tardate 2025

After Pivotal Tracker

2025年10月21日 03:00:00 +0000

When Broadcom/VMware announced it was shutting down Pivotal Tracker effective April 30, 2025, it signalled the end of an era. And had me scrambling to find a replacement!

TLDR: I moved to BardTracker and LiteTracker.

Pivotal Tracker (PT) was created in 2008 by Pivotal Labs as an internal project management tool based on agile principles. It was later released as a commercial product but eventually became part of VMware Tanzu Labs after its parent company, Pivotal Software, was acquired by VMware in 2019. Following VMware’s acquisition by Broadcom, Tanzu Labs was shut down in early 2025, and PT was retired in April 2025.

2008: Pivotal Labs develops Pivotal Tracker for internal use.
2012: The company, now known as Pivotal Software, is formed.
2019: Pivotal Labs is acquired by VMware and renamed VMware Tanzu Labs.
2023: VMware is acquired by Broadcom.
2025: Tanzu Labs is shut down in January, and Pivotal Tracker is retired in April.

I was first introduced to PT while working alongside Pivotal Labs consultants on Rails projects in 2008/2009. For me, it represented the same simplicity and effectiveness in planning that Ruby and Rails brought to development itself.

I was converted, and while I’ve had to use many other systems before and since (Jira, Trello, bugzilla, even FogBugz and others), nothing has helped me to just get things done so well, without adding undue cost or complexity.

So like many others, I was in a desperate search for alternatives in 2024/2025, and even considered writing my own if I couldn’t find anything suitable. This was especially true as I’d long since internalised PT and used it for getting things done in all aspects of life.

The good news: I found answers and was able to smoothly migrate all my ongoing PT activity to alternatives. Here’s a quick summary of what I ended up using

BardTracker

I’ve moved all my personal and small project activity to BardTracker. It was specifically developed by Bot and Rose Design (BARD) as a PT replacement for their own consulting work, and they now offer it as a service for others.

What I like:

it has a nice free tier - perfect, especially for personal GTD/TODO lists
GitHub integration
looks and works similarly enough to PT
is really well supported. I’ve had very fast response to any issues or features requests I’ve raised.
it’s backed by an operating concern, so should have some longevity

To consider:

the UI is not identical to PT - there are differences, some of which may be significant for you
no API access (yet)
no mobile app, but mobile responsive view is quite OK

LiteTracker

It really is the most complete and "identical" PT replacement that has made it into full operation. If you want something exactly like PT, this is the best I’ve found. As it has no free tier, I haven’t adopted it for personal projects, but it would be my first choice the next time I start a new project with a larger team.

What I like:

every feature you ever liked from PT is here
it really is pretty much identical
after the initial focus on migrating from PT, they’ve continued to add migrations from other popular planning tools
now has a mobile app

To consider:

the developer API is still a work-in-progress
only paid tiers

For TV made as late as 1982, it brilliantly captures the immediate post-war period in Britain. From rationing and the black market, to social upheaval of returned services and the changing role of women in society, to the expectation of a new social contract reflected by the Beveridge Report and the Labour victory in 1945 - all are handled with convincing realism.
It features the forgotten history of the end of the British Mandate and the Palestine Emergency, with the Airline being dupped into smuggling guns for Zionist militias who were fighting the British at the time. The show deftly presents the moral dilemma that continues to dominate western politics to this day: sympathy and a need to atone for the treatment of the Jewish people in Europe up to and including the holocaust; yet discomfort with Zionist methods and all that means for others in the middle east, in particular the people of Palestine and Lebanon. For more on the period, I can highly recommend The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi.
Later episodes depict the Berlin airlift from a perspective I’d never considered before: the rapid assemblage of motley crews and operators to provide an airlift capability that had been unceremoniously moth-balled at the conclusion of WWII. For more on the history, I really enjoyed reading The Berlin Airlift by Robert Jackson.
Finally, if you appreciate the DC-3/Dakota - it is really the star of the show. There is lots of footage of it in the air and on the ground, in pieces and various liveries. And as a bonus, the show regularly co-stars a period Austin Tilly.

In short, so many aspects of the story and production will have one thinking: "crikey, forgot about that!" Or even, "crikey, never knew that!"

So what’s not to like? Well in short: "Jack Ruskin". This is a lead character you will learn to loathe, as does his fiancée who ends up leaving him by the end of season 1. For all his drive and passion to establish a new airline, he manages to be obnoxious to all concerned, far beyond just being a "blunt no-nonsense Yorkshireman". Perhaps the main reason there is no season 2, is that there’s no amount of success he could have with the airline to redeem him as a character!

Airline: The Synopsis

After the end of the Second World War, Jack Ruskin, a demobbed pilot, attempts to make a living from his one-plane airline business.

Newly-discharged from the RAF after World War II, Jack Ruskin, a blunt no-nonsense Yorkshireman, decides to set up his own airline, Ruskin Air Services. Something of an idealist, Jack is prepared to bend every rule in the book to achieve his goal of flying a Dakota once again. He soon does a deal with Ernie Cade, a notorious spiv who can lay his hands on any item of war surplus - for the right price - and then enlists Peter Witney as co-pilot and Jock McEvoy as maintenance engineer. But his long absences start to put a strain on his relationship with Jennie, his girlfriend.

