Trump drops Twitter bomb on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” Trump tweeted Thursday.

There is no comparable F-18 Super Hornet to price-out. The F-35 has shown an ability to shoot down non-planer aircraft (non-airplane aircraft), which, I think, makes it a generation or two ahead of the F-18 Super Hornet. The F-35 is built to be a 5th generation fighter and the F-18 was built to be a 3rd generation fighter.

What gives the F-35 its designation as a 5th generation fighter (if developed–a big if), the F-35 doesn’t rely on a plane of air to maneuver on.

The F-35 maneuvers in  directions other than parallel to the plane it is on and without having to change the direction of that plane in flight. Most other aircraft and all airplanes are dependent on one plane of air and maneuvers by bending that plane.

In other words, the F-35’s maneuvering is not dependent on a linear plane. The F-35 flight can be considered, in that context, to be nonlinear. It is a 5th generation fighter jet. If Trump’s administration is figuring to prepare to fight a tactical (1st generation) nuclear war as stated, then probably the F-18 Super Hornet is the machine to go for. If his administration is planning to participate in the 4th generation war we have, then they should really think about getting serious about developing the F-35.

Part of this ability of nonlinear flight of the F-35 is in its structural design. The F-35 has an interior center of mass that gives it symmetry similar to that of a flying saucer. Coupled with an engine that is virtually able to move in all directions enables the aircraft and all targeting systems to revolve around the center of mass. In that sense, the F-35 should be able to target an aircraft behind, or any other direction, as easily as it is able to locked on and destroy the aircraft in front. This seems to me, if developed, to be some kind of an advantage and what, at least in part, gives the F-35 its status as a 5th generation fighter.

The other ability of the 5th generation F-35 fighter (and there may be more) that makes it a non-nonlinear fighter depends on it hooking into the virtual world of the world wide web and connecting that world to its real world in realtime, in all directions, in all environments, and all at once.

And while the F-35 has not proven itself in simulated dog fights with fighters of lesser generation, other fighters, as far as I know, haven’t proven themselves able to fight a battle waged in 5th generation  war. I think the F-35 has, at least in a small way. It was used to successfully shoot down missiles in flight.

That is the war the F-35 is created for and the war we are fighting right now today. So to me it comes down to being able to fight the war we have, or fighting the war the Trump administration apparently wants.

President-elect Donald Trump elevated his criticism of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter today, saying he’s asked Boeing to explore pricing for an alternative to the costly fighter jet.

Now “alternative” is another narrative. In warfare or in the context of a political solution, i.e. one State/ Two State solution?

 

Source: Trump drops Twitter bomb on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet – POLITICO

The first rule of Boyd: Observation.

“This is unprecedented,” said Brad Crone, a longtime Democratic consultant and North Carolina history buff. “This is new waters that we’re sailing into.”

Author’s note: I apologize for using the image of the German leader. It turns out, according to my DNA my structure is 36% Western Europe, 26% Celtic speaker, and 19% Scandinavian and I wanted you to pay attention.

Well said Brad Crone. Just like the waters Jesus walked on, new waters means it is time to bring out the Evangelicals.

Just because you are the Architect, Builder, or Carpenter, as I am trying to be, doesn’t mean you don’t need the people who will get the word out–to tell the world what your project is all about. It’s called transparency.

Like all knowledge and subsets of knowledge, transparency is inheriantly destructive. The wise Architect, Builder, or Carpenter gives the nod, to go ahead and spread the word, after all the decision making is done and it’s now time for action.

The time for action is when the Carpenter, Builder, and Architect have a position and are postured to go forward with the project. This time may be upon me.

In house building or remodeling, those “Evangelicals” are the inspectors working with the code guys. In my city they used to be in the planning department. My favorite Evangelical was named Jim Schwinof.

He turned out to be one of the good-guys who ran their departments well, at the smelter that I worked as a millwright. His time, at the position he held, could be called tumultuous times for him, but he postured through it.

Jim had to navigate the path between the working gray areas between the Union and Management.I was a part of the send-off committee, representing the Union, seeing him down the path and into that tumultuous filled void. I can tell you the send-off wasn’t pretty.

Well maybe it was beautiful, in a touchy feely way sort of way. At least it was a send-off where everyone had a red and toasty feeling afterwards.

