6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time - We Are The Mighty
Humor

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

A good film can do amazing things for a viewer. It can you give an authentic glimpse into a real-life situation. It can stir up emotions and force you to sit with them. Yes, there is a reason that it’s called, “movie magic.”


Of course, we know that not everything can be good. There are far more bad films than there are good ones — this is equally true of the war movie genre.

This is, in part, because the details are what make a military movie good (more so than in other genres) and, when those details are missing, the films can get downright hard to watch.

Related: Bombs away! Here are the 13 worst military movies in Hollywood history

6. Rambo 3

There’s a reason that Stallone is still relevant many years after we were first introduced to him. His first two major releases (Rocky, Rocky II) endeared us all to him so much so that we’ve given him more than a few passes for some of his less impressive work.

One of his most notorious missteps is Rambo III. Sadly, this series evolved from a rich, layered film in First Blood to our eponymous hero inadvertently supporting the Taliban in the debacle that is Rambo III. Even watching this as a very young kid, the movie left plenty to be desired.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
Stallone watching his last f*ck float over the horizon as he films this gratuitously bad movie. (Photo from TriStar Pictures’ Rambo III)

5. Basic

I was a young airman stationed in Oahu when this came out. While the cool quasi-group, Section 8, inspired many a young service member and friend to create “wild” cliques, that cape made anything and everything else about the movie unacceptable.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
Does anyone have any idea where I can get an official Army enlisted cape? (Photo from Columbia Pictures’ Basic)

4. Jarhead 2

Jarhead is based on the real-life accounts of the Persian Gulf War from a real-life Marine, Anthony Swofford. I’m still trying to figure out what the sequel is based on.

Why was considered a good idea to made two sequels that have little in common with the original outside of the title, anyway?

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
We’re all asking the same question: Why?! (Photo from Universal Pictures’ Jarhead 2).

3. The Marine 2

Two things that just make it uber hard to take this film seriously.

1. It is made by the WWE.

2. The lead actor is Ted DiBiase Jr. No, not the Million Dollar Man, Ted DiBiase… but his son.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
We needed the first one, but we definitely didn’t need the second. (Photo from 20th Century Fox’s The Marine 2)

2. Windtalkers

In a classic example of style over substance, Windtalkers is easily one of the most inaccurate, poorly executed war movies of the last 20 years. Not coincidentally, it enjoyed the third biggest financial loss for a war-themed movie ever.

Also Read: 7 more professional athletes you didn’t know were veterans

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
This movie could very well give you the Cage stare. (Photo from Metro Goldwyn Mayer’s Windtalkers)

1. Pearl Harbor

This is a three-hour movie, though only roughly 20 minutes of it is actually about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I was stationed at what is now Joint Base Hickam-Pearl Harbor when this premiered back in 2001 and there were some survivors there.

Some of those survivors explored the two bases — taking a trip down memory lane, I’m sure — before and after the premiere. I was lucky enough to converse with a few of them.

Let’s just say they didn’t have the best opinion of the movie and when I was able to see it, I understood exactly why.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
At the time of release, everyone in this photo was a star. Not so much today. (Photo from Buena Vista Pictures’ Pearl Harbor)

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Why that stunning Russian missile video is nothing to worry about

Recently, Russia released new video of the KH-35U “switchblade” anti-ship cruise missile in action, a weapon that can be fired from surface ships or aircraft and flies extremely quickly towards target ships, which are then destroyed in a massive explosion.


www.youtube.com

The video shows a Su-34 being prepared for takeoff, then jumps to ships being struck by a missile before cutting again to a Su-34 landing. The KH-35U carries an over-1,000-pound warhead and is reportedly capable of destroying vessels of up to 5,000 tons.

The Russians test fired eight missiles during the exercise, according to the Russian Defence Ministry, and all eight hit their targets.

The missile video is impressive and fun to watch, but it’s left many U.S. observers worrying. Russia claims the weapon is impossible to stop and that it renders all current ship defenses powerless.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Both the Su-57 and the T-14 were impressive programs on paper that slowly wilted in the bright light of day. Now, there are few orders for either platform, even from within Russia, as the capabilities ended up being low and the costs high.

(Alex Beltyukov and Vitaly V. Kuzmin, CC BY-SA)

But these are Russian defense claims about a Russian weapon, so it’s prudent to take them with a grain of salt. After all, the T-14 Armata and PAK FA (which became the Su-57) programs haven’t lived up to the hype.

