B-A-M-A!
I love to eat it, don't know why,
And if you ask me why I'll sigh:
Cuz B'rack Obama has a way with B-A-L-O-N-E-Y!

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Share
22Oct/090

Want to see a great takedown of Alan Grayson?

Then check out the pimp slapping his latest rant gets over at the hostages.

More, via Dan: William Jacobson also has some pretty good smack over the guy's health care stats.

Share
22Oct/095

First they came…for executive compensation.

The Obama administration has announced that the U.S. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, will be ordering compensation cuts for the largest recipients of TARP funds.  Details of the plan will be released in the next few days by Treasury, but some of the details have entered the zeitgeist.  There will be seven firms effected by this measure: Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.  And on average the compensation packages will be cut by 50%, although in some cases the cuts will be much deeper.  Funny, but I don’t see Goldman Sachs on that list.
 

According to sources, the salaries of the top 25 highest paid executives of the firms named will be cut an average of 90%, but factoring in bonuses, benefits, and retirement contributions brings that number closer to the overall figure cited.  According to one executive who chose to remain anonymous, the compensation restrictions were much worse than anticipated.  Still, the executives will still take home salaries that are large by the measure of most Americans.  And while the largest package, which will go to a Bank of America employee and come to a little over 9 million dollars, overall the pay czar’s ruling is sure to provide fodder to the administrations critics; not only for the restrictions themselves, but for the disproportionate way they are being applied.

The Obama administration gave Mr. Feinberg the job of more closely tying compensation to long-term performance, something the White House believes will help prevent employees from taking unnecessary risks for short-term gains. The administration believes skewed compensation incentives were one cause of the financial crisis.

Some of the toughest pay restrictions will come at the financial-products unit of American International Group Inc., which has been blamed for the firm's near-collapse. No employee within that unit will receive compensation of more than $200,000, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Feinberg will also demand a series of corporate governance changes at the firms, including splitting the chairman and CEO positions, requiring boards of directors to create "risk" committees and eliminate staggered board elections, which critics charge inhibit change.

Companies under the pay czar's purview gave sharply differing reactions to the latest news. At Bank of America, executives worried about how the changes will be received by the global banking and markets group, run by Thomas Montag and home to a number of highly paid investment bankers, executives say.

I expect that there will be mixed reactions to this policy.  While some may applaud, and readily accede to these invasive policies, owing to the back-stopping of the effected businesses with public funds, the move in itself is unprecedented.  Even more disturbing is the fact that these are being applied unevenly to the different companies and divisions within those companies, based on how the administration feels the blame for the financial crisis should be assessed.  It’s very much like what many on the left are often decrying about the justice system, that unequal treatment under the law based on status or identity is the norm; that we are, in fact, a nation of men and not laws-instead of the opposite, as was intended by the authors of the Constitution.

Plus, these government dictated compensation restrictions may have the adverse and unintended consequence of encouraging the experienced executives that are currently employed at these firms to leave, as well as discourage other talented individuals from joining these companies.  This could have a disastrous domino effect, not only hurting the firm in question, but also ultimately increasing unemployment, and perhaps even jeopardizing the government’s ability to ever recoup the funds that they were lent; as well as the fact that the shares the government has taken as collateral may greatly decline in value. And while I’m personally on record as wishing that the bailed-out firms would have exercised more constraint and discretion when awarding salaries and bonuses while owing the government money, this selective application of penalty increasingly seems politicized to me.

The government control of business executive compensation is part of the class warfare agenda that the left has been advocating for some time.  Indeed, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) intends to press for legislation that would give the government control over salaries and governing executive practices of all publicly traded companies.  But these controls wouldn’t necessarily have stopped the fall 2008 market collapse, and when coupled with the fact that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate on Earth would most certainly result in corporations choosing other countries to do business in instead of America; yet another factor that may result in even greater unemployment.
 

