Friday, September 19, 2014

Fullbore Friday

A service culture, nee an ethos, is not created overnight. You cannot promulgate it via a the PAO, PPT, or NAVADMIN.

A service culture is an organic growth over decades of sustained and exemplary performance and can only prosper when those in that service remember, celebrate and then emulate that culture.

It is easy to talk about the "Navy Marine Corps Team" - but do you know its roots? Do you know its foundation? Do you know the Battle of Blandensburg?

Well, you will now.

In the latest edition of Naval History Magazine, Chip Reid does an outstanding article on it, The Last Stand at Bladensburg. You need to read it all, and it is behind the members only firewall ... but you are all members of USNI, right? If not, shame on you - click here and join then come back.

Let's get right to the center of it;
U.S. Marine Corps Private Charles Dechard stood next Captain Samuel Miller, watching with a mixture of horror and rage as the American army defending Washington, D.C., disintegrated around them. Everywhere, it seemed, frightened soldiers were running as fast as they could from the fields around Bladensburg, Maryland.

The Marines could see the reason for the panic—a line of red-coated soldiers advancing inexorably across the field. Small groups of American defenders clustered around the Marines, taking heart from the grim manner in which the blue-clad leathernecks held their ground. There was nothing else the Marines could do. Miller, Dechard, and the 112 other Marines in Miller’s command knew they were all that stood between the advancing enemy and the nation’s capital.

To the right of the Marines, 400 men from Captain Joshua Barney’s Chesapeake Flotilla also prepared to meet the oncoming enemy. The flotillamen and Marines were well acquainted. They had fought together since June and had far more trust in one another than they did in the army to which they were now attached.
The British infantry approached, hooting and hollering as they marched, poking fun at the militia as they ran from the field. For Lieutenant Gleig of the 85th, the advance was more fox hunt than warfare. “Never did men with arms in their hands, make better use of their legs,” he recalled. “Though we did our best to kill a few of them, I question whether one American lost his life . . . so rapid, or if you please, so judiciously conducted, was their retreat.”

But as the British advanced toward the sailors and Marines, expecting yet another precipitous retreat, they were greeted instead with a hail of lead.

“They fired volley after volley as fast as they could load their pieces, and raise them again to their shoulders,” Gleig wrote. “Five guns, moreover, played upon us without intermission: in a word, I can compare the shower of balls of all sizes and descriptions, which whistled round us, to nothing more aptly, than the pelting of a hail storm, which a strong northeasterly wind drives into your face. The whole ground at our feet was ploughed up with them, and their singing was like that of a tempest through the bare cordage of a vessel at anchor.”

The flotillamen’s and Marines’ artillery was especially well sited. Barney placed his big 18-pounder guns at a slight angle to the road where they could sweep the field in front of his position. Miller set up his three 12-pounders to protect his flank. The Marine and flotilla gunners loaded their cannon with a double shot of grape and canister, two lethal antipersonnel rounds. Grape, or grapeshot, was a canvas bag filled with 1½- or 2-inch lead balls. Canister was a can filled with up to 50 musket balls. Their effect on massed infantry was devastating.

The British advanced to within 50 yards of his line when Barney ordered his guns to fire. The 18-pounders belched fire and smoke, clearing the road. Dead and wounded British soldiers covered the road while the remainder scampered for cover. Colonel Thornton rode up and rallied his men, leading them in a second charge that Barney’s sailors and Miller’s Marines met with another volley of grape, canister, and musket fire. The blast killed Thornton’s horse, an Arabian he had had since his days in the Peninsular War.

The British recoiled and surged forward a third time, and for a third time the Marines leveled their muskets and Barney’s gunners stood by their cannon and let loose another volley. Thornton, sword in hand, fell with a wound in his thigh, his uniform riddled with bullet holes. Lieutenant Colonel William Wood took over the brigade and fell just as quickly with wounds in his side and chest. Major George Bowen next assumed command and attempted to rally the staggered British.

Miller, on a signal from Barney, led 78 Marines and a group of flotillamen in a headlong charge. The Marines attacked with the bayonet while the sailors wielded cutlasses. All the men charged yelling, “Board ’em! Board ’em!”

