system
Boy things are going great, now we have a Berlin Airlift for Baby formula…How I miss 2019…
Boy things are going great, now we have a Berlin Airlift for Baby formula…How I miss 2019…
Now people are literally living on the governments’ teat.
And the baby’s first words were: “Danke Deutschland…”
Couldn’t just hire Fedex to ship that stuff, no, we have to look like the government is doing something important. Funny how they loaded it on Fedex trucks after the photo op. Hey, why stop there. Should have had a military convoy with guns and tanks deliver that stuff. Green uniforms everywhere. Create a crisis, exploit the crisis. Ugh.
1 reply
What did I miss? This article mentions baby formula and military air transport, but as far upstream as it goes is the mention of Zurich. I know that this is an aviation oriented site, but the article just leaves one with more questions.
Why is baby formula being brought to the USA from Zurich, or wherever it originated? Have we outsourced all the USA production of baby formula to the PRC? Or, are we now another Australia bereft of baby formula because PRC nationals are buying it all to ship back to China?
A followup article could prove interesting. When the Executive Branch is requiring the US taxpayers to pay the freight for commercial cargo one just wonders who is really sitting in the left seat.
From Indiana and then straight to the Mexican border to be given away free to illegal aliens? We never had shortages before US businesses started outsourcing. The Swiss avoid this, not wanting to be dependent on others. I once toured the Pilatus factory in Stans. What impressed me most was the statement by the head of sales that Pilatus always prefers to make their own components instead of buying from suppliers. He said that slows the process down as they build skills, but has many long-term benefits. Seeing their great success, it has clearly paid off. It also helps that 80% of all careers in Switzerland begin with a 3-4 year apprenticeship at age 16. This they have a strong, nature, highly-skilled workforce. American companies often take the “easy” way out, but fail in the long-run. See the decline US GA aircraft manufacturing. Once the world’s leader, now just a skeleton of what once was. Shameful.
1 reply
The initial online credit-taking announcement from the WH referenced 70,000 TONS of formula were arriving. They scrubbed that one fairly quickly. But somebody did the math and calculated the actual amount of 78,000 POUNDS will feed the USA’s hungry infants for 4 hours +/-. But don’t you worry, Joe has announced… a second flight. LGB!
1 reply
The US gummint pays for a huge proportion of ‘baby formula’ in the US.
Its fools limited supply to one supplier, who had a serious quality control problem.
Law forbids changing supplier and forbids importing.
Voters in the US: it’s ultimately your fault for electing do-gooding control freaks.
(Canada is of course next door but with 1/10 of the population of the US is probably limited in capacity to help the US.)
‘Baby formula’ is formulated to replace human breast milk, including for mothers who cannot produce enough themselves.
1 reply
Error!
‘Baby formula’ is normally made in the US, but gummint idiots restrict supplier and forbid import.
NOT outsourcing.
Backhaul on weapons flights would make sense.
Seems like an expensive exercise, but let’s see…ETAR to KIND, ~8.5 hours @ $23,811 per flight hour…78,000 pound load. Neglecting fuel stop or the big extra cost of an A-A refuel, if used, plus palletizing weight, deadheading back to somewhere, stuff like that…bare minimum, $2.60 per pound transport cost.
The lactose intolerance stuff retails for nearly $30/pound, so I guess it isn’t so awful.
Sounds like ultimately need 70,000. tons whether ‘long’ or ‘short’ (metric) ones. 
Hopefully plant gets its act together soon - predicted for a few weeks hence.
There’s confusion over source of the bacteria that two infants died from, a different strain was found on some surfaces in the plant so it stopped production. And there’s a PR bunfight between Abbott and a fired whistleblower.
Reminds me of the XL Foods meat plant fiasco in Alberta. Equipment was not being cleaned deep down thus bacteria could migrate upward. That cost the owners control of their business, the Brazilian company that sells meat in the US took over to satisfy the US government to accept imports. (That company owns Burger Kringe and Tim Hurtin’s restaurants. The XL Foods plant was owned by a group of cattle farmers.)
(‘Baby formula’ can be made from different source stock, including by modifying cow milk and by a soy stock, much of both stocks in the US of course.
Addition of anti-bacterial substance is being considered as cow milk has less of it than human milk.
Formulas and ways of processing have evolved over decades.
There is powdered ‘baby formula’, that’ll be much easier to ship but dependent on quality of water used to reconstitute.
Beware that Brits use somewhat different terms than Americans.)
I have looked into this situation a little more. It would appear there is a really crooked path with many moving parts along the way that has led us to this day.
