Bruce Dickinson: Rock ‘n’ Roll Warmonger

@bearfan, Perun, thanks for clearing that up, like I said, haven't watched the video.

So there's really no case here. The guy that wrote an article is simply a piece of shit.
 
I just can't believe that Bruce's working-class-Tory-toff delusion is now grown so great that he can say stuff like 'thinking in the truest sense of the word outside the envelope' with a straight face AND get paid for it.

BUT he did help make my favourite album of all time, and what he does in his spare time won't change that!
 
What is amusing about the article if you think about it, is the author lavishes great praise on artists who threw their full support behind the campaign of the administration that both maintained and expanded all the drone activity he is bitching about further down.

They are not anti-establishment, they are anti-military leftist stooges. I am guessing an album that would protest the excess and waste of the welfare state (establishment) or something similar would not get the "anti-establishment rock and roll".

The author of this article is truly a horrible journalist and even a bad op-ed writer for that matter.
 
Mosh said:
He won't, as well as he shouldn't. He doesn't have to waste his (and the fans) time with this bullshit. You're probably right that he doesn't even know about the article.
Click to expand...

He's been known to comment on fairly minor controversies during a show. For example pavilion seating / prices in the US.
 
Last edited:
Yea exactly. Plus most of the issues he talks about are relevant to a song or something.
 
From the bottom of the web page that started this all:


"About Dorset Eye
Dorset Eye was launched on 1st June 2012 by a small group of people who share a common passion for enabling people to have a voice that can and should be heard. We have no party political allegiance; no religious affiliations and no corporate owners pulling our strings. Just a group who prefer to see people welcomed through open doors and not restrained and constrained by those who would prefer to keep us at arms distance.

We are a media with a difference. Instead of a newspaper or magazine telling you what the news is this online magazine lets you determine what the news is. You send and we publish! What is going on within the communities? If we can benefit by sharing – then let’s submit and do just that."


Many people have little faith in the media for a variety of reasons, some of them well-founded.
And the internet has further blurred the line between news and commentary.

That said, professional journalists do have standards that most strive to adhere to.
The intent of this internet magazine may be well-founded, but it should not pretend to be journalism, not with content like this.
 
Such a site could be a good idea, if the ones running it would bother to check the sources of an article before publishing it - thus providing just a little quality control.
 
I've just had an enforced absence for a few days due to a "technical issue" (ie my Broadband box decided to fry itself) so this entire discussion down as far as rolpol's last comment has gone on entirely while I was offline. But reading through it now I can honestly say I'm proud to be a member of this forum. Rational discussion throughout that never ever got heated or nasty and no-one jumped to any conclusions (not that I doubted any of you but still nice to see it). Well done everyone!

Just imagine the equivalent discussion on Blabbermouth. On the other hand, I'd rather not.
 
I sent them an email and got this back

Hi XXXXX


Please feel able to refute Mr Paterson's article with one of your own.


Kind regards,

A name
 
bearfan said:
I sent them an email and got this back

Hi XXXXX


Please feel able to refute Mr Paterson's article with one of your own.


Kind regards,

A name
Click to expand...

Copy paste the discussion that went on in this forum. Better yet, a one-liner with the attached Bruce youtube vid should do the trick.
 
I am going to post something .. not sure what. I am stuck at home tomorrow morning monitoring some stuff at work ... so I know what I can do to pass the time :)
 
After some digging about I've uncovered some more details about the project:
First of all, a report from January 2011 (almost three years ago) on the Telegraph regarding airships making a comeback, mentioning the project:
The US Department of Defense recently awarded a contract worth $517 million (£333 million) for a hybrid-design platform that can operate at 19,600ft for three weeks. The 300ft long LEMV – "long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle" – will make its first flight this summer. Based on a design by a British company, Hybrid Air Vehicles, it carries a 2,500lb payload of sensors and communications equipment.
Click to expand...

Certainly sounds impressive. The Cranfield, Berdforshire-based company's website: www.hybridairvehicles.com, features Roger Munk, the Discovery Channel guy Bruce mentioned in the presentation Natalie shared. He passed away in 2010. Munk's company profile says he was the inventor of the technology. He developed:
the AT-10, a 5-seater airship eventually exported to Asia. This design evolved into a hybrid air vehicle with an innovative landing system. It is this design that forms the platform for the US Army’s LEMV system [...]
Click to expand...

This definitely matches Bruce's description from Natalie's presentation. Now let's go back to Bruce's connection to all of that. Here's the company's Wikipedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles. Interesting stuff, but Bruce is nowhere to be seen. However a very quick Google search brings up this:
Today two shareholders – Philip Gwyn of Christie Group and City veteran Rod Sinclair – hold 60 per cent of the equity and the remainder is owned by private investors. They include Peter Hambro, boss of Petropavlovsk, and Bruce Dickenson, of rock group Iron Maiden and a passionate aviation buff.
Click to expand...
Yes, they misspelled his name, but haven't failed to identify him as Maiden's lead singer nor as having a major thing for aviation :p

Bottom line, he's a major shareholder in a $500,000,000 hi-tech R&D firm. Obviously he knows where his money is going.