Episode summary:

S1.E1 "Look After Number One": In 1946 Flight Sgt. Russell tries to stay in the RAF as a pilot. A former mentor falls under suspicion of massive illegalities and needs a favor, leading to a brush with smuggling.
S1.E2 "Brave New World": Demobilized from the Air Force, Jack Ruskin hustles to start his own private air service with a few other men.
S1.E3 "Conscience": Ruskin Air Service’s first cargo run is a failure when the cargo of eggs is confiscated. Debts and interest on the aircraft loan pile up. A load of tractor parts headed to Palestine goes awry when a fuel stop leads to a change in cargo.
S1.E4 "Touch and Go": February. Ruskin Air Services is grounded: locked in the icy grip of winter, Enter Ernie Cade, with a proposition the men find hard to refuse, Had they known what they were letting themselves in for, they would have remained earthbound.
S1.E5" Fool’s Errands": March 1947, Ruskin is broke. His plane is badly damaged and Cade is putting the screws on. Hardly the time to expand, one would think, But Ruskin’s determination to succeed knows no bounds.
S1.E6 "Captain Clarke Plus One": Spring 1947, With the forces of bureaucracy massing against him in England, Ruskin finds himself in Malta, with no fuel, no cooperation and no way out. All seems lost until the winds of fortune change - for the worse.
S1.E7 "Not Much of a Life": Stripped of his pilot’s licence and no airline to run, Ruskin, undaunted, embarks on a new ‘money earner’ - and that’s where he comes unstuck: military training hasn’t exactly prepared his crew for carrying passengers.
S1.E8 "Officers and Gentlemen": Spring 1948. Dark clouds are gathering over Jennie and Jack’s wedding plans, The airline is in deep -and deadly - trouble. Ruskin must make a decision which will affect the lives of everyone around him, But will he make the right choice?
S1.E9 "Too Many Promises": Autumn 1948. With high financial rewards to be made from the Berlin airlift, independent operator Ruskin has nothing to operate. He has lost his licence, one of his planes and most of his crew. Can he save himself from disaster.

Airline: Playlist by Forgotten British Television

Available on YouTube

For Modellers: The DC3

The Douglas DC-3, also known in its military role as the Douglas C-47 Skytrain or Dakota (RAF designation), is a propeller-driven airliner manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company. It had a lasting effect on the airline industry from the 1930s, with examples still in use today.

In 1:72 scale, Airfix is the queen of the sky. It’s new tool from 2013 has shown up in a number of releases - most recently in 2022 as the Airfix Douglas C-47 Skytrain No. A08014.

Other recent toolings of the DC-3 in 1:72 include:

A&A Models Basler BT-67 No. 7242 from 2024
HobbyBoss C-47A Skytrain No. 87264 from 2017
Amodel Li-2P/T No. 72244 from 2011

In 1:144 Ukrainian manufacturer Roden has a 2013 tool, most recently released in 2015 as the Douglas AC-47D Spooky No. 310.

Hasegawa seems to dominate "airline scale" 1:200 offerings, with a 1994 tooling, most recently released in 2012 as the L2D Type Zero Transport & C-47 Skytrain "Pacific Carriers" 2 kits in the box No. 10687.

For Modellers: The Austin Tilly

A Tilly is a utility vehicle produced during the Second World War based on existing car designs for use by the British armed forces. They were all officially classed as Car, Light Utility 4 x 2.

The Austin variant is used in the show:

I’ve built the 1:72 Austin Tilly from ACE of Ukraine: British Light Utility Car Tilly 10HP No. 72500.

It’s a great kit - see my build here.

Tamiya have some of the best examples in 1:35 and 1:48:

Turning Points - HMS Prince of Wales

2025年6月25日 00:00:00 +0000

HMS Prince of Wales (R09) arrived in Singapore on the 23 June 2025, docking at the Marina Bay Cruise Centre. Many remember the last visit by a ship bearing her name, HMS Prince of Wales (53), doomed to be sunk a few days later on 10 Dec 1941 as Force Z was effectively wiped out by Japanese aircraft. In 2025, we are at an equally momentous turning point in military doctrine. Will the the new HMS Prince of Wales weather the storm?

The loss of the battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53) and her companion, the battlecruiser HMS Repulse, in just a matter of hours drove home the lesson that strategic advantage at sea had decisively shifted from the battleship to the air.

This was the same lesson painfully taught the US just a few days earlier with the Dec 7th attack on Pearl Harbor, and ironically demonstrated by the British themselves a month before with the Swordfish attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto.

This was a turning point in military doctrine that set the blueprint for much of the rest of the Pacific War.

In 2025, the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales (R09) represents Britain’s continued commitment to the strategy of the Carrier Strike Group. Her main air capability comprises the Lockheed Martin F-35B fighter jets, with AgustaWestland Wildcat HMA2 and AgustaWestland Merlin HM2/HC4 helicopters.

HMS Prince of Wales (R09) was commissioned in 2019, and Operation Highmast is only her second major exercise. But is she already on the wrong side of another turning point of doctrine, just as her namesake was 84 years ago?

The world of 2025 looks very different from 2008 when she was ordered. Russia invaded Ukraine and started a very hot war that is not only showing the limits of nuclear deterrence, but that the battlefield is now ruled by drones. The UK left the EU, and the Trump administration has called into question its support for NATO and Ukraine, while continuing the US obsession with a threat from China.

We have seen two significant effects on the zeitgeist:

A dramatic shift towards uncrewed and autonomous combat systems
Questioning the wisdom of relying on the US as an all-weather ally. Many are already making moves to "de-risk" the control and supply of military technology from US dependence. For example, Portugal is re-considering its planned F35 purchase.