The charge sent the British into retreat. Flotilllaman Charles Ball observed that “If the militia regiments on our right and left, could have been brought to charge . . . we should have killed or taken the whole of them in a short time.”

The Marines drove the British back to a wooded ravine, then returned to their own position. Several Marines lay dead and several more lay wounded, including Sergeant Thomas Holiday, who was the number two–ranking noncommissioned officer in the Corps. Miller suffered a slight wound but remained with his command.

The charge all but shattered the 85th, but British reinforcements were now streaming in. General Ross led the line companies of the 4th, 21st, and 44th regiments onto the field and rallied the battered light infantry. He rode across in full view of his men and the Americans, exhorting the British. “I thought then and think yet, that General Ross was one of the finest looking men on horseback I have ever seen,” recalled Ball.

The reorganized British force surged forward, where it met the Marines bayonet to bayonet. The three Marine cannon joined the battle, spitting out grape and canister. The combined artillery and musket fire forced the British back once more. Ross, seeing the hopelessness of a frontal attack, ordered his men to strike the flanks. The British easily pushed through the remaining militia, making them “run like sheep from dogs,” said Ball. Captain Sevier turned the Marines’ cannon to the left to counter the British move on that flank, while Barney ordered his sailors to cover the right.
Yep ... you need to read it all.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Diversity Thursday

Quotas! (or fried air)

I don't know what I can really say. It is damning all by itself.
"The force that protects a democracy should reflect the population that it protects much more than we do today," he added.
U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said more women should be serving in the Navy and Marine Corps, and plans to take action to boost their presence in those military branches.

"We don't have enough women in either the Navy or the Marine Corps," Mabus told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit on Wednesday as he kicked off a drive to expand the number of women in the Navy.

Women represent 18 percent of the Navy and 8 percent of the Marine Corps, Mabus said.

"I don't know exactly what the goal ought to be, but I know those are too low," ... "The more diverse input you have into something, the better the organization is," Mabus said.
We have an all volunteer force. You get those who have the interest and entering qualifications to raise their right hand. Does he think there is active discrimination against women and minorities in accessions and promotion? If so, who is being brought up on charges?

I hope he doesn't, because that would mean that he has led that gaggle of bigots for over half a decade - but don't worry, he doesn't. No, he is just trying to sound all aflutter because graphs don't match. He wants them to - but to do so, you have to move numbers. To do what he wants though, you'd have to force it.

If you are going to try to force a number, then you going to wind up looking like a fool or a fiend. If you take 100 17-yr old boys and 100 17-yr old girls and ask them, "Step forward if you want to join the military." You are not going to get the same numbers. That is nature, that is what it is. 

More women than not would like to actually help raise their children or have more than one or two. Except in exceptional circumstances like a close friend of mine whose husband decided to go USNR and be a full time househusband, you can not do that and be a front running, fully deployable Sailor. Oh, and that's OK. Not everyone can or should stay in for 30 years.

The only way to move the needle any significant way is to create sub-optimal, misallocation of resources and discrimination on a broad scale. Is that really what he wants to do?

Anyway, read the whole thing. It is an intellectual and moral house of cards that I don't really need to beat up on it more - there is more fetid business about.

We have another place where leadership refuses to ask and address the very real causes and issues, and instead takes the intellectually lazy road of simply looking at numbers and wanting everything to magically match up.

Life is not that simple;
U.S. Army sociologists are worried that a lack of black officers leading its combat troops will have detrimental effect on minorities and lead to fewer black officers in top leadership posts.

“The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it,” Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis toldUSA Today on Thursday. “The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it’s complicated.”
Just as the NBA and the Olympic curling team do not "look like America" - in an all volunteer force based on personal desire and objective criteria, it should not be a shock that differences exist.

If we are going to focus on the numbers of black Americans serving as the linked article does, then I would prefer that we not imply that the military is doing something wrong. It isn't, as a matter of fact, the military is one of the most inclusive organizations in our nation. The only people who actively promote discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin are those in the diversity and inclusion commissariat who rely on sectarianism for a paycheck.

There are huge societal and cultural reasons why, especially among officers, the numbers don't match up. If you are going to have a true meritocracy in place in the military, then you are going to have trouble having the numbers of blacks represented at senior levels in line with their general population numbers. 

