"The Camp Of The Saints" Parisian Edition

 

I'm sure y'all have seen the pics and video's of the rioting and looting and other mayhem of the activities going on in Paris.  I saw a bunch of migrants chasing a French police women and I felt bad for her because I was having images of the captives from October 7 From Israel.  The French Prime Minister could call in the troops and tell them to put down the rioters with extreme prejudice (shoot them, as a warning to chill the Fvck out) but he don't have the stones or the backbone to do it,  he might be called a meanie.  So his capital burns and the citizens are attacked by the recent arrivals and nothing is done.  It will be covered up as in the past.  Same as it is done in other western European countries.  Poland and the Eastern European nations have the right idea.

   For those that are interested, "Amazon has the book"   And no, I get nothing out of the plug.  I ain't that smart to figure that out yet.   

      And yes I shamelessly ripped this off from Michael Smith.

I don’t care if I am called a racist, a bigot or a xenophobe for this for one primary reason: I don’t care what color a savage is, my concern is what the savage does when he encounters a permissive, free, civil society, one far more productive, successful, and far softer than the savage is programmed to accept.

I am as concerned about how that permissive, free, civil society reacts when it comes into direct contact with the savage.

There are savages of all colors, races, ethnicities and national origin – both foreign AND native born. It is a description of an ethos and culture, one that rejects moral and intellectual advancement and invokes the idea embodied in the ancient right of conquest, that anyone has a right to something they have the power and the will to take.

Might makes right. I keep what I conquer. Only the strong survive, the weak are to be subjugated or destroyed.

Our peaceful existence (rooted in Western civilization) has been a relative aberration of history, mankind has been significantly more visceral and violent in the past – and we have taken the peace and security for granted for so long, we no longer recognize the risks to it - or even understand how to fight the enemies of it – and as I have said many times, there are no innocent bystanders this time around, the fight is coming to us, the same way it is coming to the people of Paris.

Here is something I believe is an irrefutable truth: any civilization that ceases to believe it has a moral right to exist will eventually become incapable of defending its existence.

There is no better illustration than these two stories, one from Sweden, where a woman was raped by an Iraqi asylum seeker on a train and initially resisted involving police because she felt sorry for him, fearing he would be deported, and the other from Germany in which the rape victim allegedly concealed her attacker’s refugee/ethnic identity because she feared appearing to perpetuate racism.

The global left has been doing two things for the past 50 years, 1) they have been working to delegitimize the moral right to exist for every country in the West and 2) they have been allying with savages, in some cases bribing them with welfare programs to act as mercenaries to fight in their stead when countries refuse to defend their people and culture.

I’ve been urging people who haven’t read The Camp of the Saints (Le Camp des Saints), the 1973 dystopian novel by French writer Jean Raspail, to look it up, get a copy, and read it.

Because the 53-year-old novel is playing out in real time in Paris.

The plot begins in India, where an enormous fleet of decrepit ships sets sail for Europe carrying roughly one million impoverished migrants. The flotilla eventually heads toward the Mediterranean coast of France.

The French government knows it is coming and possesses the military capability to prevent the landing. The real conflict of the novel, however, isn’t military. It is moral and psychological.

As the fleet approaches, France becomes paralyzed by arguments over humanitarianism, racism, colonial guilt, Christianity, human rights, and Western responsibility for global poverty. Journalists, intellectuals, clergy, activists, and political figures increasingly portray resistance to the migrants as immoral. Government officials fear that using force will make France guilty of atrocities.

Raspail depicts this as a kind of cascading loss of confidence. Soldiers ordered to defend the coast begin questioning whether they have the moral authority to do so. Civilians evacuate southern France. Political leaders hesitate. Institutions that theoretically exist to defend the country become incapable of acting because the society no longer agrees that defending itself is morally legitimate.

Eventually the migrant fleet lands essentially unopposed. The French state begins to collapse, and similar migrations occur elsewhere. By the end, Raspail presents Western civilization as being overwhelmed less because it lacked military or economic power than because it lost the will to preserve itself.

If that sounds familiar, it should. We have been witness to about three decades of exactly that plot.

The enduring influence and notoriety of Camp of the Saints is largely because of its prophetic foretelling of mass migration, the resulting European demographic change, and the conflicts that arise.

