 |
| F-35A AF-2 flies over the sea test range off the coast of California on 22 February 2011 on its ninetieth flight. USAF Maj. Scott McLaren is the pilot. |
 |
| F-35A AF-1 aerial refuels over the Pacific Ocean on a flight from Edwards AFB, California. |
 |
| AF-1 has logged 178 total flight hours in its first 100 flights. |
 |
| Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti was at the controls for the first flight of F-35C CF-2 on 29 April 2011. |
Unfortunately, just a month into the campaign, the European-led NATO coalition is showing signs of strain, such as a shortage of precision bombs. These problems are probably more a matter of logistics than money. But they also highlight an inconvenient truth: Europe has been underfunding its defense capabilities for more than a decade.But wait my friends...it gets worse...
“I think there is a disconnect between the diplomatic ambitions of European countries and their military power,” says Antoine Gelain, leader of the aerospace and defense practice at Candesic, a London-based consultancy. “France and the U.K. still see themselves as the kind of countries that are able to bring law and order to renegade regimes. But the reality is they don’t have the means to do that anymore.”The worse part of all this is the face that Joe is a business reporter! He's looking at this from that perspective and as an explanation for why European companies are making a bee line to the US market place.
If the latest iteration of "beyond visual range" turns out to be yet another chimera, the F-35 will have to operate as a close-in dogfighter, but in that regime it is a disaster. If one accepts every aerodynamic promise Lockheed currently makes for it, the F-35 will be overweight and underpowered. At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)The question I have is this...
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."
If bigger wings confer greater agility then why isn't the F-35C more agile than the F-35A.Yes its a simple question.
The Royal Navy’s pending class of two aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, could end up costing more than double what government officials initially projected, according to a BBC report today. It underscores how big a deal it was for the U.K. to decide to buy F-35C Lightning IIs, as opposed to the delayed B version. When the Brits shifted to the Cs last fall, it was read in Washington as just another blow against the B, but many Americans may not have realized the consequences it would also have in today’s Austerity Britain. The Royal Navy now needs to redesign one or both carriers to accommodate the conventional C models, and that could raise the cost of the ships from £5.2 billion — or about $8.7 billion — to £7 billion, or about $11.7 billion.I never considered that part of the story when it was first announced.
Or it could be worse — although there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, wrote the BBC’s Robert Peston:
One defence industry veteran said the final bill was bound to be nearer £10 billion, though a government official insisted that was way over the top. The Ministry of Defence and the Treasury believe that total final costs could be nearer £6bn, if only one of the carriers is reconfigured to take the preferred version of America’s Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. An MoD official said no final decision had been taken on whether the first carrier to be built, the Queen Elizabeth, or the second carrier, the Prince of Wales, or both would be reconfigured. He said it would probably be the case that changing the design specification for the Prince of Wales would be the cheapest option.The Royal Navy likes to look on the bright side: It argues that the F-35C will end up being a more capable aircraft (longer range, more payload) and cheaper to buy per bird. And it will make the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales — or whichever one is the full-fledged carrier — an equal partner with the U.S. in a potential future conflict, launching first-day-of-the-war sorties with the same aircraft that the Americans will be flying. Assuming, of course, that Britons are willing to continue paying what it costs to field carriers and air wings.
But if that happened, it is not clear when — if ever — the Queen Elizabeth, due to enter service in 2019, would actually be able to accommodate jets (as opposed to helicopters). Whatever happens, the increase in the bill will be substantial — and is only regarded by the Treasury as affordable because the increment is likely to be incurred later than 2014/15, when the expenditure constraints put in place by the Chancellor’s spending review come to an end.
After the ejection, Harney -- "Meso" to his fellow fliers -- and "Mask" Stark became separated. "When you find yourself alone, and you're isolated, in a country where there's hostiles, you are scared," said Harney, a veteran of both the Afghan and Iraq wars.Read the whole story at CNN but it details the recovery of these two men. I didn't hear the story, only read it, but I can imagine the emotion behind the series of events. First you lose your engine, are forced to bail out, land and you're separated from members of your flight crew...
Stark was found by Libyan civilians who protected him from possible retaliation by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and eventually he was taken safely back to Europe. Details of how he was taken out of Libya have yet to be disclosed.
Harney's rescue came more quickly. He stayed in communications with another F-15 pilot still in the air over Libya. Eventually an MV-22 Osprey carrying Marines who were part of a Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel, or TRAP, team landed near his position.