In broad strokes, it seems there are 4 major manufacturers of baby formula in the US who control about 90% of the market. When one of these four stops production that leaves the market with about a 20% shortage of baby formula.
How did we get here and why are the businesses whining about Federal regulations? If anyone recalls the demise of such as the regional meat processors and the local tire retailers who also produced recapped tires, it was the big boys selling new tires and large meat packers who sent lobbyist to Washington to seek more stringent regulations for their respective industries. The rational was the cost of compliance with the new regs would force most of the regional meat processors out of business as well as force tire retailers to stop recapping tires. The cost for their compliance with the regs requested by these large businesses would be more than made up by the increases in sales due to less competition. Is the baby formula business really any different?
Pardon my ignorance…
How is there a shortage in the first place. Are the majority of new “birthing people” “identifying” as “non-mammalian”? It’s my understanding that the human animal produces a form of sustenance for infants that is in fact preferable to any substitute currently in existence. Sure, there will always be a statistically inconsequential segment of any given sub set that has medical issues and falls outside of the norm. If that segment has grown so large as to become a market force, we’ve got bigger problems than is there enough formula!
But seriously this can’t be real. Somewhere somehow something isn’t right here.
Notice how the DPA gives the government MORE authority to direct PRIVATE businesses what to do.
On the one hand, I’d LOVE to see 20 or 25 A-10’s given to the Ukrainians so that – once and for all – the value of these airplanes (the GAU-8) against the Soviet bloc could be demonstrated and embarrass senior USAF brass. On the other, I don’t want to see the USAF get rid of any of the less than half of original numbers built that still are on active or in Guard duty; the congress IS correct in ongoing efforts to keep these airplanes active. The fixation on getting rid of them by the USAF brass is myopic AND a giant mistake. These airplanes were purpose built, fulfilled the intended grunt mission and DO work … just ask any Army ground pounder who was ‘saved’ by one (I did just this year!). Just the sound of their engines is enough to scare the bejesus out of bad guys. And the notion that they’re cannon fodder is – likewise – baloney. EVERY airplane is vulnerable to those sorts of weapons. You use tactics, techniques and procedures against ground-based threats. Let’s just say … “there are vays!”
The original USAF F-4 had no gun because the numbskulls running the USAF then thought that all aerial warfare would use missiles and where did THAT wind up … by adding a gun to the F-4. The F-22 was gonna be the replacement for the F-15 and where did that wind up … with early production stop of the F-22 (less than 1/3 of original total numbers ordered were produced) while NOW the F-15ex is being ordered (a story unto itself). In fact, there’s talk of retiring the F-22 because upgrading them is too costly. In Viet Nam, simple weapons were often the ones that worked. B-2 production was stopped at 20 airplanes (vice 132) because the Soviet Union “disappeared.” Yeah, right! And now AFSOC wants to order Air Tractor airplanes w/ hard points why … they already have the A-10 ? I stood not 20 feet away from the GAU-8 INSIDE the McKinley Climatic hangar at Eglin AFB in 1975 when 30 test rounds were fired into a bullet catcher and am here to tell ya’ll … you DON’T want to be on the receiving end of that weapon. And the Guard proved that landing them on roads in the Upper Peninsula works just fine, too. I’d bet the Ukrainians would do that, as well.
Sometimes, high technology is needed to face sophisticated threats (spell B-2). And sometimes simple weaponry which is either massive OR built in numbers impossible to counter are called for (spell A-10). As I said several weeks ago, the military needs a big warehouse filled with “toys” specifically built when fighting bad boys. Let the Ukrainians have a small number, I’d vote. Hell … give 'em some mothballed F-117A’s, too. THAT’ll get 'ol Vlad’s attention right quick 
.
Isn’t it about time our nation stops helping people kill each other? Aren’t the biggest threats to our nation the invasion of illegal aliens, violence in the streets of major cities and runaway spending by our government that is destroying our currency?
5 replies
Everybody who has been around airplanes for a little while comes to understand that some airplanes do some things very well and some other things, not so much. But other airplanes do those other things well, so the need is filled. It’s the same with cars, motorcycles, and small arms. For that matter just ask somebody coaching pee wee football. I don’t understand why the military/design/procurement process persists in trying to come up with a single solution aircraft that will fit all intended and discovered uses. Of course, their reason is MONEY, and standardization saves MONEY, but the consequence is spending huge amounts of money on equipment that still does a few things well and everything else, not as well as a purpose-built & designed aircraft. Having as many specialized, effective tools as possible in the toolbox would seem to be an asset to military commanders in the field. Maybe the USMC wants the A-10s the USAF is so eager to dump. Or do they figure their helicopters can do the same tasks?