There was perhaps no better time for the UK to release its latest Strategic Defence Review.

While it remains steadfast in its commitment to the US as a strategic partner, indeed recommending to

double down on both pillars of the AUKUS agreement,

many of the recommendations reflect the dramatic re-centering of the role of autonomous and uncrewed systems, and that

Defence should also learn from Ukraine’s extraordinary experience in land warfare, drone, and hybrid conflict.

It foreshadows a significant shift in the role of the aircraft carrier

Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single‐use drones.

Specifically it recommends that:

The Royal Navy must continue its transformation in the skills, equipment, and ways of operating needed for the 21st century maritime domain as part of an Integrated Force. This should include:

Moving to a ‘hybrid’ carrier airwing, comprising crewed combat aircraft, autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, single-use drones, and, eventually, long-range missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.

Rapid evolution of anti-submarine warfare through the integration of underwater, surface, and airborne drones (including Protector) with Type 26 frigates, P-8 maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, and SSN attack submarines.

Rapid evolution of mine-hunting to be delivered with autonomous platforms.

Exploring possible development from a Type 45 destroyer to a minimally crewed or autonomous air dominance system that could integrate directed energy weapons and enable better connectivity to other assets within the UK’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence system.

So while the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales (R09) is not yet obsolete, one may expect dramatic changes in the way it is equipped and fought to be in the wind. Perhaps a refit when it returns from the Pacific at the end of Operation Highmast?

More references:

Chili Lime Peanuts ถั่วทอดสมุนไพร

2025年6月23日 00:00:00 +0000

Pailin’s Kitchen has gifted so many wonderful recipes that frequently appear on our table. It didn’t take much convincing to have a go at the latest recipe I’d seen, Chili Lime Peanuts (ถั่วทอดสมุนไพร, Tua Tod Samun Prai).

How did it go? Well let’s say I kept downsizing my storage container requirements. As we were warned, these are indeed very addictive!

I followed the basic recipe, the main variation being that I used Knorr Serbuk Pati (Seasoning Powder - Chicken) from NTUC Fairprice in place of "chicken bouillon". I’m not sure if these are actually similar products, but it worked just fine. The first time I made this, I also left out the cashews as I didn’t have any around - also works, but I can now attest that it is better with them in.

My ingredient list:

Frying oil (canola)
2 garlic bulbs, ~15-20 cloves, sliced
15-20 makrut lime leaves. Stem removed and torn into smaller pieces.
1 stalk lemongrass
10-15 dried chilies, chopped
- Pasar Dried Chilies
400g raw peanuts
- Pasar Raw Peanuts from NTUC Fairprice
- (fried for 7-8 mins)
100g raw cashews
- Pasar Raw Cashew Nuts from NTUC Fairprice
- (fried for 5-6 mins)

And for the seasoning:

2 teaspoons granulated sugar
- I used brown sugar, as no white sugar on hand
1 teaspoon table salt
1 teaspoon lime juice powder
- Knorr Lime Flavoured Powder
1 teaspoon chicken bouillon powder, optional but recommended
- Knorr Serbuk Pati (Seasoning Powder - Chicken) from NTUC Fairprice
2 teaspoons chili powder
- I used Korean Gochugaru

Highly recommend. You may want to consider doubling all the quantities though!

The Mosquito In Film

2025年6月20日 00:00:00 +0000

The de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito is one of the most famous (and beautiful) aircraft of the Second World War. Its use evolved to successfully fulfil many roles, including low- to medium-altitude daytime tactical bomber, high-altitude night bomber, pathfinder, day or night fighter, fighter-bomber, intruder, maritime strike, and photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

There are of course many books covering the Mosquito, for example:

Mosquito: The RAF’s Legendary Wooden Wonder and its Most Extraordinary Mission, by Rowland White.
Mosquito Mayhem: de Havilland’s Wooden Wonder in Action in WWII, by Martin W. Bowman.
Mosquito Men: The Elite Pathfinders of 627 Squadron, by David Price
633 Squadron Series, by Frederick E. Smith.

As such an iconic aircraft, it is no surprise that many films have also made it the hero of the story. Let’s take a look at a few..

633 Squadron (1964)

An RAF squadron is assigned to knock out a German rocket fuel factory in Norway. The factory supplies fuel for the Nazi effort to launch rockets on England during D-Day.

The plot, which involves the exploits of a fictional World War II British fighter-bomber squadron, was based on the 1956 novel of the same name by former Royal Air Force officer Frederick E. Smith, which itself drew on several real RAF operations.

It can be found on YouTube:

Mosquito Squadron (1969)

In World War II, an RAF squadron leader mourns the death of a comrade and receives a bombing mission against a secret German V-2 rocket testing facility in France.

Although not a sequel, the film is similar to the 1964 film 633 Squadron and was influenced by it, even using some of its footage.

It can be found on YouTube:

The raid in Mosquito Squadron echoes Operation Jericho, a combined RAF–Maquis raid which freed French prisoners from Amiens prison in which the Mosquitos took part.

The pilots, navigators and planners of Operation Jericho tell their tales in their own words in this documentary, with copious contemporary footage:

Skyggen i mit øje (2021)

Skyggen i mit øje is a Danish film also known as "The Shadow in My Eye", or "The Bombardment" in English.