But the KH-35U is a fielded weapon. The first KH-35 came out in the 1980s, and the U variant has been in the field for years. It flies close to the water, can be fired from aircraft ranging from helicopters to jets, and can be carried by surface ships. If Russia’s claims are accurate, it can eliminate destroyers and littoral combat ships with just one shot. Carriers would likely be crippled or destroyed with a shot, but certainly couldn’t withstand sustained bombardment.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

A ship is destroyed by a KH-35U anti-ship cruise missile during a Russian test.

(YouTube/Star Channel)

So, should America be shaking in its boots? Well, the target ship in the Russian video is a stationary, civilian vessel, and hitting that with a missile is a far cry from getting a cruise missile into the hull of an American carrier sailing at a decent clip with its Phalanx close-in weapon systems firing off rounds.

That, and the missile has a range of approximately 185 miles. Meanwhile, the Super Hornets that protect carriers have a range of 500 miles, and the Navy is already looking to increase that range with the addition of conformal fuel tanks, fuel tanks semi-permanently added to the aircraft that would increase range by 300 miles.

Meanwhile, the F-35C will have a range about 10 percent greater before aerial refueling. So, aircraft carriers will have plenty of breathing room as long as they keep the radars and patrols up.

But some task forces have little-to-no jet support, and a Su-34 or a similar aircraft could get within range and release the missile. And what’s worse is that the Russians may have already sold the missile to at least one other country. North Korea’s Kumsong-3 anti-ship cruise missile bears a striking resemblance to the KH-35U, meaning that a rogue state may be able to strike American ships from 500 miles away.

Though, again, we should avoid getting too far into speculation without our grains of salt. After all, the Russian military has a history of stripping down the export versions of their weapons, just like the U.S. And, ownership of a missile doesn’t mean you have the expertise and tactical excellence to properly employ it.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is still working on a Tomahawk variant that could be used in an anti-ship configuration. It has an expected range of over 1,000 miles, same as the land-attack variant with years of successful service. That would allow the U.S. Navy to strike Russian ships carrying the KH-35U from 835 miles outside of the Russian engagement envelope.

So, enjoy the Russian propaganda, but sleep well tonight. The KH-35U demonstration is an impressive fireworks display, but it doesn’t represent a Russian technology edge against anyone but fishermen.

MIGHTY HISTORY

How women served in the Navy and Marines during WWII

The United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt on July 30, 1942. Like their female counterparts servicing in other branches of the military, the primary function of the Marine Corps Women’s Reserve was to release men for combat duty. The jobs available to them were also very similar. Members served in occupations classified as professional, semi-professional, clerical, skilled trades, services, and sales. While over 200 job categories were made available to members of the Women’s Reserve, over half of members worked in clerical positions. Only Caucasian and Native American Women were accepted into service, the Marine Corps barred African American and Japanese American women from its ranks.


At its height, the Women’s Reserve had recruited more than 17,000 members. As was discussed in Part I, the military used a variety of tactics to recruit female members. Films such as Lady Marines, were used to provide a look at the life of a female military recruit in an effort to make new recruits more comfortable with the process. The film, shot at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, follows a class of recruits from their arrival, to graduation, highlighting their training and job opportunities.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

The United States Navy also recognized the importance of allowing females to serve in their ranks. The United States Naval Reserve (WAVES), was established and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt on July 30, 1942, the same day the Marine Corps Women’s Reserve. Women were accepted into the WAVES as commissioned officers as well as at the enlisted level in order to release men for sea duty. They served at 900 shore stations in the United States and included over 85,000 members. While primarily comprised of white women, 74 African-American women were allowed to serve during the program’s existence.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

The color film, WAVES at Work, highlights the variety of jobs made available to members of the WAVES. Women wanting to serve in the medical, clerical, communication, and culinary fields were able to do so as a member of the WAVES. One of the most interesting jobs highlighted in the film is that of the Air Controlman. Those serving in this capacity would direct planes and ground crews from a control tower at naval air stations.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Both films, Lady Marines and WAVES at Work, touch on the values discussed in Part I femininity, benefits of joining the military, and the importance of the work needing done. These films also make it a point to highlight the opportunities made available to women in the military. Female recruits were provided with job training in non-traditional areas, training that was not widely available to their civilian counterparts . You can view both films in their entirety below.

This article originally appeared on The National Archives. Follow @USNatArchives on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

These are the NVGs we’ve all been waiting for

US Night Vision is one of the largest distributors of night vision optics and accessories in the world. As such, they have a couple new products of interest that made their way to SHOT Show 2019.

The Harris F5032 Lightweight Night Vision Binocular has actually been around for a couple of years, but for whatever reason, Harris chose not to push it on the market and kept it on the back burner. This competitor to the L3 PVS1531 features white phosphor tubes and a unique close-focus technology that allows users to perform intricate tasks under night vision.


