« The 5GW of the Orcish Hoardes | HomePage | Gentleman Don't Read Each Other's Mail. Warriors Do. »

Friday, January 20, 20061137807375

And the Anonymous Expert of tdaxp is...

Twice I have relied on an "anonymous expert' here at tdaxp. Once on a discussion of visualizations for the OODA loop, another time in my post on the Magic Cloud. His insightful point on the OODA loop made Mark Safranski comment:

Your anonymous expert had a deep and incisive criticism there on more than just flowchart design.


And discussing phase and state changes, the anonymous expert also wrote

Originally, Boyd and the fighter community defined the "state" of a fighter as its airspeed, altitude, and direction. "Maneuverability" was defined as the ability to change state, that is, airspeed, altitude, or direction in any combination. This is what E-M (energy- maneuverability) diagrams show. "Agility" was then defined as the ability to change maneuver state, which would make it the second (time) derivative of the state function. So A = d2(S)/dt2.


So who is this masked man?


Dr. Chet Richards
- of -
Defense and the National Interest



Dr. Richards has already been mentioned by name in other posts, and pre-release material for his latest book greatly informed my article, "Embracing Victory."

I had promised to publicly thank him for his help as soon as he would allow it. He finally did, so here is my chance to say

thank you

To not just a brilliant strategist, not just the man who stills helps push Boydian theory, but also a man who has gone far out of his way to help me and answer my questions. Once again:

Dr. Richards, thank you

Chet Richards maintains two top-notch websites, Belisarius which focuses on "War, Chaos, and Business," and of course Defense and the National Interest.

Additionally, the good Doctor has kindly responded to my questioning of liberal education, which I first posted on ZenPundit

Thank you.

19:36 Posted in Vanity | Permalink | Comments (4)

Comments

Very nice Daniel-san, very nice.

Posted by: mark safranski | Friday, January 20, 2006

Bravo Daniel!

Posted by: StrategyUnit | Saturday, January 21, 2006

dan: i think your critique of liberal education is missing its intended mark. i will post on this in more detail at A9, but for now, could you describe a little more what you mean by liberal education? from where i sit, the assumption that we have a liberal higher education system in america is incorrect.

Posted by: Federalist X | Saturday, January 21, 2006

"could you describe a little more what you mean by liberal education? "

Yes - clarify if you mean liberal education the original concept or the latter-day, bastardized, reality

Posted by: mark safranski | Saturday, January 21, 2006

Post a comment