It is a powerful story based around Operation Carthage. On March 21st, 1945, the British Royal Air Force set out on a mission to bomb Gestapo’s headquarters in Copenhagen. The raid had fatal consequences when one of the planes crashed near Institut Jeanne d’Arc, causing the school to be misidentified as the target and also bombed. More than 120 people were killed, 86 of whom were children.

I saw The Bombardment on Netflix.

For Modellers

Airfix has a long history of kitting the Mosquito. In 1:72 scale, the new tooling from 2021 is now powering a wonderful line of variants, for example De Havilland Mosquito B.XVI (A04023). I’ve enjoyed building this one.

Airfix are perhaps most famous for their massive 1:24 kit, most recently released in a 2015 boxing from the original 2010 tooling: De Havilland Mosquito FB.VI (A25001A)

Hasegawa have kitted a series of variants in 1:72 from a 1999 tooling, the latest being the 2016 release: Mosquito NF Mk.XIII ‘Night Fighter’ (02198).

Tamiya also entered the 1:72 Mosquito market at the same time as Hasegawa and have produced a few variants from a 1999 tooling, the latest being the 2001 release: De Havilland Mosquito NF Mk.XIII/XVII

Is there a good 1:48 scale mosquito? There hasn’t been a new tool for many years, but quite a few manufacturers:

Airfix: De Havilland Mosquito PR.XVI D-DAY 70th Anniversary No. A07112 - 2014 release from a 1977 tooling.
Revell: D.H. Mosquito B Mk. IV No. 03923 - 2017 release from a 2008 tooling.
Tamiya: de Havilland Mosquito NF Mk.II & British Light Utility Car 10HP No. 89786 - 2009 release from a 1998 tooling.

A similar story for 1:32:

Revell: De Havilland Mosquito Mk.IV No. 04758 - 2014 release from a 1971 tooling.
Tamiya: De Havilland Mosquito FB Mk.VI w/clear engine covers No. 60326 - 2015 tooling and release

More exciting perhaps is the range of Mosquito kits produced by Mark I Models in 1:144 scale from a 2018 tooling. The latest being DH Mosquito FB. VI Amiens Prison Raid No. MKM144124

At the very extreme end of the scale, Pit-Road produce a wonderful 1:700 scale Mosquito in their WWII Royal Air Force Wings Set 1 No. S32, last released in 2022 from a 2013 tooling. I’ve actually used it to make a little resin-encased diorama:

Close Quarters

2025年6月18日 00:00:00 +0000

Close Quarters (1943) is a docudrama that follows a Royal Navy submarine on a North Sea patrol during World War II. It uses vessels, equipment, and crew of the day, being filmed onboard the Royal Navy T-class Submarine N76 HMS Tribune.

HMS Tribune survived the war and was scrapped in 1947.

The film also includes rare footage of a Royal Navy submarine depot ship in action..

See details on IMDB, find it at the Imperial War Museum, or watch it on YouTube:

Submarine On Patrol (1943)

Submarine On Patrol is a British World War II information film describing to the public the technicalities and roles of Royal Navy submarine operations.

Again it features HMS Tribune masquerading as HMS Tyrant.

While it appears to have been made at the same time as filming of "Close Quarters", most of the footage is unique.

For Modellers

SSMODEL released a new 1:350 3D-printed kit of the T-class Submarine (HMS Thrasher) in 2024. This joins an older Pit-Road plastic injection kit, also 1:350.

How can NATO de-risk from the US?

2025年3月01日 00:00:00 +0000

If there was any remaining doubt, the US is clearly no longer a reliable ally. When European and NATO priorities are not aligned with the US, as is now the case in Ukraine, the US is at best disinterested, and at worst an adversary.

It now appears European and NATO members are scrambling to "de-risk" their military from US entanglement. The alarm has been rung before, but not many seem to have taken the possibility seriously until now. See for example The Conversation from November 15, 2024: The return of Trump means Britain must rethink its defence strategy – and role in the world.

Although Trump just blew things up, this is not a new issue. Even under Biden, the fingerprints of uncomfortable US coercion have been clearly on the scales. Take the apologist stance and luke-warm responses from close US allies to Gaza, the constant need to lobby Washington to allow arms to be used in Ukraine, and how everything needs to come with a "China Chaser" (i.e. no matter the topic, it always seems necessary for western leaders to add a spin on what it means for containing China, apparently to ingratiate oneself to the US).

But what is the actual extent of NATO dependency on the US? I tried to do some research. This is what I’ve found.

NATO Funding: a US Protection Racket?

Up to 60% of NATO equipment spending goes to U.S. firms. No wonder Trump wants members to spend more!

Estimated Proportions:

Smaller members (Baltics, Eastern Europe): 30–60% of equipment spending goes to U.S. firms.
Larger members (Germany, France): 10–20% due to domestic industries.

Data Sources: U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) reports and SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. These are only estimates. Determining the exact allocation of NATO member countries’ defense budgets to U.S. and non-U.S. beneficiaries is challenging due to the lack of publicly available, detailed procurement data.

Detailed Breakdown and Assessment of NATO Spending (2003–2023)

Overview of NATO Defense Spending Guidelines

NATO members agreed in 2006 (reaffirmed in 2014) to spend 2% of GDP on defense, with 20% of that allocated to major equipment (including R&D). Numbers are now starting to change rapidly, for example UK recently announcing a rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027.

Total NATO defense spending has risen significantly since 2014, driven by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, NATO’s total defense expenditure exceeded 1ドル.3 trillion, with the U.S. accounting for ~70% of this.