"As that back door opened, I see a group of young Marine recon units jump out, and that was probably the best feeling I've ever felt in my entire life," Harney said. He was flown to the USS Kearsarge for a quick medical check then a short time later sent home with Stark to RAF Lakenheath, where friends and family welcomed them with hugs and a rendition of "God Bless America."
 |
| Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson put F-35B BF-3 into STOVL mode for the first time on Flight 101 on 25 April 2011. The flight took place at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. |
 |
| The fourth F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing jet, BF-4, descends to its first vertical landing on 27 April 2011 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. Marine Lt. Col. Fred Schenk piloted the aircraft during the flight, which was the forty-seventh for BF-4. |
 |
| Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti takes the F-35C CF-2 on its first taxi test in Fort Worth on 21 April 2011. |
 |
| Sailors with Riverine Squadron 3 and marines with the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps practice formation drills using Riverine Assault Boats, March 23. Sailors from RIVRON 3 and Marines from the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps participated in a three-week cross-training exercise exchanging tactics and refining their skills as combat boat crewman. |
LONDON - Britain's elite SAS is facing a recruitment crisis because the army is so overstretched that soldiers do not have time to prepare for the grueling selection process, a senior officer warned April 25.The US Army is already facing this issue with its Ranger School. At one time I remember talking to a guy in the 82nd and he basically told me (before the wars) that in order to get promoted in the US Army Infantry, you had to have your tab (Ranger Tab that is) or else you'd better be a friend of the Battalion Commander.
Brig. Richard Dennis said that the high "operational tempo" of the armed forces and the "unrelentingly demanding" operations in Afghanistan meant that servicemen were being discouraged from joining the special forces unit.
In a letter leaked to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Dennis, head of infantry, said the pressures affecting the forces were combining to "mitigate against Special Forces recruitment."
Air Test and Evaluation Squadron TWO ONE (HX-21) "Blackjack" is a U.S. Navy aircraft squadron located at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland on the Chesapeake Bay. As part of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWC-AD), Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL), HX-21 is responsible for the Developmental Test and Evaluation of Navy and Marine Corps rotary-wing/tilt-rotor aircraft, airborne systems, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in support of acquisition decisions that improve the Navy and Marine Corps' war fighting capability. Additionally, HX-21 tests and evaluates new mission systems to integrate legacy aircraft into the constantly evolving fighting force.Ok, I'm at ease now. In that formation, I saw a CH-53E in what appeared to be perfect condition along with two AH-1Z's and a UH-1Y.
Produced by Metal Storm Limited, an Australian defense company, the FireStorm is an electronically fired, multi-barrel 40mm platform. Features include interlocking mechanical and electrical systems for safe operation and light weight.First the Navy and now the Marine Corps seems to keep toying with the FireStorm concept. Why no one has pulled the "trigger" yet is beyond me...
The weapon and mount together weigh 120 pounds, with the entire unit 21.9 inches tall and 28.6 inches long. The FireStorm can be mounted on anything from humvees to remote controlled robots. It possesses the capability to render less than lethal weaponry, or fire a volley of high explosive rounds at a rate of 6,000 rounds per minute firing from all barrels.
Ammunition is loaded in the tubes, capacity ranging from four to six rounds per tube, depending on the ammunition used.
~Provides Increased Visibility to 2011 Full Year Vehicle Revenue Outlook~
LADSON, S.C., April 21, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Force Protection Industries, Inc., a FORCE PROTECTION INC. (NASDAQ: FRPT) group company, today announced it has received a $27.4 million sub-contract from Integrated Survivability Technologies Limited ("IST") for the delivery of 47 Cougar Mastiff vehicles to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence ("U.K. MoD"). IST is a joint venture between Force Protection Europe Limited, a subsidiary of Force Protection Industries, Inc., and NP Aerospace Limited, a subsidiary of The Morgan Crucible Company plc. Work under this sub-contract will be performed in Ladson, South Carolina, and is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2011.
 |
| U.S. Marine 1st Lt. Joshua S. Lum, platoon commander for 3rd Platoon, E Company, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion keeps watch from his Light Armored Vehicle 25, April 16. Marines were on the lookout for any suspicious activity or material. |
 | ||
| Lance Cpl. Nicholas W. Sainz, an assistant team leader in 1st Platoon, E Company, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, and native of La Habra, Calif., provides security April 16. Sainz stood watch while other Marines conducted a search. |
By Bruce McQuainCreated Apr 22 2011 - 10:00am
Budget cuts - 400 billion from DoD? What goes, what stays?
Having lived and served in the military during the post-Vietnam drawdown and the end of the Cold War "peace dividend," I'm very aware of the negative impact cuts at DoD had on military readiness during those times.Hey Sweetman! Game-Set-Match!
I'm also very aware of how expensive it was in the long run to bring our military back up to necessary levels again, both in troops and equipment.
That's not to say that DoD can't save money and shouldn't be tasked to do so, but it also warns us that we need to be exceedingly careful when we commit to cuts there so we are sure that we cut unnecessary costs and not necessary future capbilities. Yet there are again calls out there to cut capabilites, not just cost.
What am I talking about?
