- Helobubbas - mcs13.brattland.org

HSM-79 Det 1
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 25 Jun '26

25 Jun '26

https://youtu.be/SYouV2gucqQ?si=p_2b_6pe13AkTRrJ

1 0

CAPT Edward O' "Buck" Buchanan, USN (Ret.) June 22, 2026 Signal Charlie
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 24 Jun '26

24 Jun '26

https://www.nhahistoricalsociety.org/captain-edward-o-buchanan-buck-usnret-… See Gene Pellerin’s message on the passing of Buck Buchanan last night………This is his bio from the NHAHS web page while I await his obit and picture. If anyone has some good pics of Buck, please pass them to me for this page and his Signal Charlie to come…….mgb ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: genep1 <genep1(a)cox.net <mailto:genep1@cox.net> > Date: Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 21:27 Subject: Buck Buchanan Sad to say we lost Buck this evening. He passed away at 7 PM. He had a long Navy career and managed the Off Shore Training Range for Dyncorp. I worked for him in HS-4, ASWWINGPAC and at the training range. The Pellerins and Buchanan’s went to dinner every Friday for over 25 years. Getting old has its drawbacks, you lose too many longtime friends. Gene <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_…> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

4 4

Congress Questions Air Force's Combat Rescue Readiness As HH-60W Helicopters Get Turned Into VIP Transports
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 20 Jun '26

20 Jun '26

https://www.twz.com/air/congress-questions-air-forces-combat-rescue-readines s-as-hh-60w-helicopters-get-turned-into-vip-transports CDR Mike Brattland, USN (Ret.) <mailto:mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com <mailto:mgbrattland@brattland.org> mgbrattland(a)brattland.org Admin/Moderator SanDiegoCarGuys List & Calendar of Events <mailto:sandiegocarguys@brattland.org> sandiegocarguys(a)brattland.org 619 454-0496 '38 Willys 2 Dr Sedan Webmaster for <http://www.brattland.org/> www.brattland.org <http://www.overthehillgang.com/> www.overthehillgang.com <http://www.overdrivehotrodnews.com/> www.overdrivehotrodnews.com <http://www.gerlecreek.org/> www.gerlecreek.org <http://www.helobubbas.com/> www.helobubbas.com <http://www.prowlers.org/> www.prowlers.org <http://www.gerlecreek.com/> www.gerlecreek.com <http://www.ford6vcarburetion.com/> www.ford6vcarburetion.com <http://www.westcoastwillysclub.com/> www.westcoastwillysclub.com <http://www.nssha.org/> www.nssha.org <http://www.nhahistoricalsociety.org/> www.nhahistoricalsociety.org <https://sh60fhoas.nhahistoricalsociety.org/> https://sh60fhoas.nhahistoricalsociety.org/

2 1

Old HS-15 shipmates
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 19 Jun '26

19 Jun '26

From: randall abshier <abshierr(a)cox.net> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 6:11 PM To: Mike Brattland <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com>; Dick Catone <dickcatone(a)bellsouth.net>; Dean-o Redhawk <redhawkdeano09(a)gmail.com>; James Ellington <jamesellington18(a)gmail.com>; GWFaber <faberg(a)verizon.net>; Jerry Faber <gwfaber(a)gmail.com>; Kenny Golden <golden23(a)cox.net>; Guy Guyette <stuguyette(a)gmail.com>; Wayne Forbush <wforbush24(a)gmail.com>; Arthur Majerus <sawdustman(a)mac.com>; John Mcgill <jmcgill49(a)yahoo.com>; Terry Rauch <htrauch007(a)gmail.com>; Daniel Dick <dandick66(a)hotmail.com>; Pagskaar <pagskaar(a)cox.net>; JAMES PEGRAM <pegram(a)flash.net>; hkircher(a)comcast.net; Andy Cain <andy.cain(a)comcast.net>; David Nelson <danelson82(a)att.net>; Brad Pangle <panglebp(a)bellsouth.net>; rblandf344(a)aol.com; kenobannon(a)gmail.com; Dan Serfass <dan.serfass(a)gmail.com> Subject: Old HS-15 shipmates A get together in San Diego/Coronado for two old-old-old HS-15 shipmates, Randy Abshier ‘72-‘75 and Bill Vivian ‘73-‘76. We were also neighbors during our HS-15 time. We haven’t seen each other since our HS-15 reunion in Pensacola in the early 2000s. Bill is in town from FL to perform in a Navy choir at the first ever NASCAR event to be held on a military base. A road course totally on the air station and part of the race will have the USS Carl Vinson, CVN-71 in the background. Always great when two old shipmates can get together. To all our squadron shipmates, stay safe, happy 250th, and proud we could serve together, Randy Sent from my iPad

1 0

Buff Mishap at Edwards-Social Media Chit Chat
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 17 Jun '26

17 Jun '26

https://x.com/RDog861/status/2067356925784944951?s=20 CDR Mike Brattland, USN (Ret.) <mailto:mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com <mailto:mgbrattland@brattland.org> mgbrattland(a)brattland.org Admin/Moderator SanDiegoCarGuys List & Calendar of Events <mailto:sandiegocarguys@brattland.org> sandiegocarguys(a)brattland.org 619 454-0496 '38 Willys 2 Dr Sedan Webmaster for <http://www.brattland.org/> www.brattland.org <http://www.overthehillgang.com/> www.overthehillgang.com <http://www.overdrivehotrodnews.com/> www.overdrivehotrodnews.com <http://www.gerlecreek.org/> www.gerlecreek.org <http://www.helobubbas.com/> www.helobubbas.com <http://www.prowlers.org/> www.prowlers.org <http://www.gerlecreek.com/> www.gerlecreek.com <http://www.ford6vcarburetion.com/> www.ford6vcarburetion.com <http://www.westcoastwillysclub.com/> www.westcoastwillysclub.com <http://www.nssha.org/> www.nssha.org <http://www.nhahistoricalsociety.org/> www.nhahistoricalsociety.org <https://sh60fhoas.nhahistoricalsociety.org/> https://sh60fhoas.nhahistoricalsociety.org/

1 0

FW: Aviation Week :: The Week In Technology, June 8-12, 2026
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