Critics regard it as racist, xenophobic, and dehumanizing because Raspail frequently portrays the migrants collectively and grotesquely rather than as fully developed individuals – but as they say, “if the shoe fits, one must wear it.”

It isn’t racist because, as I noted, savagery isn’t dependent upon race. It is cultural.

I think it was Ann Coulter who said that in the fight between the civilized man and the uncivilized man, side with the civilized man.

There is an interesting connection to the line of thought I’ve been exploring around Popper’s paradox of tolerance because The Camp of the Saints is essentially an extreme fictional thought experiment asking what happens when a society decides that virtually every act of self-preservation is morally suspect.

Its deeper question isn’t simply “What happens if millions of “migrants” and “refugees” are imported?”

The real question is what happens when a civilization can no longer articulate why it is entitled to say no to the invasion that is being sponsored by its own governments.

Monday Music "Streets Of Fire" Soundtrack.

 

 I decided to go with a 4fer today. (Because I am a caring individual, at least that what I tell my VA councilor 😁. I decided to roll with the "Streets of Fire" soundtrack.  I had bought the movie as a VHS and the soundtrack on CD.  I would up dubbing "What it means to be young" and I can dream about you" on a cassette tape that I would play in the Mustang

                      Looked like this one, but not this one.

while I was stationed in Germany.  To me the movie got a short shrift by the critics, the movie was pretty good and the soundtrack was awesome, and "Diane Lane" was really hot, I was a G.I. and the movie had a lot of action, shootemups, and other things, This was the 80's and the soundtracks could make or break a movie.  I do wonder what kind of lever actions they used in the movie.  They don't look like regular Winchester 1894 series rifles. to me....Found out...Marlin 336 Lever action in Stainless....Now I really want one...

I did a bit of research, it will have to be the 1894 version for the .38/357 magnum version I want, because it shares calibers with my wheelguns.

Streets of Fire is a 1984 film directed by Walter Hill and co-written by Hill and Larry Gross. It is described in its opening credits and posters as "A Rock & Roll Fable".The film is a mix of musical, action, neo-noir, drama, and comedy, with elements of retro-1950s and 1980s. It stars Michael Paré as a soldier of fortune who returns home to rescue his ex-girlfriend (Diane Lane) who has been kidnapped by the leader of a biker gang (Willem Dafoe). Some of the film was shot on the backlot of Universal Studios in California, on two large sets covered in a tarp 1,240 feet long by 220 feet wide, so that night scenes could be filmed during the day.

Jimmy Iovine produced five of the songs for the film and the soundtrack album. For Ellen Aim's singing voice, he combined the voices of Laurie Sargent and Holly Sherwood, billing them as "Fire Incorporated." The Attackers were the real-life (Face to Face) bandmates of Sargent, who provided the lead vocals on Ellen Aim's songs "Nowhere Fast", "Never Be You" and "Sorcerer", and supporting vocals on "Tonight Is What It Means to Be Young.^" The version of "Sorcerer," written and composed by Stevie Nicks, that was featured on the actual soundtrack album was performed by Marilyn Martin. The version of "Never Be You" that was featured on the soundtrack album was performed by Maria McKee.

Two songs written by Jim Steinman were part of the soundtrack: "Tonight Is What It Means to Be Young" and "Nowhere Fast", both performed by "Fire Incorporated", with Holly Sherwood providing lead vocals on the former and Laurie Sargent on the latter.

     In this song, the girl that you see they focus on was the same girl played in "The Warriors", you know the movie in the late 70's that became the cult classic.  yeah that movie, speaking of the Warrior movie, when I watch it, I was listening to the slang and I knew what all of it meant as soon as I heard it,   She plays in this movie also.