1 reply
Nope!!
Ukraine didn’t start this war.
U.S. isolationist attitudes is what allowed the German takeover of Western Europe and greatly prolonged the war in the ETO. I’ve often wondered if the attack on Pearl Harbor would have happened if we had shown an inclination to engage Germany sooner.
Failure to study and understand history allows us to make the same mistakes in later generations.
2 replies
Sounds a LOT like DCS and their A-10 module to me…
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/tank_killer/
I find great irony in the fact that, more than 30 years ago, Eagle Dynamics, the publisher, was originally founded by Russians in Moscow. In the meantime, it has relocated to Switzerland and has become quite an international company, with a huge following.
DCS as a platform is well worth a look for anyone interested in military aviation. Their A-10, F/A-18C and AH-64 packages, among others, are second to none and have a steep learning curve (they are so realistic, you can e.g. read the real NATOPS manual for the F/A-18C and find it simulates most of what’s in there quite accurately).
Leave it to the USAF brass to find another way to try to get rid of their A-10’s.
Ukraine does not yet have, nor are they likely to have, air superiority. Without air superiority, using A-10’s is just a quicker way to lose the few qualified UAF pilots that they now have. As a former “ground-pounder” having excellent close air support is often a deciding factor in winning the ground battle. The A-10 is an excellent anti-tank weapon, given appropriate circumstances permitting it’s use, but so is the Javelin and the other anti-tank missiles that the Ukrainian forces have been using with great effectiveness, and the risk is considerably less than using A-10’s.
1 reply
As with most things with aircraft, training pilots in secret sounds good, but not one mention or thought is given to the maintenance personnel…train pilots as much as you want, they will be sitting in the cockpit making pew, pew,pew, gun sounds because the aircraft are down with no one trained to do maintenance.
1 reply
This biggest threat to our nation, is Americans voting for democrats. They literally hate America and love their tyrant like power.
1 reply
Why I should never do math in my head, Chris. I’ll fix it. Thanks.
Good read thank you. Correction tho, the A-10’s were landed on M-32, 6 miles west of Alpena, in northeastern lower Michigan (not the Yuper U.P.) last summer. About 1 mile from my office at KAPN. Big expensive show, but served zero purpose. The grandstands were built, and the “special” invitations sent out, before anything else. Very public display. The same stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound horse. It is laughable to believe this was the “first” time A-10’s were landed off-airport. What a gut buster that statement was.
Everyone is quick to blame ol’ Vlad for the war in the Ukraine. Is there anyone breathing that thinks ol’ Vlad would have invaded the extremely corrupt Ukraine if Donald Trump were our president? Is there anyone out there that doesn’t know the Russian election collusion scandal started in the Ukraine?
Ahhh, no A-10’s for Ukraine please. Send food, water, medical, and clothing. No bullets, no A-10’s
Don’t forget that the USA supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians. A payback for the Soviet involvement in Vietnam. That Afghan war bankrupted Russia. Don’t think for a minute that ol’ Vlad will let that happen again, no more that he let the Ukraine join NATO. A cornered, bankrupt, and defeated country with a nuclear arsenal is a real concern.
God bless.
How many of your kids have come home to you in a ziploc?
That’s your reason that makes it okay? You don’t see any other potential problems or issues beyond filling a job no one else wants?
This comment is not about the A-10. I have no problem with an aircraft that provides close infantry support for US troops. This comment is about the reason there is talk of providing Ukraine with offensive air capabilities. Natural gas.
The tendency is to focus on the conflict between Russian and Ukraine because the fighting is front and center in media reports with political interests also issuing press releases to keep it on the front burner.
This is the second time there is open hostilities between the Russians and the Ukrainians over natural gas. Why? The short answer is the money that can be made selling natural gas to Western Europe. Somebody wants to push the Russians out of the European market.
If they are successful, the price of natural gas for US commercial and residential customers is going to rise as the demand for US natural gas increases overseas. Does the US natural gas consumer really need to pay more for energy because one gang is fighting another for control of the other’s turf? And, all while financing the fight with US deficit tax dollars?
Our military leaders and generals have become politician generals, they are more interested in the latest greatest thing, and lots of shiny new bling. The A-10 doesn’t fit that role for them, perhaps they need to be put back in combat where their survival in a hot fire fight depends on the A-10.
^^^ This ^^^
Thanks Larry. Good comment.
No, because those aren’t the biggest internal problems our nation faces. Those are just the symptos of the real problem, but that’s a discussion for a completely off-topic subject.