6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

F5032 Lightweight Night Vision Binocular.

As many a user of helmet-mounted night vision has experienced, most NVGs will blackout when the user tilts their head to look upward. The F5032 has an intuitive vertical viewing capability that recognizes when the optics are in use and prevents the automatic tilt shutoff from activating, so that the goggles only shutoff when placed in the stowed position. This is sure to be a huge selling point for those who spend time working under aircraft or ascending vertical structures.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

A view through the white phosphor F5032.

The F5032 has an integrated LED IR illuminator to reduce the need for external IR illumination devices. The image intensifier tubes are serviceable at the unit level, making it easier for them to be repaired without the extended downtime that comes from shipping them back to the company. The F5032 uses a standard dovetail mounting bracket for compatibility with the Wilcox NVG mount.

Also new from US Night Vision is the BCO LPMR-MK2 Low Profile Mission Recorder. This minimalistic recording device attaches to the eyepiece of the ocular lens of your night vision optic (optic specific) to record whatever you are viewing. The unit supports up to 128gb Micro SD for nine hours of record time with minute by minute seamless High Definition 1920×1080 30fps recording.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

BCO LPMR-MK2 Low Profile Mission Recorder attached to a PVS14.

The LPMR-MK2 has an integrated microphone to capture audio and is externally powered via USB to accommodate a wide variety of battery sources. To make operation simple, the LPMR automatically begins recording when powered on, so there are no external buttons to fool with, and the operator doesn’t have to wonder if what if what they are seeing is actually being captured or not.

The unit weighs less than 1.5oz, so the added weight to night vision optics is minimal. The upfront placement of the device also reduces the amount of leverage placed on the helmet, so the user doesn’t have extra forward weight pulling down on their helmet. This recorder is sure to be a hit with military and law enforcement who have a need to record low-light training or real-world operations for after-action evaluation or courtroom purposes.

More information on these and other new products from US Night Vision can be found here.

Featured image: Recoilweb.com

This article originally appeared on Recoilweb. Follow @RecoilMag on Twitter.

popular

This is what China will do if the US attacks North Korea

It’s no secret that the only reason North Korea managed to survive so long after the fall of the Soviet Union is because of China’s patronage. There are a number of possible reasons it’s in China’s best interest to prop up the Hermit Kingdom. Long story short: China will intervene for North Korea just as it did in 1950.


The DPRK is a buffer zone between Communist China and the pro-Western ally in South Korea. More than that, the sudden fall of the Kim regime would essentially open the 880-mile border between the two to roving parties of North Korean refugees, suddenly freed, looking for a future.

 

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
The Yalu River is the natural and political border between the two countries.

The highest estimates indicate some 30 million internally-displaced persons – refugees in their own country – would suddenly be looking for a better life. Beyond the human toll, the cost of the reunification of the Korean Peninsula could be as high as $3 trillion, as one expert told the Independent.

China is certainly not going to share that cost. Nor will it take in refugees. The people of China are not fans of North Korea either. They resent the North Korean nuclear tests and the effect it has on China’s foreign policy – and its relationship with the United States.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
North Koreans celebrate their relationship with China at the annual Arirang Mass Games.

 

Chinese people take to Quora to answer the same question over and over, “How do Chinese people feel about North Korea?” Time and tie again, the answer is that they are “sympathetic” to the people of the DPRK (though sometimes they use the word “pity”) because the country reminds them of when China was underdeveloped. In general, however, they mock Kim Jong-Un “mercilessly.”

The North Korean leader is believed to be losing trust in his relationship with the Chinese, and acts out in an effort to embarrass Beijing. In return, there is less trust in China for the leadership in Pyongyang. But as for the United States, the Chinese have less trust in President Trump.

Despite all this, the 1961 Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty is still in effect, and is renewed automatically every 20 years. Article 2 of the treaty states that the two nations will jointly oppose any country or coalition that might attack either nation. The treaty is valid until 2021. But it also stipulates that both sides are to “safeguard peace and security.”

Some former Chinese military officers believe North Korea’s nuclear proliferation is a violation of that treaty and China is no longer on the hook to defend the Kim Regime. Many Chinese intellectuals believe the North Korean state is no longer their partner in arms, but more of a liability.

“Many in China don’t want North Korea to have nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are, first, threatening to China,” Chinese scholar Shen Zhihua – an expert on the Korean War – told the New Yorker. “We must see clearly that China and North Korea are no longer brothers-in-arms, and in the short term there’s no possibility of an improvement in Chinese-North Korean relations.”