Total NATO Defense Spending (2003–2023)

2003: ~600ドル billion
2014: ~850ドル billion (post-Crimea inflection point)
2023: ~1ドル.3 trillion
Cumulative (20-year total): ~18ドル–20 trillion (adjusted for inflation).

Trend: Spending declined post-Cold War until 2014, then surged. The U.S. consistently accounts for 65–75% of total NATO spending.

Country-by-Country Breakdown (Key Members)

Country	Avg. % GDP (2003–2023)	2023 Spending	Total (20-Yr)	Spending to US-Based	Sources Spending Elsewhere
United States	3.5–4.5%	886ドルB (2023)	~15ドルT	n/a	n/a
Germany	1.2–1.5% (to 1.6% in 2023)	76ドルB	~1ドルT	10–15% (F-35s, P-8 Poseidon)	85–90% (EU defense contractors)
France	1.8–2.0%	53ドルB	~800ドルB	5–10% (e.g., Reaper drones)	90–95% (domestic: Dassault, Naval Group)
UK	2.0–2.5%	68ドルB	~1ドル.1T	15–20% (F-35s, CH-47 Chinooks)	80–85% (BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce)
Poland	1.8% (to 4.0% in 2023)	29ドルB	~150ドルB	30–40% (HIMARS, Abrams tanks)	60–70% (local modernization)
Canada	1.0–1.3%	26ドルB	~300ドルB	20–25% (F-18 upgrades)	75–80% (domestic/other allies)
Baltic States	1.5–2.5% (to 2.5–3.0% post-2022)	3ドル–4B each	~40ドルB total	50–60% (Javelins, Strykers)	40–50% (Nordic/EU suppliers)

Spending on US-Based Sources

Key Purchases:

F-35 Jets: 14 European NATO members have ordered F-35s (e.g., Germany: 8ドルB for 35 jets).
Patriot Missiles: Widely purchased (e.g., Poland: 4ドル.8B for 2023).
HIMARS: Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland have multi-billion-dollar contracts.

Estimated Proportions:

Smaller members (Baltics, Eastern Europe): 30–60% of equipment spending goes to U.S. firms.
Larger members (Germany, France): 10–20% due to domestic industries.

Data Sources: U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) reports and SIPRI Arms Transfers Database.

Challenges in Tracking Spending Destinations

Procurement vs. Operational Costs: Only ~20–30% of defense budgets go to equipment (where cross-border spending occurs).
Lack of Transparency: Few countries publish vendor-specific data (e.g., France’s Leclerc tanks are domestic).
US Dominance: U.S. firms (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon) supply ~40% of global arms, influencing NATO spending flows

The Technical and Operational Lock-in

Let’s look at some of the key weapons systems purchased from the US, and the extent to which end-users have operational and strategic control of those systems.

F-35 Lightning II: Limited Autonomy

Technical Dependencies:

Software Control: The F-35’s mission systems, including its Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) and its successor Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN), are entirely U.S.-controlled. Maintenance, diagnostics, and software updates require U.S. approval.
- Countries cannot modify the aircraft’s software (e.g., integrating non-U.S. weapons) without U.S. consent.
- Example: The U.S. blocked Turkey from receiving F-35s after it purchased Russian S-400 systems, citing incompatibility and security risks.
Stealth Technology: Critical coatings and radar-absorbent materials are classified and maintained by U.S. contractors. Repairs often require U.S. technicians.

Logistical Dependencies:

Supply Chain: Spare parts, engines (Pratt & Whitney F135), and sensors (e.g., Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 radar) are sourced exclusively from U.S. suppliers.
- Countries must rely on the Global Sustainment Network managed by Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon.
Depot Maintenance: Heavy maintenance (e.g., engine overhauls) occurs in the U.S., Italy, or Japan—all under U.S. oversight.

Strategic Implications:

Interoperability: F-35s are designed to share data seamlessly with NATO/U.S. networks, but this requires alignment with U.S. operational protocols.
Data Sovereignty: Sensor data (e.g., targeting info) is filtered through U.S.-controlled systems, raising concerns about third-party access (e.g., Israel negotiated custom data safeguards).

Patriot Missile Systems: Conditional Readiness

Technical Dependencies:

Fire Control Software: Patriot systems rely on U.S.-updated software for threat libraries (e.g., identifying Russian/Iranian missiles). Client states cannot independently reprogram these databases.
- Example: Saudi Arabia’s Patriots failed to intercept Houthi missiles in 2019, partly due to software limitations in distinguishing threats.
Radar and Interceptors: The PAC-3 MSE interceptor and AN/MPQ-65 radar are proprietary. Upgrades (e.g., PAC-4) require U.S. approval.

Logistical Dependencies:

Missile Resupply: Patriot interceptors are produced in the U.S. (Raytheon/Lockheed), creating bottlenecks during prolonged conflicts (e.g., Ukraine’s requests for more Patriots in 2023).
Maintenance Contracts: Most maintenance is handled by U.S. contractors or through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs.

Operational Independence:

Tactical Control: Operators can engage targets autonomously, but system effectiveness depends on U.S. tech support during crises.
Political Leverage: The U.S. can delay parts/upgrades to influence allies’ actions (e.g., pressure on Gulf states to limit use against Iran).