From: Harold Brattland <habrattland(a)arvig.net> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:34 PM To: Brattland, Mike * <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com> Subject: Aviation Week :: The Week In Technology, June 8-12, 2026 Check out this site https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/emerging-technologies/week-technology-ju… -- The Week In Technology, June 8-12, 2026 Graham Warwick <https://aviationweek.com/author/graham-warwick> June 08, 2026 <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/crop_freeform/public/20…> GE Aerospace completed ground testing of a megawatt-class hybrid-electric engine. Credit: GE Aerospace GE Tests Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System GE Aerospace is preparing to flight-test a megawatt-class hybrid-electric engine on a modified Saab 340B testbed following completion of ground tests of the propulsion system at its Peebles, Ohio, facility. Developed under NASA’s Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) project, the system is based on a GE CT7 turboprop fitted with GE-developed motor/generators, power converters, inverters and controllers. The engine is also configured with a Dowty propeller, Avio Aero gearbox and BAE Systems batteries. Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> subsidiary Aurora Flight Sciences is supplying the nacelle. Completion of ground tests marks a milestone for GE’s EPFD effort, which began in September 2021 with the award of a $179 million NASA contract. Further progress came in 2022 when the propulsion system operated in simulated altitude at the NASA Electric Aircraft Testbed (NEAT) in Sandusky, Ohio. Tests at Peebles simulated operational phases, ranging from taxi and takeoff to climb and cruise. “The electric powertrain helped successfully power the propeller and generated power to the battery,” GE says, adding: “Flightworthy components that meet higher safety and reliability requirements than typical test hardware were used as part of GE Aerospace’s efforts to mature a commercial-grade hybrid-electric engine system.” “The ground test is a major turning point in our understanding of hybrid-electric powertrains for aviation and a fundamental building block for the future,” says Arjan Hegeman, vice president for future of flight at GE. GE also recently tested a modified Passport business jet engine in hybrid-electric mode, marking a key step toward development of a future single-aisle propulsion system under CFM International’s Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines (RISE) initiative. The tests marked the culmination of the Turbofan Engine Power Extraction (PEx) program under NASA’s Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) initiative to develop compact, high-power-density cores for integration with larger, lower-pressure fans—thereby enabling higher bypass ratios for greater propulsive efficiency. Lessons learned from HyTEC and PEx are informing the RISE initiative, GE’s program with CFM partner Safran aimed at development of a new centerline engine with 20% better fuel efficiency than today’s CFM Leap-1. —Guy Norris, Colorado Springs Study: Ambition in Decarbonization Would Pay Off An ambitious strategy to decarbonize aviation by 2070 would require billions of dollars in annual investment but would avoid trillions of dollars in long-term societal costs from aviation’s climate impact, a Bauhaus Luftfahrt study concludes. “Despite high investment costs, greater ambition for climate-friendly aviation will pay off economically,” says Mirko Hornung, executive director of research and technology at the Munich-based aviation think tank, which is backed by Airbus and other aerospace entities. <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/TECHWEEK24-2-Bau…> A Bauhaus Luftfahrt study assessed the societal costs of aviation’s climate impact across various decarbonization pathways. Credit: Bauhaus Luftfahrt “An ambitious transformation will pay off for the overall economy as early as 2050, when highly efficient aircraft using sustainable fuels significantly reduce the societal costs of climate change,” he says. The study looked at four potential futures—a conservative baseline assuming 70% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) use by 2070 and three more aggressive scenarios: 100% SAF use by 2060, 60% more efficient aircraft combined with SAF, and a “radical switch” to liquid hydrogen. In all scenarios, the use of higher-priced alternative fuels, SAF or hydrogen would increase direct operating costs per passenger-kilometer 35-55% by 2070. Even achieving a baseline of 70% SAF use by 2070 would require several hundred billion dollars in annual investment, and 100% SAF use by 2060 would increase the cost by 30%, the study says. The conservative 70% SAF pathway would initially be about 10% cheaper per passenger-kilometer than the other scenarios, Bauhaus says, but the gap would gradually narrow, reverse after 2050 and then exceed the projected costs for all the more ambitious pathways. “Although hydrogen-powered aircraft incur higher acquisition costs, they can lead to lower operating costs in the longer term, primarily due to increasing synergies within the energy system,” the think tank says. “Highly efficient next-generation aircraft offer the greatest potential for significantly mitigating fuel-related cost increases—despite high development and acquisition costs,” Bauhaus Luftfahrt says. Under the study’s baseline 70% SAF scenario, annual emissions would reach about 2.84 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2070, an increase of around 60% over 2025. Increasing SAF use to 100% by 2060 would reduce 2070 emissions by 24%, the study says. Emissions would decrease by 40% under the highly efficient aircraft plus SAF pathway and by up to 74% in the best-case scenario combining the radical-hydrogen pathway with minimizing non-CO2 emissions by avoiding aviation-induced contrails. Even after accounting for the billions of dollars in annual investment required for alternative fuels production and highly efficient aircraft development, Bauhaus projects trillions of dollars in avoided societal costs across health, agriculture, energy systems and weather patterns. By 2070, the cumulative additional societal costs of aviation’s climate impact could reach $43.7 trillion under the conservative baseline scenario, Bauhaus projects. The 100% SAF pathway could reduce this cost by 10% and the highly efficient aircraft route by 23%. NASA Previews Advanced Airliner Ideas NASA has teased results from 18-month studies by industry and academia to identify technologies and concepts for ultraefficient commercial aircraft that could enter service around the middle of the century. The five studies were conducted under NASA’s Advanced Aircraft Concepts for Environmental Sustainability (AACES) 2050 project, launched in 2024. AACES is modeled on N+3 studies completed in 2010 that shaped NASA’s research into hybrid wing body and truss-braced wing aircraft concepts and hybrid-electric propulsion. <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/TECHWEEK24-5-Ele…> Electra’s concept combines a lifting fuselage with drag-reducing boundary-layer ingestion. Credit: Electra.aero The AACES Phase 1 contracts to develop future scenarios and identify technologies and concepts were awarded in November 2024 to Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> company Aurora Flight Sciences, Electra.aero, Georgia Institute of Technology, JetZero and Pratt & Whitney. In an April briefing to industry on its planned Aeronautics Flight Accelerator (AFA) project to conduct near-term flight experiments, NASA indicated it expected the AACES studies to lead to integrated system demonstrations of radical airframe and propulsion combinations, “paradigm-busting” configurations and technologies for multiple fuel options. NASA, previewing the teams’ planned presentations at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Aviation 2026 conference in San Diego on June 8-12, posted images of advanced aircraft concepts. <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/TECHWEEK24-6-Geo…> Georgia Tech’s concept features a twin-aisle blended wing centerbody with hydrogen tanks in the nose and tail. Credit: Georgia Institute of Technology Aurora has yet to reveal any of its designs, but NASA posted an image of an Electra concept combining a twin-aisle “double-bubble” lifting fuselage with fans embedded in the tail to reduce drag by ingesting and reenergizing the upper-fuselage boundary layer. The design is similar to the concept released by hybrid-electric startup Electra when it won the AACES contract in 2024 but has conventional underwing engines where the original design had an array of wing leading-edge propellers providing blown lift. Georgia Tech’s ATH2ENA concept combines a conventional forward fuselage with a twin-aisle blended-wing centerbody and wide, flat aft fuselage and U-tail as well as conventional underwing engines. The concept has hydrogen tanks in the nose and tail, cargo bays in the wing body blend areas and skylight windows for the passenger cabin. Under ACCES, blended wing body airliner (BWB) developer JetZero explored technologies to enable cryogenic liquid hydrogen to be used as a fuel for commercial aviation, evaluating both tube-and-wing concepts alongside its own Z4 BWB design. Pratt & Whitney studied alternative propulsion concepts and integration schemes. Electra was teamed with Honeywell, electric motor developer Hinetics, University of Michigan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of California at Irvine for the ACCES Phase 1 study. JetZero was teamed with hydrogen-electric propulsion developer ZeroAvia and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. U.S. Special Operations Explores Channel-Wing VTOL The innovation arm of U.S. Special Operations Command, SOFWerx, plans to assess the capabilities of uncrewed aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion and channel wings for vertical takeoff and landing. <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/TECHWEEK24-3-Hop…> HopFlyt has flown prototypes of its channel-wing VTOL uncrewed aircraft. Credit: HopFlyt SOFWerx on May 28 released a special notice seeking information on technologies for inclusion in the planned Channelized Wing Hybrid-Electric Vertical-Takeoff-and-Landing (Chevtol) uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) assessment event. Planned for June 24-25, the virtual assessment event could lead to a contract award to demonstrate the technology readiness, operational characteristics and performance attributes of a channel-wing VTOL UAS. The notice says Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is seeking a runway-independent hybrid-electric UAS for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance missions for which a prototype has already flown. Invented in the 1940s by Willard Custer, the channel wing was an unconventional short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) design that has reemerged as an eVTOL concept. Maryland-based startup HopFlyt has flown two 10-ft.-span electric-powered channel-wing VTOL UAS prototypes and is developing a 20-ft.-span version. The Custer Channel Wing incorporates a U-shape section with a propeller toward the trailing edge of the channel. The propeller accelerates airflow through the channel, generating increased lift at low airspeed. In flight tests, Custer’s aircraft demonstrated significant STOL performance and potential for VTOL. HopFlyt’s UAS has independently tilting wings and canards, each with a single channel. The surfaces tilt between vertical and forward flight; individually changing the tilt angle and thrust of each propulsion unit provides stability and control. The startup is developing the Cyclone, a hybrid-electric VTOL UAS targeted at maritime logistics missions and designed to fly 250 lb. of cargo on a 100-nm roundtrip. The aircraft can also carry a 50-lb. payload 850 nm or fly for up to 12 hr. In a May 26 LinkedIn post, Chief Engineer Neil Winston teased the imminent launch of the Squall, a Group 2 (under-55-lb.) channel-wing VTOL UAS and “HopFlyt’s first hybrid drone platform and our first commercial product offering.” Competitive submissions for the SOFWerx Chevtol assessment event close on June 12, and a downselect is scheduled for June 15-16. Following the assessment event, contracts could be awarded for a Phase 4 demonstration through one of several contracting mechanisms, ranging from prototyping to procurement. Japan Advances Balloon-Launched Rocket Japanese startup AstroX and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plan to conduct a joint stratospheric flight demonstration of an attitude control system to stabilize and orient a rocket suspended from a high-altitude balloon. AstroX plans to develop a space transportation service using the Rockoon system, in which the rocket is lifted into the stratosphere by balloon then released to launch its payload into low Earth orbit. <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/TECHWEEK24-4-Ast…> AstroX is developing the Rockoon stratospheric balloon-based space launch system. Credit: AstroX The startup is developing an attitude control system package that can be used for Rockoon launches as well as other missions, including stabilizing stratospheric platforms and suspended systems, such as construction cranes. To date, AstroX has conducted performance evaluations in a simulated stratospheric environment using a depressurized constant-temperature chamber, including tests involving wind disturbances. The startup has also performed suspension launch experiments with a small rocket. After favorable results from these tests and ground-based environmental simulations and attitude-control system testing by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the partners plan to conduct system-level verification flights using stratospheric balloons already operated by the agency. <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/author_thumbnail/public…> Graham Warwick <https://aviationweek.com/author/graham-warwick> Email: graham.warwick(a)aviationweek.com <mailto:graham.warwick@aviationweek.com> Graham leads Aviation Week's coverage of technology, focusing on engineering and technology across the aerospace industry, with a special focus on identifying technologies of strategic importance to aviation, aerospace and defense.