But the state’s view remains the same. Just after the Kim regime threatened to attack the U.S. island of Guam, the Global Times, a state-run newspaper said China will “firmly resist any side which wants to change the status quo of the areas where China’s interests are concerned.”

 

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
(KCNA photo)

 

Essentially, the Communist Party mouthpiece is saying that China will intervene if the United States escalates the conflict to a shooting war. However, if North Korea starts the war, China will remain neutral.

“The Korean Peninsula is where the strategic interests of all sides converge, and no side should try to be the absolute dominator of the region.”

MIGHTY TRENDING

President sees promising signs for accord with Taliban by month’s end

U.S. President Donald Trump says there are promising signs that the United States would reach a peace deal with the Taliban by the end of this month.


Chances are “good” for the agreement to be sealed, Trump said on a February 13 podcast broadcast on iHeart Radio.

When asked if a tentative deal had been reached, Trump said: “I think we’re very close…. I think there’s a good chance that we’ll have a deal…. We’re going to know over the next two weeks.”

The president’s comments are the latest indication of progress being made in talks between the United States and the Taliban that have been taking place since December in Qatar, where the militants have a political office.

Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told journalists in Brussels that both sides had negotiated a “proposal” for a week-long scaling-down in violence.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

President Donald Trump speaks to Fort Drum Soldiers and personnel during a signing ceremony for the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, Aug. 13, 2018.

He said a drawdown of troops and further negotiations with the militants would be “conditions-based” and begin after a decline in violence.

“We’ve said all along that the best…solution in Afghanistan is a political agreement,” he added. “It will be a continual evaluative process as we go forward — if we go forward.”

Progress toward reducing violence could usher in direct peace talks between the militants and the Afghan government to end the nearly two-decade war.

AP reported that if violence subsided, it would lead to an agreement being signed between the United States and the Taliban, followed by, within 10 days, all-Afghan negotiations to establish a road map for the political future of a postwar Afghanistan.

There has been a “pretty important breakthrough” over the past few days, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on February 13 about peace negotiations. He did not elaborate.

President Donald Trump would still have to formally approve the agreement and finalization of details is expected at this week’s Munich Security Conference, where Esper and Pompeo will meet with Afghan President Ashaf Ghani.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg the day before reiterated that the alliance “fully supports the U.S.-led peace efforts, which can pave the way for intra-Afghan talks.”

Speaking at the same NATO summit in Brussels attended by Esper, the secretary-general said the militants “need to demonstrate that they are both willing and capable to deliver a reduction of violence and contribute to peace in good faith.”

He said the militant fighters have to “understand that they will never win on the battlefield. They have to make real compromises around the negotiating table.”

The prospective deal would see the U.S. pull thousands of troops from Afghanistan, while the Taliban would provide security guarantees and launch eventual talks with the Western-backed government in Kabul.

There are some 12,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as well as thousands of European forces participating in the NATO-led Resolute Support mission.

This article originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Follow @RFERL on Twitter.

MIGHTY MILSPOUSE

Navy won’t reinstate Crozier, holds 1-Star’s promotion over poor decision-making

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story and the headline incorrectly stated that Rear Adm. Stuart Baker had been fired. His promotion has been held by the Navy.

The Navy won’t reinstate the captain who was fired after warning of a serious health crisis on his ship, and the captain’s superior has also had his promotion withheld as the result of a deeper probe into the matter, top Navy leaders said on Friday.


The Navy secretary and top admiral reversed course on a previous recommendation to reinstate Capt. Brett Crozier as commanding officer of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. Crozier will be reassigned. If he was still in command today, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said he would relieve him.

Read Next: Alaska Army Helicopter Airlifts Out 1940s-Era Bus Chris McCandless Died In

“It is because of what he didn’t do that I have chosen not to reinstate him,” Gilday said.

Crozier acted too slowly to keep his crew safe and made questionable decisions to release sailors from quarantine, potentially putting others at risk, the CNO added. Gilday also said the email Crozier sent warning about the situation on the ship “was unnecessary.”

Gilday, about two months ago, recommended that Crozier be reinstated as the Roosevelt’s commanding officer.

“Had I known then what I know today, I would have not made that recommendation,” Gilday said on Friday. “… Capt. Crozier’s primary responsibility was the safety and the wellbeing of the crew so that the ship could remain as operationally ready as possible. In reviewing both [Rear Adm. Stuart] Baker and Capt. Crozier’s actions, they did not do enough soon enough to fulfill their primary obligation.”

Baker, former commander of Carrier Strike Group Nine, won’t be promoted pending further review, Gilday said. His promotion to rear admiral upper half was approved by the Senate on March 20.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

“They were slow egressing sailors off the ship, and they failed to move sailors to available safer environments quickly,” Gilday said. “… It is my belief that both Adm. Baker and Capt. Crozier fell well short of what we expect of those in command.”