HIMARS: Flexibility with Strings Attached

Technical Dependencies:

Fire Control Systems: HIMARS’s GPS-guided rockets (e.g., GMLRS, ATACMS) rely on U.S. satellite networks. The U.S. could theoretically disable GPS precision for specific users.
- Example: Ukraine’s HIMARS were reportedly geofenced by the U.S. to prevent strikes deep inside Russia (until restrictions eased in 2023).
Munitions: Client states cannot produce GMLRS rockets domestically. Resupply requires U.S. approval.

Logistical Dependencies:

Rocket Supply: The U.S. controls production rates and prioritizes buyers. Poland’s 2022 10ドルB HIMARS deal includes a clause for U.S. priority during global shortages.
Training: U.S. Army or contractor-led training is mandatory for certification.

Operational Independence:

Tactical Freedom: Operators can deploy HIMARS without real-time U.S. oversight, but reliance on U.S. munitions and GPS limits unilateral campaigns.
Export Controls: The U.S. restricts munitions sales under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). Taiwan’s HIMARS, for instance, are programmed to defend the island, not support offensive ops.

Overarching U.S. Leverage Mechanisms

ITAR Regulations: The U.S. legally mandates end-use monitoring, restricting modifications, resale, or deployment contrary to U.S. interests.
Foreign Military Sales (FMS): Purchases via FMS (85% of NATO’s U.S. buys) bind recipients to U.S. oversight, unlike direct commercial sales.
Interoperability vs. Autonomy: Systems like Link 16 (data link for NATO) enable joint operations but deepen reliance on U.S. networks.
Spare Parts Monopolies: Even if a country wants to "go rogue," a lack of domestic repair infrastructure grounds systems within months.

Case Studies in Dependency

Turkey: Expelled from the F-35 program in 2019 over S-400 purchase; its existing F-35 infrastructure (maintenance hubs, pilot training) became obsolete overnight.
Germany: Delayed Patriot deployments to Poland in 2022 due to software complexities requiring U.S. input.
Ukraine: Initially restricted from using HIMARS against Russian soil—highlighting U.S. operational control even in non-NATO contexts.

Native European Alternatives

Alternatives to the F-35

A. Future Combat Air System (FCAS/SCAF)
- Lead Nations: France, Germany, Spain.
- Components:
  - Next-Gen Fighter (NGF): A 6th-generation stealth fighter with AI and networked capabilities (planned operational by 2040).
  - Remote Carriers: AI-driven drone swarms for support.
  - Combat Cloud: Secure data-sharing network.
- Progress: Prototypes delayed due to Franco-German industrial disputes (e.g., Dassault vs. Airbus workshare).
B. Tempest (Global Combat Air Programme, GCAP)
- Lead Nations: UK, Italy, Japan (Sweden joined as observer).
- Features:
  - 6th-gen fighter with laser weapons, hypersonic capabilities, and optional piloting.
  - Digital Design: Open-architecture software for rapid upgrades.
- Timeline: Aiming for service entry by 2035.
C. Existing European Fighters
- Eurofighter Typhoon (Germany, Italy, Spain, UK): Upgraded with AESA radar (Radar 2) and compatibility with Meteor air-to-air missiles. Limited stealth but effective in air superiority roles.
- Dassault Rafale (France): Competing with F-35 in exports (UAE, India, Greece); integrates SCALP cruise missiles and advanced EW systems.

Alternatives to Patriot Missiles

A. SAMP/T (Mamba) – Aster Missile System
- Lead Nations: France, Italy.
- Capabilities:
  - Engages ballistic missiles, aircraft, and drones (up to 600 km with Aster 30 Block 1NT).
  - Used by France, Italy, Singapore, and Ukraine (delivered in 2023).
- Pros: Fully European-designed; no U.S. ITAR restrictions.
B. MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System)
- Developers: Originally a U.S.-Germany-Italy project (abandoned by the U.S. in favor of Patriot).
- Status: Germany uses MEADS components to upgrade Patriots; not fielded as a standalone system.
C. TWISTER (Timely Warning and Interception with Space-Based Theater Surveillance)
- Lead Nations: France-led EU PESCO project (13 countries).
- Goal: Hypersonic missile defense using space sensors and interceptors (operational by 2030s).

Alternatives to HIMARS

A. MARS II / MLRS-E
- Lead Nation: Germany (with European upgrades).
- Features:
  - Compatible with U.S. GMLRS rockets but can also fire European Precision Strike Missile (PSM) (under development).
  - Used by Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.
B. RCH 155
- Developer: Germany (KNDS – KMW + Nexter).
- Features:
  - Wheeled 155mm howitzer with HIMARS-like mobility and autonomous targeting.
  - Can fire Volcano precision-guided shells (70+ km range).
C. CAESAR 6x6/8x8
- Lead Nation: France.
- Role: Truck-mounted 155mm howitzer (longer range than HIMARS but artillery-focused). Exported to Czechia, Belgium, and Ukraine.
D. Polish WR-40 Langusta
- Features: Indigenous rocket artillery system (122mm rockets), upgraded with Polish targeting systems.

Key European-Developed Munitions

Meteor Missile (Air-to-Air): Outranges U.S. AIM-120 AMRAAM; used by Eurofighter/Rafale.
SCALP/Storm Shadow (Cruise Missile): Deployed in Ukraine with 560 km range.
Brimstone (UK): Precision ground-attack missile used on Eurofighters.