Moving on. This recent article from May 2013 has a lot of more information, as well as mentioning Northrop Grumman and the LEMV:
In 2010, Northrop Grumman had beaten its rival to a half-a-billion-dollar development contract with the US Army. The contract was focussed on exploring the potential of airship technology not just for cargo haulage, but for battlefield surveillance.

With US Military’s backing, Northrop Grumman successfully developed and trialled an airship called the LEMV—short for Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle. And after a successful test flight in August 2012, spokesman Tim Paynter proudly told Future Tense: ‘Over the next couple of years we will certainly see a lot more activity on this program.’
Click to expand...

The only combat-related detail this article specifically mentions regarding Bruce's project, is battlefield surveillance. It most definitely coincides with what Bruce says and backs him up.

However, the same article states: all of these airship R&D projects mostly do business with defense, not civillian contractors:
...because all of the major commercial aircraft manufacturers derive the vast bulk of their revenue from military contracts, not from civil aircraft. ‘The civil side of the business, which is the one we hear about, is much, much smaller than the military side,’...
Click to expand...

This article from DefenceMedianNetwork sheds some more light on Northrop Grumman's military goals for the LEMV airship:
On June 15, 2010, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector won a competitive bid for a $517 million contract from SMDC/AFSC to develop three LEMV systems within 18 months. [...] company officials say their design provides a plug-and-play capability to readily integrate into the Army’s existing common ground station command centers for UAVs.

“It is critical that our warfighters are equipped with more enabling integrated ISR capability to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s conflicts,” Northrop Grumman Program Manager Alan Metzger said. “Our offering supports the Army’s Joint Military Utility Assessment that this disruptive innovation must meet the Army’s objective of a persistent unblinking stare while providing increased operational utility to battlefield commanders. Part of our innovative offering includes open architecture design in the payload bay to allow sensor changes by service personnel in the field.”
Click to expand...
Battlefield surveillance (and C&C).

In spite of all, the US Army has shut the project down earlier this year (as mentioned in the May 2013 ABC Radionational article):
But it was not to be. In March this year the US Military announced the surprise cancellation of the contract.
Click to expand...
This report from local Berdforshire newspaper gives a clue regarding the direction of future develoment:
HAV are now trying to purchase back the ship, [...] so it can be used for testing and product development.

Hardy Giesler, spokesman for HAV, said: “We were very aware of the impact of the US Army cuts but in many ways it’s opened up a fantastic opportunity for us. We started work on new airship in 2011 and it would be helpful to have a physical aircraft to use for testing. It will shorten the time scale for development and there’s no real substitute for the real thing.”
Click to expand...
There is no record of defense contractor Northrop Grumman's involvement in the development of the new model, dubbed the Airlander. The DefenceMedianNetwork report has some more technical details that perhaps explain why the original LEMV project was shut down, and this guy seems to shed even further light. You can also find a lot of other details on the LEMV on Wikipedia.

By the way, the video Natalie posted seems to be an excerpt from Bruce's keynote on IBM Smarter Business 2012 (October 10, 2012) in Helsinki, Finland. Bruce's keynote was officially described as a "huge success". No wonder Bruce was so excited about this at the keynote - it was 2 months after it's successful test flight! You can watch 1-hour of the whole presentation (2-hours long, as confirmed by this official itinerary). It's not bad, I've seen it last year. It doesn't contain the part about the airship though, if I recall correctly. Also, here is an account of the event from an attendee.

Now how is that for a paper trail? ;)
 
Last edited:
pilau said:
Bottom line, he's a major shareholder in a $500,000,000 hi-tech R&D firm. Obviously he knows where his money is going.
Click to expand...
Sorry if you all think this is nitpicking as it is a small point but as an accountant it is niggling me and I feel I have to point this out: Bruce is not by this account a major shareholder, he is one of several minor shareholders who collectively own only 40% of the company. Two people - Philip Gwyn and Rod Sinclair - control the company and Bruce's share, while it might seem like a lot of money to us and may even make up a significant proportion of Bruce's resources (I think this is probably what you meant by "major"), is still quite probably peanuts to them. However, it is interesting to note that Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd was incorporated on 6th June 2007 so if Bruce first met Roger Munk while canvassing for funds to make Chemical Wedding (which came out in 2008) then he may well have been involved with the project from very near the start.

Totally agree with the second point though - we all know Bruce to be intelligent and astute and, quite frankly, he didn't get where he is today without making his choices very carefully. He is also known for getting behind projects he cares passionately about.

Well done for digging that lot out - excellent work!:ok:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top