The decisions are the result of a deeper review into the situation on the Roosevelt, which James McPherson directed in April over what he called “unanswered questions” while serving as acting Navy secretary.

Braithwaite said on Friday he stands by the latest investigation’s findings. Jonathan Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesman, also said Defense Secretary Mark Esper was briefed on the findings and supports the Navy’s decisions.

Baker was aboard the Roosevelt when Crozier emailed several people about a growing number of COVID-19 cases among the crew. Crozier, whose email asking for help was leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle, was ultimately fired by then-acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly over his handling of the situation.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

cdn14.picryl.com

Modly told reporters when announcing his decision to relieve Crozier of command that the captain should’ve walked “down the hallway” to discuss his concerns with Baker before sending the email. Modly later resigned from his post as acting Navy secretary amid backlash over these events.

The Roosevelt pulled into Guam in late March as more than 100 crew members tested positive for COVID-19, the sometimes-fatal illness caused by the coronavirus. Crozier had warned in his email that sailors could die if they didn’t quickly evacuate the ship.

“If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our Sailors,” he said.

Ultimately, more than 1,200 members of the roughly 4,800-person crew tested positive for the virus, including Crozier. One sailor, 41-year-old Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr., died of the illness.

Gilday said his initial recommendation to reinstate Crozier was based only on “a narrowly scoped investigation” that looked only at why he had sent the email warning.

“I was tasked to take a look at those facts against then-acting Secretary Modley’s justification for relieving him,” Gilday said, “and I did not feel that the … facts supported the justification.”

The CNO said the two-month-long deeper investigation, ordered by McPherson, made additional facts visible. That included the decision to lift quarantine in part of the ship, which allowed about 1,000 crew members to potentially expose other sailors to the virus, Gilday said. He also said Crozier and Baker failed to take advantage of 700 beds in a gym in Guam that were spaced 6 feet apart, choosing to put his sailors’ “comfort over safety.”

In his endorsement letter accompanying the results of the investigation, Gilday said he thought Crozier had the best interests of his crew and the readiness of the ship in mind. But, he added, Crozier did not “forcefully and expeditiously execute the best possible and available plan, or do enough, soon enough.”

Baker and Crozier were talking to the U.S. Seventh Fleet commander every day, Gilday told reporters on Friday, and if the two had issues they should have raised them.

“If [Crozier] fearlessly communicated with that email that he sent — that I’ve never disagreed with, his fearless sending of the email — then he certainly should have just [as] fearlessly communicated issues every day during those video teleconferences,” Gilday said.

Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that everyone up and down the Navy chain of command had a role to play in the inadequate response to the situation on the carrier. Smith announced that his committee has launched its own investigation into the Roosevelt’s COVID-19 outbreak.

“The Department’s civilian leadership portrayed Captain Crozier’s decision-making aboard the Roosevelt as the critical weakness in the Navy’s response, but the truth is that civilian leadership was also to blame,” Smith said. “… While the committee works on our own investigation, it is my hope that the Navy will learn from this series of mistakes.”

— Gina Harkins can be reached at gina.harkins@military.com. Follow her on Twitter @ginaaharkins.

More from Military.com:

Navy Orders Deeper Investigation into Crozier Firing Over ‘Unanswered Questions’

Food pantries springing up in VA medical facilities

Tricare Dental Is Giving You More Insurance for Free

MIGHTY TACTICAL

The world’s longest flight is moving one step closer to reality

Australian airline Qantas is taking the next steps towards its goal of having nonstop 19-hour flights between Sydney and London and New York.

The airline has openly discussed the endevour — internally known as “Project Sunrise” — for several years, following the successful launch of a slightly shorter, but still lengthy, nonstop flight between Perth and London in March 2018.

That route is measured as about 9,000 miles and takes around 17 hours, while the Sydney-New York route would be around 10,000 miles, and the Sydney-London flight is about 500 miles longer.


Qantas is scheduled to receive three new Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner aircraft this fall — one each in October, November, and December 2019. The planes are being built at Boeing’s Seattle plant, and would normally be flown by Qantas pilots straight to Australia from there.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

(Photo by Suhyeon Choi)

Instead, the airline plans to fly the planes to New York and London first, and then fly nonstop to Sydney from there.

The planes won’t have paying customers — instead, they’ll each have about 40 people on board — including crew — most of whom will be Qantas employees. the airline says it plans to study how those on board react to the lengthy 19-hour flights.