1 0

FW: Aviation Week :: U.S. Air Force Weighs Steps To Expand Its Tanker Force
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

From: Harold Brattland <habrattland(a)arvig.net> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:42 PM To: Brattland, Mike * <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com> Subject: Aviation Week :: U.S. Air Force Weighs Steps To Expand Its Tanker Force Check out this site https://aviationweek.com/defense/budget-policy-operations/us-air-force-weig… -- U.S. Air Force Weighs Steps To Expand Its Tanker Force Brian Everstine <https://aviationweek.com/author/brian-everstine> June 11, 2026 <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/crop_freeform/public/20…> The Air Force is pushing Boeing’s KC-46 production line to full capacity, the service’s leader says. Credit: Staff Sgt. Tryphena Mayhugh/U.S. Air Force The U.S. Air Force has set a goal for its refueling tanker fleet but lacks a clear plan to achieve it. The service has a legal requirement to increase its overall fleet of refuelers to 502 by the end of fiscal 2028, up from its current 466. The bulk of those are aging Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> KC-135 Stratotankers, but more Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> KC-46s are being delivered to modernize in the interim. Beyond the current KC-46 program of record, a large gap needs to be addressed. * KC-46 vision system wraps up early tests * Six Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> KC-135s undergo repairs following damage by Iran “Our intent, our strategy, is to replace all the 135s in the fleet going forward,” Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told the U.S. Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee on June 9. This year is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for the service’s tanker modernization effort. More than 105 KC-46s have been delivered as of early June. Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> announced on June 3 that it had completed initial flight testing of the long-awaited and required overhaul of the tanker’s Remote Vision System, first announced in 2020 and repeatedly delayed. The new 4K, full-color camera system is slated for installation on new-build tankers beginning in 2028, though it is not yet clear how the rest of the delivered fleet will be overhauled. At the same time, the Air Force has been touting the combat capability of its KC-46s with the existing Remote Vision System, some of which are serving heavily in operations in Iran. The fleet is picking up missions and taking major steps toward a refueling role for nuclear bombers that are on alert. In mid-May, the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell AFB, Kansas, conducted a Nuclear Operational Readiness Inspection. Air Mobility Command in the announcement said it is committed to including the new tanker in the deterrence mission, adding that the inspection was a key step forward. “Though we cannot comment on the status of the aircraft’s inclusion in the nation’s nuclear mission, this inspection marks a significant milestone toward the aircraft’s ability to conduct nuclear support operations,” the command tells Aviation Week. The Air Force has been accepting KC-46s at a rate of 15 per year. That number is expected to jump to 18 per year beginning in 2028 under a budget increase as the service maxes out Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> ’s production line, Meink told lawmakers in June. This coincides with new contracts with the airframer, which include a substantial rise in individual flyaway unit cost to $321.9 million per aircraft in fiscal 2028 from $199.7 million in fiscal 2027. The Air Force plans to field 188 total KC-46s under the current program; procurement is set to wrap up in 2032. The service then intends to begin a production extension for another 75 of the tankers, bringing the operational KC-46 fleet to 259—slightly more than half the congressionally mandated total. In the early days of the fiscal 2027 budget process this spring, the service briefly publicized a goal of buying 319 total KC-46s. However, when Aviation Week asked about that number, the service said the figure was a mistake and needed to be revised down to 259. The changing tally indicates uncertainty about how the overall refueling fleet will increase and that more tankers could from Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> in the long term. “We are essentially maxing out Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> ’s ability to produce really at the max rate that Boeing <https://aviationweek.com/term/boeing> ’s capable of producing tankers,” Meink said. The Air Force had completed an analysis of what would follow as part of the Next-Generation Aerial Refueling System program before putting that on ice this year. Instead, the service is focusing on short-term upgrades to situational awareness and survivability in its current fleet. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Lamontagne, who previously led Air Mobility Command, said during a June 4 event at the Mitchell Institute that the analysis looked at offloading more fuel at a long range, signature management of aircraft and other factors. However, the service’s procurement accounts have become “crowded,” and there was not enough funding to go ahead with the new development. To ensure it has enough tankers flying, the Air Force is metering out how many KC-135s it is retiring as the KC-46s come on board, Lamontagne said. The tanker fleet has been damaged in recent operations in the Middle East. One KC-135 suffered a total loss in a crash in Iraq, and six others were damaged on the ground in Iranian attacks on bases across the region. “The other six aircraft, we believe, are in the process of being refurbi,shed and will be back in inventory but nonetheless, it’s old,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach told lawmakers on June 9. “These are old airplanes that we’re replacing as quickly as we can.” <https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/author_thumbnail/public…> Brian Everstine <https://aviationweek.com/author/brian-everstine> Email: brian.everstine(a)aviationweek.com <mailto:brian.everstine@aviationweek.com> Brian Everstine is the Pentagon Editor for Aviation Week, based in Washington, D.C.