This is the first rule of Boyd–Observation.

Source: Democrat’s lead widens in North Carolina governor’s race

Social isn’t a strategy. – Thoughtfaucet

Whether or not social helps small business compete with big box stores will depend on strategy.

Yes, and it is only leaders who have strategy. You may not think of yourself as a leader, but once you have a strategy you become one. It only takes one “second dancer” to create a leader. There is a great clip on YouTube showing the power of a second dancer, if anyone is interested.

 Let’s dig in a little, in the spirit of the great conversations I have with these guys.

Yes, as you say, “Let’s”.

I think the best way to start is for you to define “leader” for me.

While it is my term and not yours, I think you will agree with me when I say that only a leader has strategy.

There are a few things to unpack in this definition of strategy and since I’ve come this far I may as well unpack them.

  • Strategy is an art because it involves personal choices.
  • Strategy is a science because there are often visible and repeatable results.
  • Maintaining resources is about conservation and growing.
  • Deploying resources is about spending and taking action.
  • Freedom is your ability to execute your plans at will.
  • Flexibility is your ability to respond, react and pivot when required.
  • Winning means to continue operations.

Yes, your bullet points all point to a leader (you) being the one of strategy, as all your clients are lacking in at least one of these points.

So to start off I will define leader.

To me a leader is one that commands the crowd controlling the movement.

Yea, I could go on, as you did, about art vs scientist (as type of leader); resources being the “means” of the “end”; deploying, freedom, flexibility, and winning as the “way” towards the “end”; but basically you (as the leader) command the crowd. You do this through the coin of the realm, give Caesar what’s his, ect…..

Like strategy, the best answers are always simple, at least to start out with.

To keep it simple, all control is self-control, so what controls the crowd is the collective”self” of the crowd. The leader can only command.

So if the leader can only command, there is nothing more to be said, unless there is something else that connects the Command to the Control.

That something else is the vision of the leader that controls the crowd.

Does that mean that the OODA loop is a process by which a vision can be formed?

via Social isn’t a stategy. – Thoughtfaucet.

What Is Strategy?

I have tried to answer this question, “What is Strategy”, for myself many times and failed. After looking at the prices for classes dealing with strategy, perhaps defining it  is something worth thinking about.

Of course I am kidding, but after looking at one of the classes listed: (Risk Management for Corporate Leaders; Integrating Best Practices for Superior Strategy Execution) the definition of strategy could come from understanding what this course is about.

It appears from the title that strategy is for leaders (in this case Corporate),  something that can be executed (in seemly superior and sub-superior manners), and is executed in something called practices (executed in an integrating manner between the best instead of the worst).

Some of the “practices”  (and seem to be mostly human practices) taken from the course’s “Key topics” are:

  • Behavior
  • Management
  • Processes
  • Events
  • Risks
  • Functions

So almost all the practices can be considered Ways of people.

As all Strategy covers three domains (End, Ways, and Means), this course’s key topics are the Ways of strategy, which the course’s statement: “…explore the many ways that strategies and enterprises can fail” seems to imply that the Means to failure is usually in the Way of humans. In my way of thinking, strategy’s End comes from the leaders, the Means is in the execution, and the Way is in practices.

So the program “Means” of controlling the “Way” of humans should be within the End of strategy, if this was a course in strategy. In strategy there are two Ends, the beginning of the End and the end of the End. The End is a explicit image as the word “recognize”  in the sentence, “…as well as how to recognize ” suggests. But it is the leaders who “recognize”, so perhaps it is safe to say that all “Ends” come from leaders.

From the program’s statement,,”You will learn how to develop and implement effective risk management processes”. To me the statement implies that the program doesn’t really teach Strategy–it teaches process. The “process” is the in “Way” of executing the  “Means” of strategy. The “Means” are all the resources available to the leader. This course teaches how to process the “way” of strategy. The resources in the process are mostly human, according to my bullet points.

Process, like planning and practices, is a part of strategy, but it doesn’t really answer the question: ‘What is Strategy”. After taking this course and learning the process that integrate the Means with the Ways, a person can still only hope to have a clear image of the End of strategic thinking. To get that, would take some kind of leadership course, so the definition of strategy can’t really come from this course.

Which leads me to ask another question, “Do they still have leadership courses at Harvard, if you are only going after a MBA?”