According to the airline, “[s]cientists and medical experts from the Charles Perkins Centre will monitor sleep patterns, food and beverage consumption, lighting, physical movement, and inflight entertainment to assess impact on health, wellbeing and body clock.”

Commercial flights with full or mostly-full passenger loads are not currently possible due to the range of the airplanes available today. Keeping the planes mostly empty will increase their range, making the test flights possible. A normal Qantas 787-9 can seat up to 236 passengers, plus crew, and carry both luggage and cargo, while still achieving a range of about 9,000 miles — the length of the Perth-London flight.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

(Photo by John Kappa)

The airline is considering new ultra-long-range aircraft from Boeing and Airbus for the eventual New York and London to Sydney flights — Airbus’ rumored A350-1000ULR airplane, and Boeing 777X project, both of which are still being tested. Qantas has previously said it would make a decision around the end of 2019.

The world’s current longest flight— from Singapore to New York’s Newark Airport — is operated by a Singapore Airlines A350-900ULR configured with only business class and premium economy seats— no regular economy cabin.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

US Special Operations Command now wants its own light attack aircraft fleet

The U.S. Air Force may only want a handful of light attack aircraft, but U.S. Special Operations Command now appears to want at least 75.


According to a new solicitation posted on the government’s acquisition and awards website, beta.sam.gov, SOCOM plans to host an industry day event seeking “armed overwatch” aircraft for its units.

“Armed Overwatch will provide Special Operations Forces (SOF) deployable and sustainable manned aircraft systems fulfilling Close Air Support (CAS), Precision Strike, and SOF Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR) in austere and permissive environments,” according to the request.

If awarded, the contract is expected to be an “Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with a base 5-year ordering period and 2-year option ordering period.” SOCOM is looking to procure an estimated 75 aircraft “with associated support,” the request said.

The latest measure is independent of the Air Force’s ongoing work to buy a limited number of light attack aircraft.

In October, the Air Force issued an official request for proposal to acquire a small fleet of turboprop aircraft as part of its light attack effort.

The service said it wants a limited number of Textron Aviation AT-6 Wolverine and Sierra Nevada Corporation/Embraer Defense Security A-29 Super Tucano aircraft to increase “partner capacity, capability, and interoperability via training and experimentation,” according to a release at the time.

The Air Force plans to purchase two or three light attack aircraft from each company, a decision Air Force Chief of Staff Gen David Goldfein first disclosed in March 2019.

He told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee during a hearing at the time that the service would base some of the aircraft at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, and some with Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

The AT-6 will be used by Air Combat Command at Nellis “for continued testing and development of operational tactics and standards for exportable, tactical networks that improve interoperability with international partners,” Air Force officials said in October. The A-29, meanwhile, will be housed at Hurlburt “to develop an instructor pilot program for the Combat Aviation Advisory mission, to meet increased partner nation requests for light attack assistance.”

But some believe the Air Force hasn’t been moving fast enough on the program, one which showed early promise.

The service first held a series of light attack experimental fly-offs and maneuvers at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, in 2017 in a two-phase approach. The experiment involved four aircraft: The AirTractor and L3’s AT-802L Longsword; Sierra Nevada and Embraer’s A-29 Super Tucano; and Textron and AirLand LLC’s Scorpion, as well as their AT-6B Wolverine. The second phase of the experiment was canceled following a fatal crash in June 2018.

A draft request for proposal was issued in August 2018. The service was then supposed to RFP in 2018 for a light attack aircraft, but it never came until the recent October 2019 solicitation.

The slowed pace angered some lawmakers.

Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Florida, introduced a measure into the House’s version of the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act legislation that would put the propeller-driven planes under U.S. Special Operations Command’s purview, taking it away from the Air Force.

“My frustration is almost palpable at why it is taking so long to get this platform out to where the warfighters need it,” Waltz said during a September Mitchell Institute event, as reported by DefenseOne.

“If we can’t move this program forward, then perhaps we need to explore if the Army needs that authority,” he said.

This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.

MIGHTY TRENDING

A real Nazi hunter was just given one of France’s top awards

In 1968, Beate Klarsfeld jumped up during a political rally and slapped German Chancellor Georg Kiesinger in the face.

On Oct. 8, 2018, the 79-year-old received one of France’s top awards, the National Order of Merit. In the same ceremony, her husband Serge Klarsfeld, 83, received the highest national award, the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor. The couple were recognized by French President Emmanuel Macron for their lifelong dedication to tracking and exposing war criminals.

The Klarsfelds call it their family business. Their enterprise: hunting Nazis. And they’re good at what they do.


Chancellor Kiesinger, who worked in the Nazi’s radio propaganda arm under Joseph Goebbels, was never charged with war crimes. But the couple — who focus on higher-level Nazis, many of whom fled Germany after the war — has helped bring to justice at least 10 war criminals.