I believe that, just as with the Fox news vendetta, the dithering on Afghanistan, and the recent reiteration of the Presidents promise to repeal, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, this is another political bone being thrown to his far-left base to keep them energized and engaged for the struggles ahead.  Obamacare is facing increasing opposition by the public in spite of the full court press by the White House.  And cap-n-trade, the next issue to come into the public square will be a hard sell indeed; especially when the public is experiencing the coldest winter in 10 years.  During the campaign the President would have called this a “distraction”, but it’s really like a group of huddled up football players “pumping up” before a game.  He needs the fighting nutroots completely on board for the political battles to come lest his agenda, and administration, crash on the rocks of his diminishing approval ratings.
 

This is a disturbing detour born of classic Marxist style class envy that could lead to a slippery slope of wage regulation and de-facto fascism; but, you know, the trains will probably run on time.  In fact, the real danger is that we may be witnessing the first lines being written of the American version of the famous poem, “First they came…”

“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Share
21Oct/096

Hudson on the Moskva?

Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book, “Too Big to Fail”, was released yesterday, and among the many episodes it recounts is a surprising meeting between then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and the directors of Goldman Sachs.  This meeting took place “off the record” at the end of June 2008 when both Paulson and GS directors were in Moscow at the same time.

When Paulson learned that Goldman’s board would be in Moscow at the same time as him, he had [Treasury chief of staff] Jim Wilkinson organize a meeting with them. Nothing formal, purely social — for old times’ sake.
[snip]
For the nearly two years that Paulson had been Treasury secretary he had not met privately with the board of any company, except for briefly dropping by a cocktail party that Larry Fink’s BlackRock was holding for its directors at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi in June.
[snip]
For the next hour, Paulson regaled his old friends with stories about his time in Treasury and his prognostications about the economy. They questioned him about the possibility of another bank blowing up, like Lehman, and he talked about the need for the government to have the power to wind down troubled firms, offering a preview of his upcoming speech.

All this went on just a little more than two months before the collapse of Lehman and the market meltdown that possibly contributed positively to Mr. Obama’s election.  And after assiduously avoiding any apparent improper contact for two years, what in the world was Mr. Paulson thinking when he not only took this meeting, but did so “off the record”.  It really begs the question of what precisely was discussed at the get together, although at this point that would probably be difficult to nail down; unless one of the directors had a CYA tape recorder on his person or anyone who successfully conducted any eavesdropping of the event came forward with a recording.  Also, one wonders, did any similar "unofficial" meetings take place during Paulson’s time at Treasury?

To be clear, I’m not accusing Paulson of any intentional wrongdoing, and I believe him to be an honorable man.  But that said, this meeting at best gives an impression of recklessness at a sensitive time.  And at worst?  Well at worst it could be a terrible example of “insider info” upon which profits were gleaned at the expense of an unwitting public.  This is something that federal investigators should probably look into, discreetly of course, lest Paulson's honor be unfairly sacrificed on the altar of public opinion.

Tangentially related, being an act originally formulated by Secretary Paulson, and done at  the expense of a largely unwitting public, TARP IG Neil Barofsky characterized the probability that all of the public finds would be repaid as “extremely unlikely”.

His 256-page report, out Wednesday, said TARP played a significant role in bringing the financial system back from the "brink of collapse" but questioned its effectiveness in increasing lending to small businesses or reducing the risk of foreclosures. Initially designed by the Treasury to buy toxic assets that threatened the financial system, TARP funds ended up invested in 685 banks, bailing out auto companies and funding a program on home mortgage modifications.
[snip]
The report criticized Treasury's implementation of the program and its lack of transparency, making 41 recommendations, 18 of which were implemented. Barofsky says it's "extremely unlikely" that taxpayers will recover the $77 billion committed to the ailing auto industry or the $60 billion in TARP assistance to American International Group as part of a pledge of up to $180 billion in aid. An additional $50 billion to modify unaffordable home mortgages "will yield no direct return."