1 0

FW: AHAS 2026 Event Update CA Non Profit teams
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

From: billpersonius(a)gmail.com <billpersonius(a)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 11:02 AM To: Mike Brattland <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com> Subject: FW: AHAS 2026 Event Update CA Non Profit teams FYI From: jim.paules(a)heroes-airshow.com <mailto:jim.paules@heroes-airshow.com> <jim.paules(a)heroes-airshow.com <mailto:jim.paules@heroes-airshow.com> > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:57 AM To: '1 | VIP Recipients' <Undis(a)Verizon.net <mailto:Undis@Verizon.net> > Subject: AHAS 2026 Event Update CA Non Profit teams Good day from the crew of the AMERICAN HEROES Air Show in Los Angeles . It is our privilege at this time to announce the AMERICAN HEROES Air Show is set to land once again in Los Angeles / San Fernando Valley Nov 7, 2026 . and we invite your non-profit organization to plan now to join us ! This unique admission-free event has welcomed the Southern California community, our public officials, and the media since our first event at the Santa Monica Airport in 1993 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq9EpOT08Ak&list=PLmDl1xUadACndnbNmHk3_6RPS mgPYNCFg&index=97&t=100s> , . growing to become the nation's premier admission-free, helicopter-only aviation experience. Support from the rotary-wing aviation community has been crucial over the years to sustain this admission-free educational experience and we invite your organization to come aboard and meet the diverse organizations and talented pilots associated with law enforcement, homeland security, Fire / EMS / ENG and Search & Rescue . while educating the community about the diverse capabilities , dynamic careers and relentless service that rotary-wing aviation delivers to our community every day. Additional event details are attached for your review. While traditional aviation events entertain with colored smoke and jet pilots with the 'right stuff', the HEROES Air Show introduces the community to pilots with the 'real stuff' ... the crews who fly helo missions every day to save lives, suppress fires, provide homeland security, and protect our environment they entertain... we educate . Please contact me with any questions about your team landing at the AMERICAN HEROES Air Show <https://www.heroes-airshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-Los-Angeles- Event-Yearbook.pdf> ... when we team up to introduce the community to the Heroes they can really look up to ... Jim Paules - Volunteer Event Producer - USA AMERICAN HEROES Air Show #USAHEROES Email: Jim.paules(a)Heroes-airshow.com <mailto:Jim.paules@Heroes-airshow.com> Cell: 818 631 8132