Let's look at underlying causes; headwinds if you will, to a natural, balanced percentage breakout per race and ethnicity - and let's stick to cold, hard, neutral facts. 

First let's look at this graphic from The Economist - not exactly a St0rmfr0nt publication.
In 2012 America reported 14,827 cases of murder and manslaughter, ... That is 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people: the lowest rate in over 50 years but far higher than in other rich countries. Canada sees 1.6 murders per 100,000; western European countries, just one.

Three-quarters of all victims and nearly 90% of perpetrators are male. Black Americans are only 13% of the population, but over 50% of murder victims. Among black men between 20 and 24, the murder rate is over 100 per 100,000 (see chart). If this group were a country, it would be more violent than Honduras, the world’s most violent nation.
That is just one indicator of a sub-culture out of alignment with the rest of the nation with regard to crime. Check the FBI stats - the numbers are even more stark. Young men involved in crime are not those being brought in to the military in number - nor should they. This is just a small headwind.

The fact that the overwhelming percentage of crimes are made by men, and the military is also overwhelming male - this disparity of crime rates among races will manifest themselves even more when you are looking at groups of people eligible to serve. The headwind gets a bit stronger now.

What about basic academic ability based on objective testing? If you like statistics, you can dig through this work on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery from '92, but I find this from The Brookings Institute more useful for a broad view of the challenge:
AFRICAN AMERICANS currently score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. This gap appears before children enter kindergarten (figure 1-1), and it persists into adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests. On some tests the typical American black scores below more than 85 percent of whites?

The black-white test score gap does not appear to be an inevitable fact of nature. It is true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white children attend the same schools. It is also true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white families have the same amount of schooling, the same income, and the same wealth. But despite endless speculation, no one has found genetic evidence indicating that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites. Thus while it is clear that eliminating the test score gap would require enormous effort by both blacks and whites and would probably take more than one generation, we believe it can be done.

This conviction rests mainly on three facts:

--When black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than black homes, their preadolescent test scores rise dramatically. Black adoptees' scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this is what we would expect if, as seems likely, their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black adolescents and becomes less like that of the average white adolescent.

--Even nonverbal IQ scores are sensitive to environmental change. Scores on nonverbal IQ tests have risen dramatically throughout the world since the 1930s. The average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932. Such findings reinforce the implications of adoption studies: large environmental changes can have a large impact on test performance.

--Black-white differences in academic achievement have also narrowed throughout the twentieth century. The best trend data come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which has been testing seventeen-year-olds since 1971 and has repeated many of the same items year after year. Figure 1-2 shows that the black-white reading gap narrowed from 1.25 standard deviations in 1971 to 0.69 standard deviations in 1996. The math gap fell from 1.33 to 0.89 standard deviations. When Min-Hsiung Huang and Robert Hauser analyzed vocabulary scores for adults born between 1909 and 1969, the black-white gap also narrowed by half.
Very strong headwind. We prefer to enlist high school graduates. What about high school graduation rates?
In school year 2011–12, some 3.1 million public high school students, or 81 percent, graduated on time with a regular diploma. Among all public high school students, Asians/Pacific Islanders had the highest graduation rate (93 percent), followed by Whites (85 percent), Hispanics (76 percent), and American Indians/Alaska Natives and Blacks (68 percent each).
Commissioned officers need a college degree. What about college?
About 58 percent of whites and 69 percent of Asians who entered four-year colleges in 1996 had a bachelor’s degree six years later, compared to 39 percent of blacks and 46 percent of Hispanics,
This is well beyond the charter of the military to fix. We are on the receiving end of what society produces, and we cannot in good faith force the numbers to match. The only way to do that is through the unfair, dishonest, and dishonorable short cut of actively discriminating against people on the basis of race, creed, color and national origin. That is not only a disservice to those who are discriminated against, but automatically puts a cloud over those from racial and ethnic groups who would have qualified on their own merit regardless of preferences, but are put in a group that are given what is taken from others.

That is, after all, what Mabus the the Army as asking for - to put the thumb of favor towards preferred groups - taking away from the objectively more qualified and giving to the objectively unqualified only for one reason - to make the Cultural Marxists of the diversity and inclusion industry happy and employed. Just as Jim Crow laws kept the foam flecked bigots happy in the old Mississippi that both Mabus and I both know better than we like to discuss in polite company. He knows the pool he is playing in - our families come from the same background and history.