The title of the former was used as the tagline on some promotional materials for the film. Dan Hartman's selection "I Can Dream About You" is the most successful song from the movie, and became a Billboard top 10 hit in 1984 (also from his studio album of the same name). In the movie, the song is performed on stage at the end of the film by "The Sorels," a fictional doo-wop style group consisting of actors Stoney Jackson, Grand L. Bush, Mykelti Williamson, and Robert Townsend. However, the song was actually sung for the film by Winston Ford, whose vocals were lip-synched by Jackson in the movie. While there are thus two versions of the song, only Hartman's version was released commercially.
Steinman later recalled thinking the script was "terrible", but he thought the film was going to be a big hit, in part because of the enthusiasm of Joel Silver:

[He said] this movie is about visuals. It's about excitement, it's about thrills. Don't worry about the script... I remember mentioning it to six or seven people that the script was trashy and I always got the same answer... The script doesn't matter. This movie is about visuals... Then we go to the first edit, the first cut of the movie in the screening room and it's [Jimmy] Iovine and me and Joel Silver... And about 20 minutes into the movie Jimmy turns to me and he goes... this movie is really shitty isn't it? It's really bad. I said, yeah, it's a really bad script. Why didn't anyone notice that the script was bad? It stinks. I can't even watch it... Joel's on the other side going, what am I gonna do next? There's gotta be a next project, and they're sitting there and there's so many lessons I learned during that movie. It went $14 million over budget, I think and I kept saying to Joel, how are they allowing this? 'Cause they kept screaming at us, it's over the budget. I said, how, and they, you've gotta understand, they built all, Walter Hill didn't want to go to Chicago. The story took place in Chicago, so they built Chicago in LA.

Steinman has said the filmmakers were convinced they would have the rights to the Bruce Springsteen song Streets of Fire, and filmed an ending using it. However, when they realized they would not get it in time, they asked Steinman for a song, which he wrote in two days. The song was "Tonight what it means to be young"

 Two music videos accompanied the song. One does not feature Hartman and consists of scenes from Streets of Fire, intercut with footage of the Sorels miming the song as part of a live performance. The lead singer was played by Stoney Jackson, with Grand L. Bush, Mykelti Williamson, and Robert Townsend as backing singers. In the second video, filmed at the Hard Rock in London, Hartman appears as a bartender trying to charm a young woman (played by Joyce Hyser), singing to her as the Sorels' performance plays on a TV set hanging above the bar. In a 2010 interview with Hyser for the blog Old School: Back to the 80s, she was asked how she came to feature in the video. She replied, "I knew Dan's manager and he asked me if I would do it. We shot at the Hard Rock in London. I honestly remember very little about it, but Dan was very nice and I absolutely love that song. I did another music video for ZZ Top's song "Pin Cushion" which I really like. It was directed by Julian Temple."
While recording a mimed TV performance of the song, Hartman explained why one music video featured actors: "The producers and directors of Streets of Fire wanted the best of everything, so they hired the best singers, the best dancers and best actors to play the parts in the film. So the singers in "I Can Dream About You" who are the Sorels are actually actors, and I wrote and sang this song."

                                                                    
                                                       The Dan Hartman Version of the song

"Why Did the M4's 5.56 round require multiple rounds to incapacitate an enemy and what did the Army do about it.

 

This question was on Quora and I snagged it and I added some pictures.  I thought it was a good explanation.

In Iraq, U.S. troops realized enemy fighters could take multiple 5.56mm rounds to the chest and keep shooting. The culprit was just 5.5 missing inches of rifle barrel.

Unlike larger calibers that rely on sheer mass to crush tissue, the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge relies on velocity. When the standard M855 "green tip" round hits soft tissue at speeds above 2,500 feet per second, the bullet destabilizes, yaws, and violently fragments. This fragmentation creates a massive temporary and permanent wound cavity that causes rapid incapacitation.

The military originally optimized the M855 round for the 20-inch barrel of the M16 rifle, which launched the bullet at nearly 3,100 feet per second. But for urban combat and vehicle mobility, troops needed a shorter weapon. The military transitioned to the M4 Carbine, which has a 14.5-inch barrel.

The shorter barrel drastically reduced the bullet's muzzle velocity. Fired from an M4, the M855 shed speed quickly. At ranges beyond 100 meters, it often struck targets below the 2,500 fps threshold necessary for fragmentation. Additionally, the M855 round was highly "yaw-dependent"—its fragmentation relied on its exact angle of attack upon entering flesh. If it struck straight-on, it could pass through five inches of tissue before tumbling. On thin fighters, the bullet often passed straight through without fragmenting, a phenomenon troops called the "ice-pick" effect. The target was left with a neat puncture wound that, while eventually fatal, did not immediately stop the threat.