Collaborative European Defense Initiatives

European Defence Fund (EDF): Funds joint R&D (e.g., hypersonic interceptors, drones).
PESCO Projects: 60+ EU defense initiatives, including:
Eurodrone: Remote-piloted aircraft for surveillance/strike.
European Hypersonic Defence Interceptor (HYDEF).
MBDA: European missile consortium developing Enforcer (precision missile) and Spear (air-to-surface).

Challenges for European Alternatives

Delays and Fragmentation: FCAS and Tempest risk duplication; political disagreements slow progress.
Export Competition: U.S. systems dominate due to economies of scale (e.g., F-35 costs 80M/unitvs.Rafale’s115M)
Tech Gaps: Europe lags in stealth, sensor fusion, and satellite networks (relies on U.S. GPS/EU Galileo).
U.S. Components: Even "European" systems often include U.S. parts (e.g., Eurofighter’s EJ200 engine uses U.S. alloys).

Europe has viable alternatives in development, but most lack the maturity, scale, or multi-role versatility of U.S. systems like the F-35. Short-term reliance on U.S. gear remains likely, but projects like FCAS, SAMP/T, and PESCO signal a long-term shift toward strategic autonomy. Success hinges on sustained funding, political cohesion, and faster innovation cycles.

For real-time deterrence (e.g., against Russia), Europe still leans on U.S. systems—but the roadmap for sovereignty is taking shape.

Implications for Other Regions

Too much to cover here, but the implications are global. For example:

ASEAN
- dependency on U.S. military technology is moderate and selective, concentrated in treaty allies like the Philippines and Singapore. Most members deliberately diversify suppliers to avoid overreliance, blending U.S., European, Russian, and indigenous systems.
AUKUS
- already criticised as a bad deal in Australia, AUKUS cannot function as envisioned without sustained U.S. commitment.
- Should the UK or Australia wish to veer from US policy, for example, thinking it might be a bad idea to start a shooting war with China, then the US can pull the plug.
Five Eyes
- the Anglosphere intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States
- hard to imagine how this could continue to operate if the US is the frenemy in the room.

Sources

Little Electronic Art Projects 10th Anniversary

2025年1月26日 06:30:00 +0000

I started the LittleArduinoProjects GitHub repository back in 2014 when I started playing around with an Arduino and re-learning electronics. It currently goes by the name "LEAP: Little Electronic Art Projects", with over 600 projects included in the project catalog hosted at https://leap.tardate.com/.

Over the years the repository accumulated over 2Gb of obsolete commits, and so much git history that it wasn’t even possible to do a git push of the entire repo without resorting to batch tricks.

Entering the 11th year of the repository, I decided to do a one-time squash of the project history and essentially restart the git history from scratch:

https://github.com/tardate/LittleArduinoProjects remains the primary repo
- but with the git history squashed
  - retains the original first commit as the base, so any clones and forks will share a common root commit
- I’ve taken the opportunity to rename the working branch from master to main
https://github.com/tardate/LittleArduinoProjects-archive-2014-2024 is a snapshot of the repository prior to the squash
- marked as archived in GitHub, with issues etc disabled
- retains the full git history in the very unlikely event that anyone needs to refer back to specific change

What this means in practice:

if you are just viewing LittleArduinoProjects on GitHub or the web, there is no impact
if you have a clone of the LittleArduinoProjects repository:
- the simplest is just to throw it away and make a fresh clone of the repo
- if you have work-in-progress changes on private branches, you will probably want to cherry-pick the changes to a branch based on the new main branch
  - if you need help with that, reach out or post an issue
old pull requests (PR) will be based on the old history. Reviving any old PRs will require the changes to be rebased on the new history.

Hopefully this will help make the LittleArduinoProjects repository fit for use for another 10 years or more..

The AI Wasteland of 2030

2024年12月03日 05:30:00 +0000

In the glittering dawn of the AI revolution, businesses across the globe rush to integrate artificial intelligence into every conceivable process. From pricing algorithms to chatbots, automated recruiting to web content generation, the potential seems limitless. The hype is that by 2030, AI will have made business smarter, faster, leaner and someone (well, shareholders and billionaires at least) will be banking major coin as a result. Or perhaps not..

Perhaps in the real business world things will be a tad more prosaic. Perhaps, as we approach 2030, the landscape will have shifted dramatically. What was once a field of innovation and boundless promise is now littered with abandoned AI systems, barely functional algorithms, and a pervasive sense of disillusionment. Welcome to the "AI Wasteland!"

The Fall from Grace

Will the story of AI be a classic tale of over-promising and under-delivering? We already see the market saturated with AI solutions and consultants. Every company, from startups to conglomerates, is being lured into automating processes with AI or die. Sales forecasts, hiring decisions, customer service—all are being entrusted to machines. At first, it works well enough to justify the investment. But as time passes, the cracks began to show.

Knowledge Decay: Over time, the teams that built these systems move on, and the people left behind lack the expertise to maintain them. Documentation is sparse, AI systems are inherently opaque, and the once-shiny algorithms become black boxes no one dares to touch.
Complexity Explosion: the rush to automate imperfect business processes with AI reveal their flaws as solutions are scaled. Predictions became unreliable, biases crept in unchecked, and models failed to adapt to real-world changes. A game of AI whack-a-mole ensues, and before long the business finds itself running on a tangled web of AI point solutions, the complexity of which is beyond any single employee. AI systems have turned into liabilities rather than assets.
No Free Lunch (FO): As AI providers start being forced to price their services above cost, the ROI calculations start to look decidedly grim. Data storage, computing power, and constant retraining drains budgets. Meanwhile, the economic gains AI promised never materialize at scale.