Emotions can get the best of people in this discussion - and that is a large reason why, as stated by Attorney General Eric Holder, we are cowards about race. The science can be uncomfortable ... but is fairly clear.

Does it apply to all individuals? Of course not - but we are talking about groups, and not all groups are the same - not today. Combine cultural, educational, and objective academic capability differences - and you have one heck of a headwind to fight, if you choose to fight it.

By not addressing the root cause of the difference in some numbers, is there an implied insult to everyone who is wearing the uniform? An implication that the numbers are what they are in 2014 because we are a racist institution against, in this case it seems, blacks and certain other race and ethnic groups? I really hope that isn't it, and I don't think it is. I just think that the diversity and inclusion commissariat have them by the short hairs and they don't have the strength to fight the good fight.

What is best is to accept the reality of what comes our way and evaluate everyone as individuals; individuals that if they choose to serve will each come to us with distinct knowledge, skills and attributes that they have to bring to the fight? Their race? Who cares? They, and we, can't do anything about that - nor should we.

We have come so far as a nation to try to weld such primitive, destructive, and retrograde answers to complicated questions. If you desire social justice, than you need to look to the family, to the schools, to the culture to chase that chimera - the military solved its problems decades ago. 

You can remove NROTC from every majority Asian and white college in the nation and set aside a larger percentage of NROTC scholarships to historically black colleges and universities until the crack of doom - but you will not change facts. No, you will only become what you like to tell people what you abhor - a race focused, practicing and proud bigot.

That is something we have no need for on our watch, on our ship, or on in our Navy.

Hat tip S.

UPDATE: DivThu seems to be in the air. Interesting posts at GreenieBoard and Instapundit. Also check out the guest poster at Thomas E. Ricks's blog over at FP.

Stavridis tacks right ...

Hmmm ....
"Without question we will see our young men and women engaged in combat. I don't think they'll be given a primary, direct, combat assignment initially, but I think it's entirely possible that as events change and morph, the situation may ultimately require that," said former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Adm. James Stavridis.

"If we're going to be honest, we ought to start by saying we'll send in troops and they're going to advise, train, ,mentor, and they'll stiffen the Iraqi security forces and they'll stiffen the Peshmerga in the north, and we'll do the bombing in the west and initially no combat mission," he said.
You you can watch the full interview here.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Europe has a larger Islamic problem than it thinks

The below has been making its way around this week, and I wanted to give a little context to it.

Some have stated that these are low-ball numbers. Perhaps - but we have what we have, let's run with it. Ponder and note that the USA number is 100? Not that bad for a nation of 313.9 million souls. What about the other, smaller nations with larger numbers?

They have a problem.

To truly understand the blowback that is coming to Western Europe, I've converted these numbers in to American relative terms, i.e. as a percentage of the population, what would that look like if America had the same numbers?

Ireland: 2,049
Britain: 2,449
Belgium: 8,408
Germany: 1,557
France: 3,328
The Netherlands: 2,803
Spain: 1,151
Denmark: 5,591
Norway: 3,087
Sweden: 3,272
Finland: 1,731

I think we can deal with our 100. Over 5,000? That would be a different challenge.

The wages of mass Muslim immigration dropped in to a non-assimilation, multi-cultural context. There you go.

Multi-culturalism is national suicide. Assimilation is the only way to success.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Searching for the military Laffer Curve

I love think pieces, the ones you read that make you stop, read again, and then parse.

Find the chaff, define the wheat, and then shuffle again - breaking in to bits.

Fresh off his civilian clothes shopping spree now that the uniform is in the back of the closet, our friend Jerry Hendrix, CAPT USN (Ret.) is stretching out his PhD on his new desk at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) in a bit at The National Interest that is well worth you stopping by to read in full; A Conservative Defense Policy for 2014: Look to Eisenhower.

In my first run at Jerry's bit, I was a bit drawn off what I think are some unnecessary distractions. I think they are there because this probably should have been broken in to a few articles. Valid topics worthy of discussion, but perhaps best in a separate article. 