Notorious Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie, nicknamed the “Butcher of Lyon,” was arrested in Bolivia in 1983. Beate Klarsfeld had tracked him down there over a decade earlier. Barbie was responsible for a reign of terror in France during World War II, and for the arrest and torture or death of tens of thousands of people during that time, including the deportation of 44 Jewish children from the village of Izeu.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Serge Klarsfeld.

The Klarsfelds specialize in tracking down Nazis who found their way out of Germany after the war. They campaigned for the arrest of both Walter Rauff and Alois Brunner. Rauff, who invented the mobile gas chamber while working under Reinhard Heydrich, ultimately made his way to Chile, where he died before he could be extradited and tried. Klarsfeld claims she traced Brunner to Syria, where he reportedly died years ago. Brunner served as the assistant to Adolf Eichmann — the architect of Hitler’s “Final Solution” — and is responsible for sending tens of thousands of Jews to concentration camps.

Serge Klarsfeld has previously been awarded with a lower rank of the Legion of Honor. Their son Arno, who is named after Serge’s father, a victim of murder at Auschwitz, now helps them prosecute some of the Nazis they track down.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Humor

Top 7 things veterans should never do at their new job

You’ve got your DD-214 in hand, you’ve taken off the uniform for the last time, and you’ve likely set fire to the road as you head off to a new life beyond service. A new life, however, usually means a new job.


School is probably the most pressing thing on your radar but, eventually, you’re going back to work. You’ve been through some pretty gnarly stuff and you’ll be an incredible asset wherever you land. There are, however, some habits you may have picked up during your time in uniform that will not translate into the civilian workforce. Some of it is because, yes, “snowflakes” abound, but some of it just doesn’t quite fit in your new world.

Below are seven things you should never do at your new, post-service job.

Related: 7 of the top surprises veterans face going to school

1. Eat that leftover food in the fridge

Depending on what you did in service, this may not be a thing for you. If you were a shift worker, however, you know that leaving things in the fridge (marked or not) is a roll of the dice.

The bigger the fridge, the lower your odds. I, personally, hated that, but it is definitely a thing. Your new job likely won’t care that you thought Etta Mae’s meatloaf smelled too delicious to pass up.

Also, people do this kind of stuff:

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
No doubt in my mind, the response was written by the other veteran in the office. (Image via Reddit).

 

2. Be sarcastic

Yes, sarcasm is a tool. It is the release of the slow-burning rage that builds within the often misunderstood. It’s also a great way to be viewed as an asshole at your new gig.

Sure, in the military, when you’re outranked by someone much younger than you, you’re instinctually trained to react sarcastically. In the civilian world, that same kind of disconnect can be jarring for the already-adjusting veteran. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but even if your manager looks like a pimple-nosed teen, keep that sarcasm pent up.

 

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Pictured: Veteran’s involuntary response when asked if they’ve ever shot a gun (Image from Hemdale Film Corporation’s Vampire’s Kiss).

3. Respond with aggression… to anything

Aggression is a great thing to have in a lot of military settings. Being aggressive and swift to act is what’s expected from pretty much the whole military.

At your new job? Not so much.

Sure, aggression is still useful and can get you through a lot of doors, but it can also rub a lot of people the wrong way. Try to dial it back a few levels whenever possible — and call it, ‘assertiveness.’

 

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
This is not the correct way to deal with the office dumb*ss. (Image from Universal Pictures’ Wanted).

4. Begin any email with, “per my last email”

We all know that whatever follows is intended to politely tell the recipient to go f*ck or unf*ck themselves. That’s probably not going to go over very well here.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
This is just the beginning of a line of pettiness that you should avoid. (Image by Reddit).

 

5. Initiate a “smoke session”

In the civilian world, this is literally abuse. It isn’t only a fireable offense, but depending on where you are and how they want to play it, you could end up having to talk to the other boys in blue. You’re definitely going to have a find a new way to motivate whatever subordinates you have.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
These days are definitely in your rearview mirror. (Image via Rally Point).

 

6. Tell any jokes you heard while serving

They just won’t get it. At all. They’ll laugh, uncomfortably, and then you’ll slowly stop receiving invites for post-work drinks from everyone but that other veteran in the office.

He’s more f*cked up than you.

Also read: 7 military things that somehow get you fired in the civilian world

 

7. Talk about the times you almost died

You don’t realize it, but you’ve got the 1000-yard stare going so hard when you try to paint the picture of your near-death experiences. It freaks the civilians out.

Save it for group — or drinks with that other veteran after a long day at your new job.