2 1

FW: Anatomy of a debacle
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

From: andy.cain(a)comcast.net <andy.cain(a)comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 8:24 AM To: Mike Brattland <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com> Subject: FW: Anatomy of a debacle War always changes the geo-political landscape. Naval War College studies, heck most all war colleges, teach us that war leads to: * Realignment of Alliances, * Economic and Trade Repercussions, * Acceleration of Technology, and * A Shift in Domestic Governance. Time will tell if Fox’s assessments come true. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Andrew Fox from Fox On War <mrandrewfox(a)substack.com <mailto:mrandrewfox@substack.com> > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 at 08:42 Subject: Anatomy of a debacle <https://eotrx.substackcdn.com/o/ff57cd33c4606434/p.gif?token=eyJtIjoiPDIwMj…> How Netanyahu sold Trump a war, Erdogan broke the plan, and Washington rushed into a ceasefire before the oil clock ran out ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ Forwarded this email? Subscribe here <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9tcmFuZHJld2ZveC5zdWJzdGF…> for more You’re a paid subscriber — thank you. Today’s post is free for everyone (so you can share it widely), but your subscription is what funds the work that makes Fox On War different. _____ <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> Anatomy of a debacle How Netanyahu sold Trump a war, Erdogan broke the plan, and Washington rushed into a ceasefire before the oil clock ran out <https://substack.com/@mrandrewfox> Andrew Fox Jun 15 <https://substack.com/@mrandrewfox> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> <https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/anatomy-of-a-debacle?utm_source…> READ IN APP This piece has been weeks in the writing, awaiting a conclusion. Now we have it, this long article is an autopsy of the calamity we have watched unfold for the last few months. As with all my writing on the Iran War, I will keep this free. All I ask is that you share and subscribe if you do not already. <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> Share <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9tcmFuZHJld2ZveC5zdWJzdGF…> Subscribed The deal as confession Yesterday, Trump announced the deal he had spent weeks insisting he did not need. <https://substack.com/redirect/4955fb0d-acbd-4783-ad42-a2601573d565?j=eyJ1Ij…> The White House has called it a peace deal. At this stage, it is a memorandum of understanding, scheduled for formal signature in Switzerland on Friday. The text remains opaque: we do not yet know the final terms. However, the outline is clear enough to grasp the political meaning. Washington appears to have bought time. Hormuz is to reopen. The naval blockade is to be lifted. Iran receives some combination of oil waivers, asset releases, sanctions relief, or economic breathing space. The nuclear file moves into a 60-day negotiating window. Trump gets a ceasefire and lower oil prices. Tehran gets survival, liquidity, and time. That is the endpoint of the debacle, at least for now. A war launched with maximalist assumptions has reached an interim understanding that leaves the regime in place, Hezbollah in the field, Iran’s missile architecture as the central fact of regional security, and the nuclear question in the long grass. What forced Washington’s hand was the oil clock. Emergency reserves, rerouting schemes, naval workarounds, tanker insurance, Asian demand destruction, and political patience were all running down at once. Trump rushed to a deal because the alternative was a global oil shock that would hit American gas stations just in time for the domestic political season. The war was supposed to show that American and Israeli power could reorder the region. Instead, it showed how quickly tactical dominance can become strategic dependence. Washington could destroy targets inside Iran, but it could not force Tehran to surrender its political position. It could not open the Strait of Hormuz by military means at an acceptable cost. It could not push Saudi Arabia into war. It could not impose normalisation with Israel on the Gulf states. It could not get Europe to join the campaign. It could not convince China to pull away from Iran. It could not stop Gulf states from privately seeking understandings with Tehran to keep themselves off Iran’s target list. It could not protect allies from cheaper Iranian missiles without burning through expensive Western interceptors at a rate that made every other theatre nervous. The global image of American power has been significantly diminished. The United States remains capable of extraordinary destruction. The war has made something else equally clear: destruction is not the same thing as control. The limits of American hard power have been brutally exposed. The fantasy in the Situation Room Every military debacle reaches a point when fantasy hardens into strategy in the planning process. The Iran operation appears to have had several such points, though the decisive moment came when Benjamin Netanyahu secured Donald Trump’s initial buy-in for a war plan centred on regime collapse. According to leaks to the NY Times and Ynet, the presentation was cinematic by design (although credible given subsequent events, we must be wary of leaks clearly from the JD Vance camp, which allowed him to wash his hands of the decision to go to war). Allegedly, Netanyahu arrived at the White House with Mossad director David Barnea on screen, Israeli military officials arrayed behind him, and a theory of victory tailored to a president who favours audacity, speed, and historical drama. <https://substack.com/redirect/4244d2f0-4bba-4dd4-a156-d81b622c0ffe?j=eyJ1Ij…> The premise was simple enough: kill the leadership, smash the missile infrastructure, paralyse the coercive organs, stir the streets, open a Kurdish front from Iraq, present an alternative leadership, and let the Islamic Republic collapse under the weight of its own unpopularity. For Netanyahu, this was the culmination of a career-long project. For the Mossad, it was a rare operation in which tactical penetration, psychological warfare, targeted killing, and political engineering could be fused into a single decisive blow. For Trump, it offered something even more dangerous: a fast war with the feel of history. American officials claim they saw the weak point almost immediately. The CIA assessment reportedly broke the Israeli presentation into four components: decapitation, military degradation, popular uprising, and regime change. The first two were achievable with American and Israeli capabilities. The last two were judged fantasy. John Ratcliffe reportedly called the regime-change scenario farcical. General Dan Caine warned that the Israelis were overselling. Even Rubio, hardly a dove on Iran, understood that destroying missiles and birthing a new regime were different projects. Whilst one or some of these officials may have leaked this to exonerate themselves from the subsequent mess, it has the opposite effect: it speaks to the spinelessness and yes-man culture Trump has created in his administration. Either way, it appears the United States and Israel embarked on a campaign whose political success hinged on assumptions that their own intelligence process had already downgraded. Within days of the first strikes, regime change was treated as a welcome possibility rather than a genuine operational requirement, even as the campaign’s initial logic still depended on it. The air war could damage the Iranian state, kill men, destroy buildings, erase depots, blind radars, and sever command networks. None of that created a governing coalition. None of it made frightened Iranians take to bombed streets. None of it converted Kurdish militias, Israeli influence operations, royalist nostalgia, and American airpower into a credible national transition. This is a familiar pattern. Foreign powers are often adept at identifying the weaknesses of an enemy regime. They are much worse at understanding the sources of its survival. The Islamic Republic is corrupt, brutal, loathed by millions, and economically incompetent. It is also deeply practised in repression. It has survived war, sanctions, assassination, protest waves, elite factionalism, and decades of external pressure. Its security organs exist and were designed for moments like this. The Basij and Revolutionary Guards merely need to be feared, armed, and organisationally intact enough to make rebellion costly. The regime was never going to fall on schedule Externally imposed regime change has a poor record of producing stable, friendly, durable political orders. Intervening powers can remove rulers and deform institutions. Legitimacy cannot be air-dropped. The coercive apparatus does not dissolve because a foreign intelligence service has identified a replacement. Citizens do not become the infantry of someone else’s war because a foreign president tells them help is coming. <https://substack.com/redirect/79840378-05f5-4fac-8b3c-eb5254264f79?j=eyJ1Ij…> The Iranian people made the only rational choice available to many of them. They stayed alive. From Washington or Tel Aviv, it is easy to imagine a population rising once the tyrant is wounded. It is harder to persuade a parent in Tehran to step into the street unarmed, while bombs fall from above and regime gunmen wait below. Hatred of the regime is real. Fear of being shot as a collaborator is also real. Fear usually wins in the opening phase of a war whose outcome remains uncertain. The Kurdish component revealed the second major failure. There was sufficient circumstantial reporting at the time to support recent media accounts that the plan required a ground invasion from Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdish, Baluchi, and Ahwazi elements were to stretch the regime and create the appearance of internal disintegration. Israeli aircraft had begun clearing a corridor. The force was reportedly hours from crossing. Then Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Trump. Trump folded. From Ankara’s perspective, the intervention made perfect sense. Erdogan had no interest in seeing Kurdish forces become the heroic vanguard of a victorious regional war. A successful Kurdish march into Iran would have echoed across Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. It would have revived separatist anxieties and threatened Erdogan’s claim to regional primacy. It would also have given Israel a spectacular political win in an arena where Turkey seeks influence. Erdogan saw the plan’s vulnerability and pressed it. The scandal is that the vulnerability existed at all. A regime-change plan dependent on a Kurdish ground front required a serious answer to the Turkish veto. Evidently, there was none. Trump approved the war, adopted the Israeli theory of victory, then removed one of its central pillars under pressure from Ankara within days of the first bombs falling. From that point, Israeli influence over events declined, and a clear divergence of interests emerged between the two allies. The United States became both indispensable and unreliable. The campaign kept moving, while its internal logic broke down. This is how debacles take shape. The original fantasy meets the first serious political constraint, and the plan is adjusted to preserve motion while destroying coherence. Hormuz decided the war The Strait of Hormuz was the third and most significant failure. Any campaign against Iran should have begun there. It is the lever Tehran has always held. Iran did not need to defeat