Recall that TARP was the program implemented hurriedly at the behest of Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke.  It has been implemented poorly, treated as a slush fund, and is due to expire at the end of the year.  One of the IG’s chief complaint is the program’s transparency; a theme that seems to be reoccurring in the most ethical and transparent administration and Congress-EVAH!  I’m of a shared mind with Representative Lipinski (D-Ill) who believes that the program should not be extended through next year but be allowed to lapse in December.

And I'll remind all who wonder why I’m criticizing Paulson, and siding with Lipinski, that patriots who consider issues with classical disinterest will always choose their nation and what’s best for her, over partisan politics or ideology.

Share
21Oct/0910

The Kinston Decision

Small city in NC, Kinston, which hasn't elected a non-Democrat within living memory, attempts to do away with party affiliations on ballots for a couple of local offices. Ballot initiative passes 2:1. Justice Department decides that would be . . . raaaaacist!

In short, it says that blacks need to have a (D) choice if they're to make an informed decision. Because the (D) is the only trademark that makes it clear that blacks are being served. We spoke with Abigail Thernstrom on The B-Cast about this, yesterday. I spoke to Alejandro Miyar, mentioned in the above-linked article, a spokesperson for the DoJ, who said at that time, contrary to what he told CNS, that he'd be willing to answer questions in writing but that it was Department policy not to respond verbally to questions on Section 5.

One of the things that the memo implies is that white crossover voting is a good thing, but black crossover voting is to be discouraged. As Abigail says, "It's demeaning, it's patronizing, it's . . . liberal racism."

Here, on the other hand, is something that the DoJ aren't going to address: "multiple line voting." This example is conspicuous by the presence of fraud, but the idea is that a candidate may, for example, appear as the candidate for a particular office as a Democrat and also, on a separate line, as a Working Families Party candidate, and will receive more votes that way. Nothing wrong with that, right, Baracky?

So, in short, no party affiliation is bad; multiple party affiliation is good. Huh.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Share
21Oct/0914

Oh, What a Tangled Web We Vent . . .

when first we practice to augment.

K2 beauty pageant group threatens to repossess Carrie Prejean's boobs.

Personally, I don't have the same kind of objections to augmented boobs that Stacy does, though I prefer the concept of natural breasts from a theoretical point of view, as I am an old married guy.  And as usual, The Hustler is hustling.  Still, I think that given his well-publicized feelings on the issue, it would be appropriate for Stacy to set his preferences aside and to host a boobage defense fund on behalf of Carrie Prejean.  It would demonstrate a certain largeness of heart, as well as boost traffic (not that it's sagging).

And since most of what we've posted lately has been rather serious and ugly, I thought I'd just provide a picture of one of the most beautiful women in the world, Jennifer Connelly.

jennifer-connelly_2

Something Monalisaesque about that smile, and the crow's feet, even, are lovely.

And while we're on the subject of beautiful women---one of my favorite subjects---please check out Carol's announcement regarding the 9/12 Mom's Network.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Share
20Oct/0910

A picture is worth a thousand words, or at least 34…

The Obamunist

The Obamunist

 

Somewhere Frank Marshall Davis is certainly applauding his seemingly successful indoctrination; while our nation is poised on the edge the statist abyss.  Let's hope we never reach the tipping point...

(H/T twitpics)

Share
20Oct/091

Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC; Soros is no lefty!

At least, that was one of the official talking points of the day.  Sure, Andrea, he's no left-winger.  He just funds groups like MoveON. org-of "General Betray-us" infamy, Center for American Progress, and the Orwellianly named, "People for the American way".  Yeah, he's no lefty, and you're a female Edward R. Murrow.  But it is refreshing to find out that MSNBC isn't Obama's personal network.  No, it's obviously Soros', and Obama was simply one of his "front burner" pet projects...

As a bonus, you get film of the music man Orin Hatch promising to kick Moveon.org in the teeth!

(H/T Weasel Zippers)

Share

Switch to our mobile site