 

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time
We all have, Jack. (Image from Cartoon Networks’ Samurai Jack).

MIGHTY HISTORY

An ensign took command of a destroyer at Pearl Harbor and took the fight to the Japanese

Destroyers, in general, don’t get as much love as they deserve for their contribution to World War II. The USS Aylwin is not different, even though her crew managed to do what few others could, which was to take the fight to the sucker-punching Japanese Navy and naval air forces during and after its attack on Pearl Harbor.

Despite having only half the necessary crew and being commanded by an Ensign, the Aylwin was out on patrols immediately.


6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

The Aylwin was moored at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, with other ships from her Pacific squadron. Like most ships, roughly half of its crew were out on liberty or leave when the Japanese arrived in Hawaii. She had only one boiler going, strong enough to power only a few of the ship’s systems. That’s when the Utah was hit by a torpedo.

Even with only half her crew and being under the command of Ensign Stanley B. Caplan – that’s an O-1 for you non-Navy folks – the Aylwin was returning fire within three minutes of the Japanese attacks. A few minutes after that, her remaining boilers were lit. And a few minutes after that, Aylwin was making her way into the channel and into the open sea. This destroyer wasn’t going to be a sitting duck if she could help it.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

As she left the harbor, Aylwin maintained a deadly, continuous rate of fire that would have dissuaded even the most daring of pilots from pressing their attack on the destroyer. Pearl Harbor, at that moment however, was a target-rich environment for both sides. The skies were filled with Japanese planes, and the grounds and harbor area were littered with military targets, planes, ships, and more. Zero after Zero came after the U.S. ship but were chased away as Ensign Caplan and his men fired everything they had at their pursuers. The machine gunners on the decks of the Aylwin claimed to have downed at least three enemy fighters.

Caplan and company began an immediate combat patrol, looking for enemy submarines in the area, as were her standing orders in case of such an attack. An unknown explosion and an attempt to depth charge an enemy submarine were the most notable events of the next few days. For 36 hours, Ensign Caplan knew what it meant to be the captain. The ship and the rest of its crew joined the task force around the USS Lexington and headed to Wake Island by Dec. 12.

The Aylwin would survive the war mostly intact, but with 13 battle stars for her contributions to the fighting at Midway, Attu, and Okinawa, just to name a few.

MIGHTY CULTURE

10 unintentionally hilarious military acronyms

The United States military loves slapping an acronym on anything that moves. Actually, things that don’t move are equally likely to be described with a jumble of letters when words would do the trick just fine.

Sometimes it’s obvious that the acronym-izer should’ve put more thought into the process, and we get some unintentionally hilarious descriptors.


6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

1. PMS

Every Professor of Military Science is used to the giggles because every new set of students is equally immature.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

2. MANPADS

While we’re on the subject of bodily functions, anyone who’s carrying a Man-Portable Air-Defense System better be ready for a few comments about whether they might need a diaper.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

A male chicken is usually called a rooster but it’s also known as a cock.

3. MANCOC

Students at the Army’s Maneuver Advanced NCO Course must’ve gotten mighty tired of questions about their MANCOC. Perhaps that’s why it’s now called the Senior Leader Course.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Richard Cheney is known as Dick to his friends.

(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

4. DICC

But those guys likely were not nearly as tired as the intelligence officers answering questions about their Defense Intelligence Collection Cell.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

John Travolta is king of the disco in “Saturday Night Fever.”

(Paramount)

5. DISCO

Spending an evening processing requests down at the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office isn’t nearly as glamorous as the acronym might suggest.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Aladdin and Princess Jasmine take a magic carpet ride.

(Disney)

6. MAGIC CARPET

OK, maybe the acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologieswasn’t unintentional. Someone put a lot of effort into making that one work.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

One Dr. Bob is a noted folk artist. The other co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous.

7. DRBOB

The future of commissaries and exchanges may be in the hands of the Defense Resale Business Optimization Board, but how many New Orleans folk art fans think of the famed painter behind the city’s “Be Nice or Leave” signs? What about the AA members who know Dr. Bob as Bill W.’s cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous?

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

Rick and Morty should be your preferred source for fart humor.

(Adult Swim)

8. FARP

Everyone at the Forward Area Refueling Point is tired of your fart jokes.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

We can’t really go there.

9. FAP

The Fleet Assistance Program, aside from assigning Marines to extra duties outside the normal chain of command, raises an entire set of issues that we can’t really discuss here.

6 of the most disappointing military movies of all time

A fine-looking bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich.

10. BLT

Who wouldn’t enjoy a delicious Battalion Landing Team?

This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information