From what I've been able to find on the internet about the loss of the F/A-18 was that the Truman was under attack from a missile, and so made a hard turn as a defensive maneuver. The fighter was on-deck as part of ongoing air military operations, and thus slid off the deck during the turn.

If so, I'd call the loss of a fighter a combat loss. Maybe the enemy didn't hit the fighter with a missile, but in combat stuff like that is bound to happen.

I don't know enough about the details to make any kind of reasoned opinion about assigning blame or accountability. Heck, I'm not even sure my Internet sources were accurate. But, if accurate (without more), I'd be surprised if any kind of punishment or reprimand was due on account of the lost $60M+ fighter. Combat is dangerous...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Houthis were attacking the Truman with some kind of missile. Sharp evasive turn cause fighter and a tow tractor to go overboard.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 03:53 am: Edit

"-Mr. Zulu. Evasive maneuvers!"

I suppose that is of marginal effectiveness in real life.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Mike Waltz is out as National Security Advisor.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 10:20 pm: Edit

It appears Jessica got it wrong:

Mike Waltz has been nominated to be the U.S. representative to the United Nations.

People can disagree which is better/more prestigious appointment, but given the tensions that are currently existing, there needs to be someone at the U.N. Representing the U.S.

Waltz has been busy during the first hundred days as national Security Adviser, but with E. Stafanik returning to Congress, President Trump needed someone he trusts at the U.N.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Wherever else he may go (and let's be clear: sending him to the U.N. is a face-saving way of removing him from his current posting), he's out as National Security Advisor. So no, Jeff, I didn't get it wrong.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 10:56 pm: Edit

You can’t have it both ways:

If he was not up to handling the job as National Security Adviser, then He Shouldn’t be sent over to represent the nation at the U.N.

The fact that he has been nominated for the U.N. Is an indication of President Trumps Trust in the man.

In this case, simply Terminating his assignment, could very well mean that President Trump was/is dissatisfied with Mike Waltz.

Putting him in the U.N. (And in New York, and out side of Washington, D.C.) is actually more of an independent assignment.

The National Security Advisor job is inside the White House, and presumably in daily contact with the President.

The President is basically telling the world, with this promotion, that he thinks Mike Waltz can be trusted at the U.N. And not required to be under direct supervision of POTUS .

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 12:37 am: Edit

This is not a promotion. This is finding a nice but less stressful job for someone who did not measure up.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 08:25 am: Edit

Pres. Trump's sole use for the U.N. is the U.S.'s veto in the Security Council, which can be accomplished via a trained chimpanzee. An appointment by him as ambassador to the U.N. is a booby prize.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 11:20 am: Edit

And to catch flak over the reciprocal tariffs.

Basically, he's been demoted to the complaints department window or the 'Port-a-potty' Service Truck* in the international world.

(* Basically, he's just gonna catch s*** all day...)

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 11:25 am: Edit

We used to joke that the "Black" water truck drivers could look forward to being promoted to the "Grey" water trucks. Then someday to the potable water trucks...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Regardless of all the negative opinions expressed here, if Waltz lasts any time at all, at the U.N., he will eventually be able to write his memoirs.

If it coincides with any significant events, it could be a commercial success.

Even telling “his version” of events will be of interest to some segment of the public.

He should be thanking President Trump for his future bookdeals.

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile, you were instructed by SVC to not interact with Jessica Orsini. (You started the interaction, which is why this is addressed to you.)

Obey SVC's instructions. And you owe Jessica an apology, in my opinion. She was correct. Waltz was removed from the post. She didn't say that it was a promotion/demotion/whatever. Claiming she was incorrect was wrong of you.

If you apologize, then I shan't count it as a forbidden interaction.

Jean
WebMom

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 02, 2025 - 04:50 pm: Edit

I apologize.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 12:56 pm: Edit

OPEC+ has agreed to increase production by 411,000 barrels per day in June. This is in addition to a similar decision for May production (for an aggregate of 822,000 barrels per day increase). This has pushed the price of Brent oil to about $60/barrel and U.S. crude into the upper 50's.