Amazingly after cutting back on the F-22 raptor from an initial buy that was supposed to be in the several hundreds, we ended up with only 187. Consider that this 5th generation air superiority fighter was to replace approximately 800 4th generation air superiority fighters. Is it any wonder, when you cut production like that, that the cost of the airplane shoots up over a 100 million per copy? Of course not.
Not only did we see the cost increase, but we cut our capability. Anyone who can make the argument that 187 aircraft can replace 800 others in the same role, do it well and cover all our possible future commitments and contingencies is a wizard. Even the Airforce made it clear that at a minimum they needed about 240 of the aircraft just to cover most of the contingencies they identified.
We're hearing rumbles now that the same sort of thing is going to happen to the F-35. The F-35 is different than the F-22 in that it is a strike fighter - meaning it is used in multiple roles, but mostly in support of troops on the ground. It will be the most advanced fighter in the world. Already the F-35's more advanced stealth technology is being streamed to the F-22 to upgrade its stealth capabilities.
We have plans on the books to build 2,443 of the F-35. At that production number, the F-35 will cost about the same as a mission capabile 4th generation fighter we're flying today - except it will be stealthy and instead of looking like a beach ball on enemy radar, it will be more like a BB if it is seen at all.
It will bring advanced avionics as well. A fused sensor system will be a huge upgrade from the federated system now operational in 4th generation fighters. A federated system means that a pilot, in addition to flying the aircraft, has to monitor all sorts of sensor displays and absorb the information on them. The "fusion" of that information takes place in the pilot's head as he tries to decide what is or isn't a threat. In a fused system, the aircraft's software does that for the pilot and on a single display in front of him identifies threats and helps prioritize and engage them as well. He concentrates on the mission and flying the aircraft.
That's a huge technological leap forward, increases survivability incredibly and is exactly how we'll maintain our 60 year edge in the skies. And don't forget - from 5th generation fighters 6th generation fighters are born.
But if we begin chopping and chipping away at those planned numbers, and given that we've already radically reduced our F-22 fleet, what F-35s we build are going to be very expensive. Not only that, but reduced numbers will hurt our capabilities. Less airplanes mean fewer availble to fulfill the multiple roles this aircraft must fill. And that could mean troops in combat don't have the close air support they may desperately need at a critical time.
While I support spending cuts in general and cuts in cost at DoD specifically, I draw the line at programs where such cuts cost us capability. That would be the case with cuts to the F-35 program. With China in the early stages of developing their own stealth 5th generation fighter and Russia well on the way with its fighter, cuts in our program would be cuts to capability and, in the long run, possibly jeopardize our national security.
Intelligent cuts to costs at the Pentagon are a no-brainer. No one is arguing against them. However, cuts to capabilities are not "intelligent cuts" and that's why the F-35 program, among other programs that increase and maintain our combat edge, should be left alone.
 |
| Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was at the controls for the 100th flight of F-35B BF-3. The flight was from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. Five F-35s have reached or surpassed the 100th flight mark. |
First Galrahn (author of the article)...
Joint Strike Fighter is an acquisition tragedy. The estimate for the per unit F-35 is only $25 million more than the F-22, and that is before a single F-35 is operational. This program is also part of Secretary Gates legacy, and it isn't pretty.
Then the rest of the comments...
The R&D costs for the F-22 are now sunk costs, while the current marginal unit cost for additional F-22 airframes is reputed to be roughly $160 million.
Someone please correct me on that last figure for the F-22's marginal unit cost, if you have updated information.
Someone please correct me on that last figure for the F-22's marginal unit cost, if you have updated information.
 |
| A B-1B Lancer, from the 37th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, returns to mission after receiving fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker, assigned to the 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, while flying over Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, March 29 |
Moving the brigade would weaken the NATO alliance, said Ståle Ulriksen, chair of the Security and Conflict Management Department at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. Norway, for instance, went to Afghanistan, like the other European nations, "to show solidarity and to stay on the good side of the U.S. -- to be an ally," he said.and then this...
Ulriksen said that "free-riding" on the U.S. had enabled Europeans to avoid devising their own coordinated defense structures and that they should "grow up and take responsibility."
But he also said a European alliance was hard to imagine without the U.S. as leader.
"It's a kind of a comfortable situation. You have a leader no one disputes," he said. "What would be the alternative -- the British? The French? The Germans?"
In the House, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spearheaded a plan last year to eliminate an Air Force fighter wing overseas, two Marine Corps infantry battalions on Okinawa -- and one Army brigade in Europe.Long story short.
"NATO was a wonderful concept. But 61 years later, I think it's time to say our Western European allies should be on their own. We'll cooperate with them, but we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense," Frank said.
In the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, whose state stands to gain troops at Fort Bliss in the restructuring, was advocating similarly.
"For the future security posture of U.S. military forces and for the fiscal health of our nation, [the] military construction agenda should be guided by these words: build in America," she wrote in Politico last year. "Some argue that the U.S. overseas presence provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has proven otherwise."