the United States Navy; it simply needed to threaten shipping, mine waters, harass tankers, raise insurance costs, create uncertainty, and force markets to price in the possibility of prolonged disruption. Iran could impose serious costs in the Strait even while losing a conventional fight. The channel is narrow. Traffic is dense. The global economy is exquisitely sensitive to disruption there. Trump appears to have assumed the regime would collapse before it could use that lever. That assumption deserves a long life in war colleges. It reveals a whole strategic culture: impatient, theatrical, contemptuous of logistics, indifferent to escalation, and convinced that adversaries will conform to an American timetable. Failing to secure Hormuz before launching this war was a first-order planning failure. Treating it as a manageable contingency only made the failure worse. The regime did not fall. The Strait was closed. Oil markets began to price in political reality rather than White House confidence. <https://substack.com/redirect/62524cb9-1190-4ce1-a4be-36c020ac143a?j=eyJ1Ij…> Exxon Mobil executive Neil Chapman’s warning that oil could reach $150 to $160 a barrel gives the domestic consequences a concrete figure if Trump had not managed to reopen Hormuz in the next week or so. A barrel contains 42 gallons. At $150 a barrel, crude alone is roughly $3.57 per gallon. At $160, it is roughly $3.81 per gallon. That is before refining, transport, federal taxes, state taxes, retail margins, and regional constraints. In practical American terms, this points to gasoline well above $5 nationally, with $6 or $7 plausible in expensive states and stressed local markets. Diesel would transmit the shock through trucking, agriculture, food, construction, and retail. Heating, petrochemicals, aviation, fertiliser, and freight would all absorb the blow. A war sold as a strategic masterstroke would arrive in American life as a pump price. The oil shock mechanism is well known. Energy shocks squeeze household incomes, push up inflation, distort consumption, and can tip weak economies into recession. Gasoline has an additional political dimension: voters see the price every day. They do not need to see the news headlines. They need only the number on the sign outside the gas station. That is why Trump became desperate for a deal. He could continue the war and own the oil shock, the munitions burn, the risk of wider escalation, and the possibility that Iran survived anyway. Or, he could seek an MOU and concede that the regime he tried to break remained the negotiating counterparty. If he escalated, the costs would fall to America. If he retreated into diplomacy, the result would look like a rescue operation for his own misjudgement. He chose the latter. Yesterday’s announcement is best understood in that light. We do not yet know the final terms. Current reporting points to a preliminary understanding, a formal signature in Switzerland on Friday, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the US blockade on Iranian ports, some form of oil or sanctions relief, and a 60-day period during which the nuclear question is deferred to further negotiations. That is a ceasefire with economic relief attached, but it is also a confession that the war could not be sustained on its original strategic theory. Iran’s missile lesson There is another reason Washington needed an exit. Iran’s missile performance shifted the debate. The verified picture remains severe and explains why Washington could not afford to return to all-out war. Iran repeatedly targeted the infrastructure on which American airpower depends: radars, communications nodes, tankers, and battle-management aircraft. Iranian strikes damaged multiple KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers and an E-3 Sentry, with the E-3 likely beyond economical repair. Radar sites across the Gulf and wider region were struck or degraded. Kuwait reported damage to airport radar following an Iranian strike. Earlier evidence indicates damage to radar and radome infrastructure in Bahrain. The volume is a strategic fact. By mid-April, more than two thousand Iranian ballistic missiles had been launched since the start of the war. That is roughly comparable to the combined short- and medium-range ballistic missile inventory the Pentagon attributed to China in its 2024 report. However one slices the comparison, Iran forced the United States to experience, in real time, the operational logic usually discussed in Taiwan scenarios: missiles can close airbases, suppress radars, threaten tankers, complicate sortie generation, and compel the defender to expend expensive interceptors against cheaper offensive systems. Iran’s best systems performed far beyond legacy assumptions about Iranian missiles. Some effects appear consistent with single-digit-metre accuracy. The political conclusion is already safe: Iran is a serious missile power, and it showed. That fact imposes an unfavourable exchange ratio on the United States and its partners. Iranian missiles are cheaper to produce than the interceptors needed to stop them. Even while heavily degraded, Iran could fire enough to force ammunition consumption, expose vulnerabilities, and impose operational paralysis, even when most incoming missiles are intercepted. The United States and Israel can win many individual engagements and still lose the campaign’s economics. Each Patriot, THAAD, Arrow, David’s Sling, SM-3, or SM-6 fired in the Middle East is one less available for Europe, Taiwan, Japan, or the next Gulf contingency until the industrial base catches up. The industrial base is nowhere near catching up. The arsenal problem now reaches Europe and Taiwan Depleted missile interceptors are the root of the problem. A war with Iran consumes the same scarce high-end munitions, interceptors, air-defence systems, and precision weapons that Europe and Taiwan also need. When supplies to Europe and Taiwan are halted or delayed because Washington has burned through its reserves in the Middle East, the message is brutal: American weapons are excellent until everyone needs them at once. Taiwan will notice. Europe will notice. Future buyers of American arms will notice. A weapons supplier whose production base cannot keep pace with simultaneous crises is selling uncertainty with every platform. States that planned around American arsenals will now begin hedging, diversifying suppliers, expanding domestic production, and asking whether American kit carries an invisible caveat: available only if Washington is not already overextended. The rare-earth problem makes this worse. Reconstituting advanced weapons production goes beyond congressional appropriations alone. It depends on industrial capacity, supply chains, critical minerals, skilled labour, and processing networks. Rare-earth permanent magnets and related materials are integral to the industrial base of modern power, including defence-relevant technologies. China’s position in these supply chains gives Beijing leverage at exactly the moment Washington needs to rebuild. This is the strategic irony. A war launched to display American and Israeli dominance may end up advertising Chinese leverage over the material foundations of American power. Beijing only needs to appear patient, solvent, predictable, and useful, while Washington appears impulsive, depleted, and trapped. As Iran rebuilds, China will be there, with energy demand, infrastructure finance, diplomatic bandwidth, and the quiet confidence of a power that did not spend its missile stocks proving a theory of collapse that failed. The Gulf drew the correct lesson As money flows from Dubai to Tehran, the emerging rapprochement between the United Arab Emirates and Iran exposes another flaw in the assumptions underpinning the campaign. For much of the past year, Israeli policymakers appeared to believe that the war would accelerate regional alignment against Tehran, deepen the Abraham Accords, and encourage Gulf states to move closer to Israel. The opposite is now evident. Across much of the Gulf, there is growing frustration that they were drawn into a confrontation that imposed economic and security costs while offering few tangible benefits. The strikes on Qatar, threats to energy infrastructure, and the vulnerability of US bases across the region reinforced a lesson Gulf capitals will not forget: escalation can be initiated elsewhere, while the bill is delivered to them. Gulf states are not naïve about Iran. They remain acutely aware of Tehran’s capacity for subversion, coercion, missile attacks, and regional interference. Their calculation is simply more pragmatic. Their political economies depend on capital inflows, aviation hubs, energy exports, sovereign wealth deployment, tourism, logistics, and the perception that their territory is insulated from the region’s worst convulsions. If the choice is between symbolic alignment with Israel and a working channel to Tehran that reduces the risk of missiles over Doha, Abu Dhabi, Manama, or Riyadh, the Gulf will choose the backchannel. Jerusalem may call that appeasement, but Gulf rulers will call it preservation and prosperity. Consequently, the prospect of major new normalisation agreements has receded. Without meaningful progress on the Palestinian issue, Gulf leaders have little political incentive to deepen ties with Israel. More importantly, they have reached a sober assessment of Iran itself. Whatever damage has been inflicted on the regime, it remains the dominant power on the northern shore of the Gulf and will continue to be a permanent feature of the regional landscape. Attempts to isolate Tehran completely or force its collapse no longer seem realistic. The Abraham Accords 2.0 fantasy is therefore buried for the foreseeable future. Trump tried to link an Iran deal to mass normalisation with Israel. Gulf leaders looked at the battlefield, the oil shock, the American rush to secure an MOU, and Israel’s inability to sustain the campaign without US support. They drew the obvious conclusion. Why should Arab states absorb the political costs of openly aligning with Israel on Iran if Washington itself is negotiating with Tehran and constraining Israel’s freedom of action? Why break with the wider Arab consensus if the patron is already hedging? The logic can run in reverse. Existing Abraham Accords states will reassess what they are receiving in return for strategic separation from their Arab partners. If the benefits of remaining within the framework shrink while the costs rise, second thoughts become rational. Arms, investment, technology, and access are valuable. Security against Iran is even more valuable. If the United States cannot deliver that security without negotiating with Tehran, the structure of incentives changes. Saudi Arabia looks vindicated. Riyadh refused to be drawn into the conflict. It resisted pressure to normalise relations with Israel in exchange for security. It resisted efforts by more hawkish regional actors to form an Arab-Israeli front for the war. It deepened coordination with Pakistan and Turkey on supply chains, routes, and regional de-escalation. It preserved enough space to negotiate quiet arrangements with Iran. Saudi policy was derided by some as passive, but it now reads as disciplined self-preservation. Israel overreached Israel overreached and failed. It succeeded in convincing the United States to go to war with Iran, a notable achievement. It failed to achieve the strategic aims that were supposed to justify that risk. No regime change. No Arab-Israeli coalition. No decisive solution to the missile problem. No durable removal of Hezbollah from the northern border. No regional