The first distraction was the opening partisanship vibe it gave off - right away it puts up walls to half your readers if they imply what follows is another (R)-bad (D)-not bad bit;
Recent discussions amongst Republicans regarding U.S. Defense force structure have revealed an ongoing disagreement between two camps within the party. Military Hawks, citing the recent disturbances in Ukraine and Iraq, have begun to beat the drum for more resources to be allocated for the Department of Defense to address threats that never really subsided. Fiscal Hawks, focused on budget deficits that stretch as far as the eye can see, continue to argue for DoD to continue to be part of a basket of cuts in entitlements and discretionary programs.
That is a good argument to have, but why limit a two-sided debate to one party? No reason to make this seem partisan to some readers, you have to draw in the inside argument for the other party - there is one if you look for it. In any event, Republicans only have one-half of Congress - they aren't even a majority decision maker. The Democrats hold most of the power levers, especially holding the Commander in Chief billet, that are the key in making any significant decisions in defense.

Maybe it is just me and my ongoing theme of the need to find and nurture a bi-partisan defense consensus. There is one, but we keep missing opportunities to feed it - I'm a little sensitive to the topic. 

Sure, there are extremes on defense in both parties that will never learn good sandbox skills for the benefit of all - but there is a large group from both sides of the aisle whose interests well overlap and are the key to finding the right answer to a very real challenge.

In his article, Jerry only brings up the Democrats directly in this context;
The Democrats need to come to the table to address the looming crises in Social Security and healthcare.
Yes, they do - but so do Republicans. By not at least addressing the internal debate in both parties on defense and entitlement spending, an opportunity is missed by putting Republican interest in defense and Democrat interest in domestic issues - the actual situation is much more nuanced. Lost opportunity and a distraction, but let's move on.

I would offer that this one aspect of the article should be set to the side whether you enjoy it or not, because Jerry is bringing up some reference points that are spot on and should be the part of all efforts to find the right solution;
It has not been so long since the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pronounced that our debt posed a grave threat to our national security at home and around the world.
we should not give way to election-year desires to spend more, ignoring the long-term implications of our debt.
In the end, a major inflationary pressure remains our addiction to exquisite platforms.
There he hits it. Regulars here and at Midrats know this is a topic that is absolutely critical. "Exquisite," "Tiffany," "Perfect vs. Good," "Transformational!," - the Biblical plagues we have suffered over the last couple of decades. Regardless of how we got here or who is at fault, it needs to be fixed now.

This is where my review of Jerry's article turns. He sets out an argument that is incomplete but central, and a valid starting point;
... the United States needs to maintain a military strong enough to deter the rise of competitors and preserve its ability to respond to crises around the world, the question that remains is: how large and how capable does our military have to be to accomplish these twin goals?
I don't think a strong military will deter the rise of competitors, just as Rome did not deter the Germanic tribes or the British Empire deterred Imperial Germany - but a military does need to be strong enough to decisively meet any challenge at war while being effective and affordable in peace, or at least a warm peace. (NB the word "strong" does not necessarily mean "big" - more on that in a bit).
Objective analysis suggests that a path exists that would allow cuts to the DoD budget and marginal growth in the force. Such a path is predicated on recognizing that our national fascination with high-tech weapons systems has led to a defense culture where the exquisite has become the enemy of the “good enough.”
There it is. That is the core; that is the question - that is the sexy bit.

Is that a path, or a destination - or both? How do you visualize the quandary that less can give you more, and that to meet a nation's national security requirements - more might actually be less?

Is it as simple as quality vs quantity? Platforms vs. payloads? Size vs nimbleness? Yes and no.

How do we boil that down? For me, I go back to my other calling; economics.

Economics is the perfect meeting place between the hard and soft sciences - the STEM and the philosopher. Yes, self-serving observation, but it is my blog, so roll with me a bit.

I will make an assumption - you all know what the Laffer Curve it. If not, read up and come back.

If you are looking for my takeaway visual for most of what Jerry is looking for and trying to explain - here you go. Let's call it the Salamander Curve. Ahem ... OK, the Salamander-Hendrix Curve ... ehhhh, alright then; Hendrix-Salamander Curve, whatever ...