The military ultimately fixed this with a metallurgical redesign of the bullet itself, developing the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR).

Instead of the M855's lead core and internal steel tip, the M855A1 features a solid copper core beneath a much larger, exposed steel penetrator. This three-piece construction (jacket, penetrator, core) is designed to act almost like a hollow-point upon impact. It aggressively yaws and fragments within the first two inches of tissue, independent of its initial angle of attack. The M855A1 maintains reliable fragmentation at much lower velocities, allowing the shorter-barreled M4 Carbine to inflict consistent terminal damage at nearly double the range of the older ammunition while simultaneously providing better barrier penetration against windshields and cinderblocks.

The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round features an exposed steel penetrator and a solid copper core. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

NASA Considering restarting the SR71 Program

 

I happen to see this and shamelessly "nicked" this I thought it was pretty neat.  I knew that the SR-71 were way ahead of their time and yet still old tech.  I am hopeful that they can bring at least one of them back into service.

NASA Asked Several Former SR-71A Staffers To Help Secret Restart

Steve Trimble September 29, 2026

A long list of seemingly impregnable challenges confronts a NASA team working to put this SR-71A back in flight for the first time since 1999, former Blackbird workers say.

Credit: NASA

Mike Relja, a retiree in his late 70s, received an unexpected job offer from NASA about a month ago.

The assignment: Help put a former NASA-operated Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird back in the air after a nearly 27-year hiatus.

• Two former test engineers confirm jobs were offered
• NASA withdrew Tail No. 844 from display pole
• Agency administrator seeks new X-planes for aeronautic breakthroughs

Relja, an ex-U.S. Air Force and NASA test engineer for the SR-71A, could not believe his ears. David Ash, a former U.S. Navy and Joby test pilot who was hired in June as a special projects director for NASA, asked Relja to provide his expertise for a secret effort to return a long-retired and neglected Blackbird to flight.

“I told the guy, ‘You know, I’m too old to be doing this,’” Relja recalls to Aviation Week. “‘I wish you well. I’d like to see you make it. It would be interesting. But I just don’t think you can get there from here.’”

It appears NASA is going to try.

At some point early this year—certainly before May 17 and perhaps even before April, according to commercial satellite imagery acquired by Aviation Week—agency employees removed the SR-71A with Tail No. 844 from a display pole near the corners of Lilly and Walker Avenues at the Armstrong Flight Research Center on Edwards AFB, California.

That SR-71A had stood there since about Oct. 9, 1999, the day that marked the final flight of No. 844—and of any Blackbird. NASA employees rolled the SR-71A into the hangar that once housed the Space Shuttle at Edwards, Relja says. An inspection of the aircraft followed. By the time Ash extended the job offer to Relja in August, NASA had crews working on the SR-71A inside the hangar.

“I do know they’ve got people working on it,” Relja says. “But again, without equipment, it’s beyond me what they’re doing.”

The first public hint that a return to flight for the SR-71A was brewing came at the exclusive All-In Summit in Los Angeles on Sept. 12-14. On stage as a panelist, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman teased an image of a new X-plane, revealing the famous outline of the SR-71A’s inward-canted vertical tails, bulbous midwing engine nacelles and flush and blended cockpit. The image prompted speculation that NASA is planning to create a modern X-plane based at least loosely on the Blackbird’s distinctive profile.

NASA removed SR-71A Tail No. 844 from display before April and rolled it into the former space shuttle hangar at Armstrong Flight Research Center, California. Credit: NASA

Retired NASA employees tell a different story. Aviation Week confirmed that the agency approached Relja, Tim Conners, another former NASA SR-71A test engineer and others over the summer with job offers to work on the return-to-flight project for Tail No. 844.

In meetings with the prospective rehires, Ash brushed aside all questions about why NASA wanted to go to the effort and expense of putting the Mach 3-capable SR-71A back in flight.

During his remarks at the All-in Summit, Isaacman provided some context for NASA’s overall campaign to reinvigorate the agency’s aeronautics research mission with a new stable of X-planes pursuing breakthroughs rather than incremental improvements over the state of the art.

“In the service of the first ‘A’ in NASA, we are rebuilding our X-plane fleet,” Isaacman said. “It will not be long before NASA is once again flying as high and as fast from decades past—and then even more.”