normalisation dividend. Instead, Netanyahu has been publicly rebuked by Trump after last week’s attack on Beirut, forced into a deal he adamantly opposed, and Israel is left facing an American public debate in which Tel Aviv will increasingly be blamed for pulling Washington into an unnecessary war. The consequences for the US-Israeli relationship could be generational. Israel can initiate certain operations alone, but it cannot sustain a major regional war for long without American munitions, air defence replenishment, spare parts, financing, intelligence support, forward-deployed systems, and diplomatic cover. The war has exposed that dependency at the worst possible moment. It has also revealed the political cost to Washington of underwriting Israeli maximalism, when the result is higher fuel prices, depleted missile stocks, angry allies, and a deal with Iran that arrives anyway. Israel is now in an impossible position. It can accept Hezbollah’s continued presence on its northern border, with all the strategic humiliation that follows months of war, or it can break with Washington by continuing a campaign the White House wants closed. This is why the Lebanon clause in the emerging deal is so dangerous for Netanyahu. Hezbollah survives as an armed actor. Iran has tied the Lebanese front to the broader ceasefire architecture. Washington now has an interest in restraining Israel to preserve the Iran MOU. Israel can denounce that outcome, but denunciation does not solve the total reliance on and subordination to Washington that Netanyahu has embedded into Israeli strategy since Trump’s election. It does not remove Hezbollah from the hills, villages, and networks that define the northern front. Israel cannot accept this latter point, so a breach with Washington looms. Turkey and Pakistan step into the gap Erdogan’s position has improved. Israel tried to use the war with Iran to drive a wedge between Ankara and Washington, but the opposite happened. Erdogan blocked the Kurdish ground component, preserved Turkey’s red lines, and emerged as one of the indispensable actors in the diplomatic aftermath. Trump has asserted his personal friendship with Erdogan, thanked him publicly for helping move the deal, and signalled his belief in Turkey as a stabilising force by elevating figures around him who are far more sympathetic to Ankara than Israelis would like. Tom Barrack’s expanded regional role fits within that shift. Israelis resent his partiality and positive view of Ankara for good reason. Personnel choices reveal hierarchy. If Washington is leaning on Turkey to manage Syria, Lebanon, and the wider de-escalation architecture around Iran, Israel’s room for unilateral action narrows. Ankara’s post-war message is simple: every superpower seeking regional stability must pass through Turkey. Erdogan has been saying this for years. The Iran debacle made the case for him. Pakistan also emerges stronger. The Islamabad channel, Shehbaz Sharif’s role, and the prominence of Pakistani military leadership in the background all point to a regional order in which Washington cannot simply dictate terms through traditional Gulf partners and Israel. Pakistan has energy exposure, links to China, ties to the Gulf, its own nuclear status, and a security relationship with Saudi Arabia that cannot be ignored. In a war whose end required mediation, those attributes presented Pakistan with a golden opportunity that it seized with both hands. The nuclear problem got harder The nuclear file has also become more intractable. US intelligence sources believe Iran has sharply escalated efforts to seal off its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, deliberately collapsing tunnels and placing explosive mines at the entrances. The objective is clear. Tehran wants to make any future attempt to seize, inspect, remove, dilute or destroy the material vastly more difficult and dangerous. That detail captures the entire war. Rather than negotiating from a position of helplessness, Tehran appears to be hardening its most valuable strategic asset ahead of any peace settlement. A campaign launched in part to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat may have left the international community facing a stockpile that is harder to locate, monitor, and access. Even if a diplomatic agreement is reached, inspectors, engineers, or military personnel may first have to navigate collapsed tunnels, mined entrances, and fortified underground complexes before determining the true status of Iran’s uranium reserves. The MOU appears to kick the central problem into a 60-day window. That is strategically revealing. After months of war, the United States has returned to negotiations on enrichment, stockpiles, verification, sanctions relief, and sequencing that it was conducting with Tehran before the war. This is the same class of problem Trump claimed force would solve. Now he is negotiating it under worse conditions, with a regime that has survived, a nuclear cache reportedly harder to reach, a missile force that has proved its worth, and a global economy desperate for Hormuz to remain open. The deal will strengthen the regime before it weakens it There is a final irony. Much of the discussion in Washington assumes that sanctions relief is the prize Tehran seeks above all else. The regime certainly wants access to frozen assets, oil revenue, and relief from economic pressure. It is negotiating for those things, but economic recovery is not the regime’s ultimate objective. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has repeatedly accepted severe economic pain in pursuit of ideological and geopolitical goals. Its leadership views the struggle against American influence and Israel as a religious mission and defining features of the revolutionary state, not as temporary bargaining positions. If a deal is reached, resources will flow into Iran. The key question is where they will go. A state primarily concerned with national prosperity would prioritise reconstruction, consumer welfare, infrastructure, currency stability, and reintegration with the global economy. The Islamic Republic will prioritise power. No matter the clauses not to do so in any deal, it is beyond doubt that a significant share of any relief will be directed towards openly or covertly rebuilding missile production, command networks, air defences, hardened facilities, internal security, and the regional networks that project Iranian influence through Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, the Houthis, and other partners. That will not necessarily make the regime safer. Rebuilding the economy would strengthen its long-term resilience. Rebuilding the military-industrial base will strengthen its ability to threaten Israel, intimidate neighbours, and contest American influence, while recreating the very target set that brought American and Israeli airpower down on it in the first place. The more resources Iran devotes to restoring its war machine, the more it creates the conditions for another confrontation. In seeking security, the regime will deepen its vulnerability. This is why the deal, if signed on Friday, should not be mistaken for a resolution. It is a pause bought under pressure. It may reopen Hormuz, reduce oil prices, and give Trump a line to sell at home. It may give Tehran the cash and time it needs, give Gulf states space to breathe, or force Israel to swallow a Lebanon outcome it hates. None of that resolves the structural conflict. It only changes the tempo. The balance sheet The balance sheet is stark. Netanyahu sold Trump a war. Trump altered the plan under Turkish pressure. The Kurdish front died before it began. The Iranian street did not rise. The regime survived. Hormuz became the coercive centre of the conflict. Oil markets created urgency. The missile war exposed the cost curve. American stocks were depleted. Europe and Taiwan were reminded that US arsenals are finite and that American support is conditional. Gulf states began hedging. Saudi Arabia looked prudent. Turkey gained leverage. Pakistan gained relevance. China gained opportunity. Israel gained dependence and humiliation. Trump gained a ceasefire that, in strategic terms, looks like an emergency exit. The war required too many favourable contingencies. Khamenei and the senior leadership had to be killed or rendered irrelevant. Command and control had to collapse. The Iranian public had to move in vast numbers despite fear and bombardment. Kurdish forces had to cross without triggering a Turkish veto. A credible alternative authority had to emerge. Hormuz had to remain manageable. Oil markets had to stay calm. American interceptor stocks had to absorb the burn rate. Allies had to accept delays and depletion. China had to remain a spectator. Trump had to remain steady. A plan dependent on that many favourable contingencies is unserious. Trump’s announcement yesterday laid bare the debacle. Washington entered the war to coerce Iran and ended up negotiating with an Iranian regime that held a position of strength, threatening to collapse the global economy. Israel entered the war to shift the regional balance and is now being told by Washington to stand down in Lebanon. Gulf states were expected to rally behind Israel and are now reopening channels to Tehran. Europe was expected to support American leadership and instead watched from the sidelines, increasingly convinced that an alliance with Washington has become a source of risk. Taiwan was supposed to trust American abundance, and now sees scarcity and unreliability in motion. <https://substack.com/redirect/47bd7a1d-14da-4441-92d5-68dd09dd2cef?j=eyJ1Ij…> Trump wanted the glory of a decisive war without the burdens that usually follow, the drama of regime change without occupation, the optics of strength without the patience of strategy, and the Israeli promise of regime collapse without the American responsibility for what came after. Now he has a damaged Iran that has not fallen, a Strait of Hormuz crisis that forced a ceasefire, Gulf partners reconsidering American protection, Europeans questioning American reliability, Taiwan watching munitions flows, depleted missile reserves, Chinese leverage over rearmament, and a White House searching for a final nuclear agreement with the regime it expected to outlast. That is the anatomy of the debacle: an Israeli theory of victory sold to an American president who mistook confidence for strategy, revised under Turkish pressure, exposed by Hormuz, and now suspended within a ceasefire MOU designed to buy 60 days before the bill comes due again. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9tcmFuZHJld2ZveC5zdWJzdGF…> Subscribed This post went to the whole list, but your subscription is the reason it exists. Paid readers cover the cost of travel, fieldwork and the hours of research it takes to turn that into something more useful than a hot take. Thank you. If you know one person who’d value this kind of reporting, feel free to forward it — you’re the reason this community grows. If you’d like to back this work for the long haul, you can switch to an annual plan in one click in your account settings. If there’s anything I can do to make this subscription more valuable to you, just let me know by reply. <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> Like <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2661554&post_id=202087412…> Comment Restack © 2026 Andrew Fox 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vc2lnbnV…> <https://eotrx.substackcdn.com/o/5d3f53ae25994ce4/p.gif?token=eyJtIjoiPDIwMj…> <https://email.mg1.substack.com/o/eJxEkEuOwyAQBU8TlhZgMLDgLFYDbQ8aAxGfJL79yP…> -- Albie Fox 07876443221