Executive Summary: for every national security military requirement (X), there is a place where the maximum benefit is gained between cost, complexity, and utility. The challenge is to find that maximum benefit. On either side of that point, you are operating at a suboptimal level; either you are spending too much on too much complexity and producing a diminishing level of capability to the nation, or you are spending too little on obsolete or sub-optimal platforms to achieve what is required. Depending on where you are, you can spend more on more complex systems and personnel and gain additional national security benefit, or you can spend more and get less.

Jerry put it, perhaps, a bit more eloquently.
It is unwise to accept the false premise that we can only arrive at a larger force by spending more on the same types of platforms that we are already building. A conservative approach to the future must find the right balance between high-priced silver bullets that can only be purchased in small numbers and low technology assets that can be purchased in large quantities at low costs. ... The turning point on defense will occur when we recognize that spending less money does not have to equate to a smaller force. Wise leaders have a credible alternative in defense-force structure and should pursue it.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Lt. Gen H.R. McMaster, USA Lays Down a Marker

I am sure everyone on the front porch is familiar with McMaster, so there is no need to review the source.

Before I put out the pull quotes to encourage you to read it all, you need to fully ponder where this was published:

What does that mean? Everything and nothing perhaps, but one thing it tells you is that McMaster is not being ignored. The Army wants you to read what he has to say.

I have my theories about what McMaster is doing here - I'll let you figure it out for your own. 
Americans and their leaders all too often wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to assessing future warfare,
Too often, people think battles can be won through engineering and technological advances: cyber, advanced weapons systems, robotics and so on, ...
The truth is that while overmatch is important, people win wars,
Another myth about future conflicts, he said, is that America can choose whether or not to "RSVP." The U.S. can simply "opt out by saying 'thanks for your kind invitation, but we cannot attend your war.'"

The opt-out was used before Pearl Harbor, as well as before 9/11. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you," McMaster said, citing Leon Trotsky.
As a side note - I have always loved that Trotsky quote. It should be carved in to every politician's office wall.
A final myth is that the U.S. can just advise and assist other armies and let them do the fighting. The problem with that myth, he said, is the other army might have a different agenda that's incongruent with U.S. interests. Besides that, the other military and government might be corrupt and not inspire loyalty from its people and soldiers. Furthermore, the military capabilities may be lacking.

All of these myths are attractive, but they are no substitute for boots on the ground, ...
The cynic might say he is just trying to justify protecting the Army in budgetary battles - but that is insulting to McMaster and small minded. His comments are firmly rooted in the historical record. There is something more substantial going on with his comments - and the below is as subtle as McMaster's dome.
The "zero dark-thirty" myth is another, he said. This idea uses systems theory to explain warfare as a series of linked nodes. The idea is to selectively take out nodes that are critical to the enemy's network.

In systems theory, the U.S. would simply conduct air strikes or a special operations raid of limited duration to disrupt the network, he said. The systems theory goes back to the Spanish-American War in 1898, when sea power was supposed to win the war, but it took boots on the ground, he said.

In 1940, there was an article in "Look" magazine touting the role of long-range bombers like the B-29s, which could win World War II, should America get into the fight, he said. Same thing happened in the early years of Vietnam, but the North couldn't be bombed into submission.
While the air, space, maritime and cyber domains are important, warfare is essentially a "contest of wills," ...
Hat tip SWJ.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Carrier as Capital Ship, with RADM Thomas Moore, USN, PEO CVN - on Midrats

In a time of budgetary pressure, a shrinking fleet, and an ongoing discussion of their relevance, how are we keeping out legacy Aircraft Carrier's in shape for the regular demands for extended deployments while at the same time bringing the new FORD Class CVN online?

What are some of the lessons we have learned in our decades of operating nuclear powered aircraft carriers that we are bring forward to serve the Fleet in the coming decades so we always have an answer to the question, "Where are the aircraft carriers?"

To discuss this and more, our guest for the full hour this Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern will be Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore, USN, Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers and is responsible for life cycle management for In-Service Carriers as well as the design and construction of the Future Class Carriers.

Join us live if you can with the usual suspects in the chat room and offer up your questions for our guest, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio

If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here.

Listen to internet radio with Midrats on Blog Talk Radio