• RELATED CONTENT:
  Check 6: The Case Of The Missing Blackbird

An agency spokesperson declined to elaborate on Isaacman’s comments or the reason for the removal of Tail No. 844 from the display position. NASA has not confirmed that the return-to-flight project exists.

“We recognize the interest in the SR-71 and its remarkable history at NASA but have no additional information to share regarding the aircraft at this time,” the spokesperson tells Aviation Week.

To achieve that goal, Ash’s project must somehow restore to airworthiness a 59-year-old airframe that has not flown in nearly 27 years, despite a lack of everything—trained crews, spare parts and a supply chain ready to build them.

The challenges and costs of returning an SR-71A to flight after so many years seemed overwhelming to Relja, and he told NASA’s project lead as much when he met with him.

The cavities inside Tail No. 844 are likely full of water and sand from its nearly three-decade perch on display, he said. The two engines inside and the spare engine sitting beneath the airframe likely have not been lubricated and rotated since its final flight.

“When we were operational, if we had a spare engine, every 90 days we had to rotate the engine,” Relja says. “Every 180 days, we had to run it to keep it as a ready spare. Now you’re talking about engines that have been sitting for 30-plus years.”

The Air Force and NASA destroyed a $600 million supply of spare parts for the Blackbird fleet in 2007. The move came long after it seemed unlikely, if not impossible, that an SR-71A would return to operational service.

That decision could lead to significant restart costs. In addition to all of the consumable spares that must be in regular supply, NASA would need to restore access to the Blackbird’s unique JP-7 fuel blend, the triethylborane ignition chemical, engine oil and hydraulic fluids, Relja adds. A hodgepodge of bespoke ground equipment also no longer exists, leaving the current effort without vital, if unheralded, pieces of equipment.

“To raise the wing, you need a cart,” he says. “To get the engine out, you need a cart. You need equipment to pull the [engine] spikes, pull the [ejection] seat. All that stuff is gone.”

When Relja raised all of these issues with Ash, the NASA manager assured him it would not be a problem, without going into details about their solutions.

“Every time I threw one of these things out there, he says, ‘Oh, engineering will take care of that [and] engineering will take care of that,’” Relja recalls.

At the same time, he does not dismiss a return to flight as impossible, especially if NASA has enough resources to make it achievable.

“If you got a ton of money, maybe you can make it happen,” he says. “They went to the Moon, you know.”

Conners, a former colleague of Relja, tells Aviation Week that he turned down an offer to return to the SR-71A program, despite his hopes that it will succeed. Conners shares many of Relja’s concerns about feasibility.

“My first thought was, ‘My god, I would drop everything’” to help NASA achieve its goal, Conners says. “My second thought was, ‘How in the world are they going to do it?’”

But he thought of a few possible solutions to the spare parts problem. Dozens of retired Blackbirds adorn flight museums across the U.S. and in the UK. Nine flew to their final destinations, so their engines are parked with those aircraft on museum display.

“Those subsystems could be cannibalized,” Conners says.

Despite its pioneering design and still-unmatched performance even 60 years later, Lockheed’s famed Skunk Works, led by Kelly Johnson, produced an aircraft with an elegantly simple approach to electronics and key subsystems.

“The architecture was as simple as they could make it,” Conners says.

The lack of trained pilots and maintenance crews presents another challenge for NASA, although there may be a workaround. Conners recalls how the agency’s trained flight-test pilots did not require significant instruction after it received three aircraft from the Air Force in the early 1990s. And Lockheed’s operational manuals for the SR-71A still exist—and are superb, Conners adds.

“It’s a big deal, but it should not be a showstopper,” Conners said, “compared to some of the other challenges.”

"Boeing Wins U.S. Navy FA/XX Fighter Competition.

 

I'm of mixed emotion on this.  I want to think that Boeing has turned the corner on their problems, but their corporate culture was not good, they were ate up with DEI, I believes that caused part of their problems when you took the engineers out of top management and replaced them with finance guys, the focus changes,  I recall when Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged the clash of corporate culture In 2020, Quartz reported that after the merger there was a "clash of corporate cultures, where Boeing's engineers and McDonnell Douglas's bean-counters went head-to-head", which the latter won, and that this may have contributed to the events leading up to the 737 MAX crash crisis.^{[22].  (I clipped a snippet from wiki)}  

       I do know that Boeing builds good planes, I have worked on a lot of them, the B757 is my favorite. and I thought a huge mistake was not pursuing a replacement for the 757 or upgrading the 757 because there is nothing that does what that plane does but I digress. 