1 0

FW: Flag Bird
by mgbrattland＠gerlecreek.com 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

From: E. Lancaster <chipplug(a)hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2026 12:53 PM To: Diciero Mark <mark(a)rotors.org>; Joe Gwizdak <gwizdakjoeh21(a)att.net>; Howard Northrup-CR <hknorthrup(a)gmail.com>; Howard Northrup <helosrgr8(a)gmail.com>; Chris Capistron <capistronco(a)gmail.com>; Ron ClassicRotors <rondar9677(a)sbcglobal.net>; Bruce Klingman <bruce.klingman(a)cox.net>; Joel Margolis <jmargolis10(a)cox.net>; Chase Wiles-CR <chasewiles(a)tryno.com>; troy.m.chase(a)gmail.com Cc: Rotor Review <rotorreview(a)navalhelicopterassn.org>; greenparrotgraphics <greenparrotgraphics(a)proton.me>; Shayne Meder <shayne(a)flygirlpainters.com>; Bill Personius <billpersonius(a)gmail.com>; CDR Michael G. Brattland USN-Ret <mgbrattland(a)gerlecreek.com>; Mike Reber <reebs(a)cox.net> Subject: Flag Bird Rotorheads, On this Flag Day, this is one of Shayne's favorite paint jobs. I downloaded the pics off her Face Book page (thanks Fly Girl Painter 😎) where she also said that she painted it in 2015 on the 15th anniversary of 9-11. It was one of HSC-21's birds at North Island: MH-60S 168578. She said the paint job survived for about six years, before the bird was repainted circa 2021 or so. Fly a Flag today. Chip

3 2