Because Russia receives such a high percentage of their income from oil exports, these prices (if they stay in place for a long time) will have a material impact on the Russian economy and ability to fund its war effort. Probably not enough to break it, but enough to force the government to stop funding other areas (or incur additional debt) to maintain the war effort, which could have political consequences.

Although the vote to increase production was not public, I have to believe that Russia (which is a member of OPEC+) voted against the proposal.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 02:51 pm: Edit

OPEC+'s move also has the effect of driving down U.S. exploration and drilling (which may be their real goal). With WTI crude at 57 and falling, we're already below the break-even point.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 03:32 pm: Edit

According to Reuters and CNBC, Saudi Arabia was behind the increase in production because they were tired of Iraq and Kazakhstan cheating to produce more than their agreed upon limits.

At least that is their public explanation. I'm sure they were also aware of the potential impact on U.S. and Canadian exploration.

To provide more detail to Jessica's statement, in a March 2024 survey of U.S. oil producers, the average break-even price for existing wells ranged from $31 to $45 per barrel (the price varied across drilling areas: Permian Basin, shale, etc.). However, the break-even price for drilling new wells jumped to a range of $59 to $70.

I read the financial magazine Barron's, and it's worth noting that they have conducted numerous interviews with executives at U.S. majors over the last few years, and the executives are essentially unanimous in not wanting to increase production as much as they potentially could because it would lower the price to a degree that profits would disappear. They did that roughly a decade ago, and numerous companies in the industry went bankrupt or got merged out of existence because prices dropped to a point that no longer supported operations.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Possibly, in exchange for thorough attacks against the Houthis by the US, Saudi Arabia has agreed to lead OPEC+ into more production?

This paves the way to sanction and/or military action some of Russia's capacity off the market?

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Secretary of Defense Hegseth announced a 20% reduction in the number of four star officers On active duty.

It will be interesting to hear what the reaction is in both the officers ranks and in enlisted ranks.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 08:24 am: Edit

No tears in the enlisted branch. Nor, I guess for those below O-5.

And as everyone knows, I am a critic of how many Generals/ Admirals are out there. A quick google AI result is (including Reserves and Guard billets):

Army: 231 general officers for about 1 million personnel. 4329 per General Which seems reasonable.

Marine Corps: 62 general officers for about 200k personnel. 3225 per General. OK

Air Force: 171 general officers for 475k personnel. 2777 per General. OK

Navy: 162 general officers for about 380k personnel. 2345 per Admiral. OK

Space Force: 21 general officers for 8890 personnel. 423 per General. WHAT?

Coast Guard: 2 general officers for about 78500 total personnel. About 37,000 per Admiral. WHAT?

I think NOAA has an Admiral or two. As does the US Public Health Service.

When I become King, ALL Medical Services will be combined and assigned as needed within the other services. Space force will be under a single 3 star in the Air Force.

Now a lot of these are "staff duty" Generals in "Joint" positions, and such. But still.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 11:50 am: Edit

Space force includes a lot of people from Air Force and Navy, a few others.

The theory is that an executive in the civilian world who is in charge of X people and Y budget commands a salary of Z, and that works out to this many stars.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Israel said that if the Palestinians and Arabs don't agree to some kind of Gaza peace deal within a month, they will just occupy the strip and treat it as such.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 04:33 pm: Edit

So, back to something like how it was from 1967- 1993?

--Mike

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, May 06, 2025 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Main talking point I heard, revolved around Hostages....

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 07, 2025 - 05:04 am: Edit

Just when we was hoping (eveything crossed) some 'peace' - somewhere - would break out - we now have Indian attacking Pakistan and Pakistan controlled Kashmir (or rather 'Terrorirst Bases'*, which are supported by Pakistan in those two areas).

* - As Stated by India.

Hppefully cooler minds will prevail in Pakistan to avoid any retaliation and cooler minds on both sides can then de-escalate the situation.