Author: R J Adams

Yesterday afternoon, an unknown number of RAF Tornado jet fighter/bombers left RAF Marham in the south-east of England, and flew to Libya on a specific mission. That mission was aborted because, when the planes arrived over the target, civilians were spotted in the area.

It’s admirable that the mission was aborted and no civilians were killed, but an early morning BBC report stated that the planes had to refuel in the air three times due to the distance traveled.

Assuming these aircraft were equipped with additional, long range, fuel tanks the fuel payload would probably have been about 2,300 US gallons on each aeroplane. It’s probably safe to assume there were at least three aircraft involved, making a total of 6,900 gallons of aviation spirit.

Multiplied by four (the number of times the aircraft refueled, plus the original full tanks) produces a figure of 27,600 gallons of fuel for one aborted mission.

Had the mission not been aborted and the aircraft released their Sidewinder missiles (just one of the weapons systems on board the Tornado) each missile launched would have cost $84,000 (52,500 British pounds).

Sidewinder missiles are relatively cheap. The US Tomahawks cost half a million dollars apiece.

Let’s assume our Tornadoes fueled up at the local BP station before heading off on their jaunt to Libya. At US prices (around $4 a gallon) the bill for each aircraft would have been in the region of $9,200. Multiplied by three aircraft, refueled three times, the figure comes to a staggering $110,400.

And that’s a conservative figure. Don’t forget, the tanker aircraft had to call three times, and we all know fuel becomes a lot more expensive if the tow truck has to bring it out to you.

Then, of course, there’s the aircrew’s pay (time and a half after five o’clock), butties and Mars bars for the trip, wear and tear on the aircraft, etc.

They could have gone a lot cheaper by British Airways, and they wouldn’t have had to pee in a bottle.

Filed under: Jolly poor show, chaps

The ‘madness of America’ is well-interpreted by much of the rest of the world. ‘Only in America’, is a slogan commonly used throughout Europe. The likes of Glenn Beck or Limbaugh would never be tolerated in the UK, France, or Germany – not because of any restrictive political regime, but simply that European folks demand higher standards from their media.

The latest ‘madness of America’ took place recently in the state of Utah. One would expect a state founded by a sect with the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, to be aiming towards unity and peace. After all, that was what Jesus Christ taught, according to the Bible.

Utah is certainly taking aim, though hardly in the cause of unity and peace. It has recently added a new state symbol to its already lengthy list, comprising: a state bird (seagull), a state fossil (allosaurus), a state fruit (cherry), and a state gem (topaz), among others.

They’re all relatively harmless little items, suitable for occupying the limited brains of politicians on a hot Utah afternoon, while wiling away the time in committee conjuring yet another innocuous article to add to the long list of ‘official’ state symbols. After all, they need to justify their high salaries, and kill time till the first club brandy of the evening.^[1]

Now, however, it would appear one brandy too many has pickled the brains of Utah’s political community. Someone has come up with a new state symbol.

After the prerequisite debate, the committee took a vote and approved THIS as Utah’s latest addition to its list of state symbols:

Yes, it’s a gun. The Browning M1911 has just become the official state gun of Utah.

Congratulations, Utah. Jesus Christ would surely have approved.

^{[1] “Utah designates Browning M1911 official state firearm” BBC, March 18th 2011}

Filed under: Only in America

Here we go again. Once more the Western world is interfering militarily in the Middle East, as the UK, France, and the US, fire dozens of missiles into Libya.

It’s a conundrum: on the one hand, criticism for allowing a brutal dictator to wreak revenge on his own people for daring to stand up to him, and on the other, the potential repercussions of another war with the Arabs.

There was a simple solution. The UN mandate authorizing this latest action was fully supported by the Arab League. Why then, once the vote was agreed, did the West not turn round to Saudi Arabia and say, “Okay, then, you’ve got your mandate. Off you go.”

The Saudis have an abundance of fighter aircraft and other military hardware; they’ve been buying them from the UK and US for years. Abdullah has no hesitation about sending Saudi jet fighters and tanks into Yemen, at the request of that country’s president, to carry out attacks on rebelling Yemeni nationals.^[1] Attacks similar to those Gaddafi is presently inflicting on the Libyan people.

Why then is the West so willing to do the Arabs’ dirty work for them?

The clue, perhaps, lies in the trigger for this military offensive against Libya. The prime mover was Sarkozy of France, closely followed by the UK’s Cameron. The US lagged behind until it became obvious that the UN was relatively united.

Sarkozy is exceedingly unpopular in his own country. Polls show his ratings with the French public to be dismal. Cameron is struggling to maintain credibility in Britain, as his austerity measures bite against the working people.

As Margaret Thatcher taught politicians, when the going gets tough the best popularity medicine is a good old war, so long as its far enough from home not to inconvenience the populace. In her case, it was with Argentina over the Falklands.

Involving the US in another Middle-Eastern war is far more likely to cause Obama political grief, hence his distancing himself from the action, even to the point of not being in the country when the first shots are fired.

As always, the excuse is humanitarian, but the true reason we’re doing the Arabs’ dirty washing for them is entirely political.

And then, of course, there’s the oil.

^{[1] “Saudi Arabia Bombs Yemen Rebels” Huffington Post, November 5th 2009}

Filed under: Same old, same old