    I don't know enough about Navy procurement to really give an educated opinion, I do know that Northrop/Grumman has a really good reputation so I wonder what happened, was something wrong, was the boeing proposal and design better? or where intangibles.

Credit: Boeing

Boeing has won the race to develop the next U.S. Navy carrier-based combat aircraft less than 18 months after the company got the nod to build the F-47 for the U.S. Air Force. 

The Navy’s Sept. 29 announcement cements Boeing’s position as the developer of the next generation of U.S. tactical combat aircraft, completing a turnaround less than a decade after some feared the company’s historic fighter production center in St. Louis would end with the demise of the production for the F/A-18E/F and F-15E. 

The Navy, in an announcement, said the contract is valued at more than $20 billion for the full-scale development phase, covering multiple test aircraft for ground, airworthiness, systems and weapons integration testing. 

Boeing beat out a rival offer from Northrop Grumman in the F/A-XX competition. Northrop had high hopes for the program as it looked to regain the role as fighter aircraft prime contractor.

“The F/A-XX is a critical pillar in our commitment to maintaining peace through strength. F/A-XX will dominate contested airspace, extend operational reach, and deliver a decisive combat advantage for the warfighter,” said Michael Duffey, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. “The F/A-XX platform represents a crucial, non-negotiable investment in America’s national security and long-term air combat capabilities.”

The Navy expects the F/A-XX to perform multiple duties in the carrier air wing, replacing the Boeing F/A-18E/F fighter and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft beginning in the 2030s. The new fighter’s primary task would be long-range strike in the most heavily defended airspace. It would also play a role in defending the carrier from air and missile attacks.

“Backed by decades of work, bolstered by game-changing innovations and solidified by the investments we've made in new facilities uniquely suited to build multiple products with next-generation capabilities, our dedicated and talented team is ready to execute this critical program,” Steve Parker, Boeing Defense Space & Security CEO, said in the announcement. 

The company declined to provide additional details on its design, saying technical and programmatic specifics are classified.

Some Pentagon officials had expressed concern that Boeing could not handle two major fighter development programs at once. But the company, in a statement, said delivering both the F-47 and F/A-XX was always its plan and backed by substantial investment in its air dominance production facilities for the competitions. 

“We are ready and able to build multiple concurrent future combat aircraft franchise programs," Parker says.

Engine maker GE Aerospace, in a statement, said “We’re excited to see this important program advance.” It issued a similar statement after Boeing secured the F-47 program. 

Northrop Grumman acknowledged the announcement and said it had put forward “a highly survivable, digitally advanced sixth-generation fighter.”  The company, which can challenge the outcome, said “We look forward to receiving additional information about their selection.”

The award was announced shortly before the end of the fiscal year when funding added to the Pentagon's account for the program was due to expire. Congress provided $972 million in F/A-XX research and development funding in the fiscal 2026 defense appropriations bill earmarked for awarding an engineering and manufacturing development contract to a single vendor and to support an accelerated initial operational capability. 

The Navy has long awaited the award, providing Pentagon leadership with its input well ahead of the announcement. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle has lamented the extended delay in awarding the F/A-XX contract, saying in August the slowed timeline was putting more pressure on F/A-18 sustainment and requiring the F-35 program to improve its performance to bridge the gap until the sixth-generation fighter arrives. 

The new fighter will be a cornerstone of a modernized carrier air wing, which is also expected to feature the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray, an uncrewed multirole refueling aircraft, and a future fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft.

The service previously said the F/A-XX design will rely on a derivative of an existing fighter engine, foregoing a new class of adaptive propulsion systems in development by the U.S. Air Force. 

The U.S. Navy, the same day, awarded Boeing a $16.7 million contract to plan and prepare the shutdown of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Growler production lines.

The Air Force, on Sept. 29, said it awarded Boeing a production contract for more F-15EX fighters.