The war in Ukraine is just a modern-day proxy war with Russia, like in the “good old days” of the cold war. Technology may have changed, but the A-10 is still the aircraft best suited to this type of warfare. Though as has already been mentioned, their use also requires air superiority, which I don’t believe is the case here.
Agreed!
Good point.
Concur. Trade is, at most, a peripheral issue.
As opposed to the tyrant that tried a COUP to retain his power?
Huh?
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Russia claims Ukraine is really part of Russia.
Putin is playing the same ‘culture’ game as Adolf Hitler did.
Putin is following Stalin’s expansionist lead. Tyrannies try to expand, democracies do not as they want to trade values.
Your comment is especially stupid given that Ukraine has large reservoirs of natural gas, mostly undeveloped. And farmland and coal deposits and … all of which Russia would get.
Marxist conspiracy theorists should not be in aviation.
Reality is that both Russia and Ukraine have significant ability to control airspace, in different areas and different ways.
Both see advantages in control of airspace.
Modern SAMs and air launched missels have already nullified the A-10.
That’s the downside of being sucessful for decades; the other team adapts.
IMO this won’t result in airframes in use. But this is how you win. Lots of people enthusiastically doing lots of potentially useful things. I think of it a bit like the best football teams, rock bands, etc. Each player is in their position but also helping everyone else while nursing a bunch of their own ideas and theories. The pool of knowledge, skills and abilities will grow faster and wider. People will make connections and run with the resulting concepts. And the Ukraine has only just started to come out from under a stifling blanket. Some exciting things are and will come out of that part of the world, putting our gentrified, self-satisfied corporations to shame.
Can you imagine if in early 1942 you’d laid out the coldly logical reasons Japan attacked at Pearl Harbour a few months prior? To power their empire plans by securing fuel sources from the bottom of Asia while scaring the US out of the western Pacific? Some would already know it. Some would angrily dismiss it because they are emotionally welded to the first thing they read in the paper. Some would realize it was drawing aside the curtain of propaganda and BS and revealing some of the coldly logical reasoning on our side also.
Regular people relate to regular people. The hard heads see interests, threats and opportunities in which regular people are mostly just useful or distracting.
The bigger the war toys, the luckier you get.
I don’t understand the view that A10s will do significantly better than the ground attack aircraft which have already had serious issues in the theater where MANPAD and other air defense missiles proliferate. Sure the A10 may be more survivable, but a damaged airplane is still a combat loss. Without SEAD the A10 is just as much or a sitting duck as an SU25
Which is why Ukraine has been seeking long-range missiles.
Seems to be getting/making some beyond basic HIMARs, given damage to the Russian air base in Crimea looks 500 pound warhead size, not just sabotage or Ukrainian operatives.
And getting anti-aircraft and anti-radar weapon systems.
Did you bother reading the article? The location is secret, as are the identities of the pilots—but the man behind the program is the one talking to Time.
So many many different opinions, so many sure this is all about the tyrannical Russians denying freedom to the oppressed Ukrainians instead of businessmen engaged in the usual pursuit of economic gain. Well, I guess we can all agree to disagree.
When Obama/Clinton used the CIA to start the first dust up between Ukraine and Russia there was George Soros, and others, coveting the European natural gas market. The first conflict was thought to almost be a slam dunk for those looking to take over the European natural gas market. That is, until it became apparent that the Russians were not going to give up their pipelines or their naval base on the Black Sea. The current conflict is just a continuation of the same old stuff.
I suspect many who believe that this conflict is centered around such lofty ideals as democracy thought the civil war in Syria was about removing Assad. Many missed the planned 4 Points Pipeline proposal where Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria intended to build the pipelines to take their oil and natural gas to the European market across Turkey. No pipelines can be built from Syria to those other countries, or in any country for that matter, while a civil war is raging. The 4PP is dead. Whew, mission accomplished.
There are also those who believe that our incursion into the Middle East was about democracy. As I had a very close up view of the situation I can say that was just another business deal. The presence of US troops was an excuse to sell stuff to the US taxpayer. If anyone thinks it was anything more feel free to explain why we bolted from Afghanistan on short notice and left a better trained, better equipped Taliban running the country.
Most people seem to think the US military is about defense of the USA. This is partially true. Most people do not understand that our military is really the enforcement arm of US economic policy. Most people do not really understand who influences our economic policies.
These same people believe that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which oversees our central banking system, is another branch of our Federal government. These same people do not understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately held corporation and almost nobody knows who are the stockholders.