Welcome to the AI Wasteland of 2030: Ghosts of AI Past

2030: the corporate world is haunted by the remnants of this AI gold rush. In offices everywhere, non-functioning chatbots offer glitchy apologies. Automated hiring systems churn out nonsensical candidate rankings. Predictive analytics tools remain plugged in, spewing irrelevant reports that no one reads.

The AI wasteland isn’t just physical; it’s cultural. Employees have grown weary of poorly implemented tools, customers are fed up with dehumanized interactions, and leaders have stopped believing in the transformative power of AI. The term "AI fatigue" has entered the corporate lexicon—a collective acknowledgment of the exhaustion stemming from chasing a dream that didn’t deliver.

So by 2030, disillusioned executives are wanting to pull the plug on AI. But for many, this is easier said than done. They no longer have the staff or institutional knowledge to "just rollback to pre-AI". Stuck between a rock and a hard place, businesses fail.

Lessons Unlearned

As the industry surveys the wreckage, there’s little agreement on how to proceed. Some advocate for a return to basics, emphasizing human-led decision-making supported by simpler tools. Others believe AI can be salvaged, but only with stricter regulation, better education, and a cultural shift toward long-term thinking.

For now, though, the AI wasteland serves as a grim reminder of what happens when hype outpaces reality. Automation’s shine has worn off, and the stench of failure lingers. It’s a cautionary tale for those who dream too big without planning for the future—or understanding the past.

Future fact or fiction?

Oppression

2024年9月27日 04:45:00 +0000

I can’t pinpoint exactly where it comes from, but somewhere along the way I’ve internalised a core value of "siding with the underdog". Anti-Thatcherite Britain? Aussie tall-poppy syndrome? Catholic public school? Perhaps a mix of all these and more. I was recently introduced to the following quote from Periyar Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy that is I think a perfect formulation of the idea:

If a larger country oppresses a smaller country, I’ll stand with the smaller country.

If the smaller country has majoritarian religion that oppresses minority religions, I’ll stand with minority religions.

If the minority religion has caste and one caste oppresses another caste, I’ll stand with the caste being oppressed.

In the oppressed caste, if an employer oppresses his employee, I’ll stand with the employee.

If employee goes home and oppresses his wife, I’ll stand with that woman.

Overall, oppression is my enemy.

- Thanthai Periyar E. V. Ramasamy (17 Sep, 1879 – 24 Dec, 1973)

Looking back now, I can see how this quote made the rounds on social media over the past few years, but I haven’t yet found a primary source to cite. This may be me running into a language barrier, as I presume his original words were probably in Tamil.

Nevertheless, it explains why my first instincts in all modern conflicts have been right .. IMHO!

And why I think that UN Security Council reform is essential to preserve and improve the prospect for all peoples to enjoy peace and security.

Until now, I thought that was a pipe dream, as who could imaging the US giving up its veto power? But now I see a rising chorus of people calling for reform

Kishore Mahbubani has argued in the Financial Times that "UN credibility depends on adjusting veto rights to match shift in global power" .. including quite provocatively suggesting the poetic justice if the UK were to cede its UNSC seat in favour of India.

And everyone seems to be calling for reform at the UN Security Council Open Debate on Leadership for Peace...

Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has called to "constrain the exercise of the veto"
French President Emmanuel Macron has "suggested that the UN Security Council limit veto power"
even the US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield echoed the need for reform .. but of course without mentioning veto powers; no surprise there.
But most significantly, I think Finland’s President Alexander Stubb may have punched a winning ticket by calling for expansion of the U.N. Security Council, abolition of its single state veto power, and suspension of any member engaging in an "illegal war".

Please, no to the veto!

tardate 2025

After Pivotal Tracker

BardTracker

LiteTracker

Other Solutions

Direct PT Replacements

Other Planning Solutions

Airline: the DC-3 in Post-war History

Airline: The Synopsis

Airline: Playlist by Forgotten British Television

For Modellers: The DC3

For Modellers: The Austin Tilly

Turning Points - HMS Prince of Wales

Chili Lime Peanuts ถั่วทอดสมุนไพร

The Mosquito In Film

633 Squadron (1964)

Mosquito Squadron (1969)

Skyggen i mit øje (2021)

For Modellers

Close Quarters

Submarine On Patrol (1943)

For Modellers

How can NATO de-risk from the US?

NATO Funding: a US Protection Racket?

Detailed Breakdown and Assessment of NATO Spending (2003–2023)

Overview of NATO Defense Spending Guidelines

Total NATO Defense Spending (2003–2023)

Country-by-Country Breakdown (Key Members)

Spending on US-Based Sources

Challenges in Tracking Spending Destinations

The Technical and Operational Lock-in

F-35 Lightning II: Limited Autonomy

Patriot Missile Systems: Conditional Readiness

HIMARS: Flexibility with Strings Attached

Overarching U.S. Leverage Mechanisms

Case Studies in Dependency

Native European Alternatives

Alternatives to the F-35

Alternatives to Patriot Missiles

Alternatives to HIMARS

Key European-Developed Munitions

Collaborative European Defense Initiatives

Challenges for European Alternatives

Implications for Other Regions

Sources

Little Electronic Art Projects 10th Anniversary

The AI Wasteland of 2030

The Fall from Grace

Welcome to the AI Wasteland of 2030: Ghosts of AI Past

Lessons Unlearned

Oppression