F-35 News. They did a simulation between the F-35 vs. SU-35?

via The American Thinker...

In fact, in battle simulations of the F-35 against the Su-35, 2.4 F-35s are lost for each Su-35 shot down. Pitting the Gripen against the Su-35 results in 1.6 of the Sukhois shot down for each Gripen lost. The loss exchange ratio of the Gripen against the F-35 is said to be breathtaking – in the Gripen’s favor.

The article for the most part is unremarkable.  Plenty of assertions are made that we've all heard before.  MOST ANNOYING is the meme that Sweetman started that pisses me off to this day.  The USMC did not ruin the F-35 by insisting on a STOVL model!  Why USMC Communications isn't pushing back against that is beyond me but CONGRESS combined three separate programs and pushed the issue!  NOT THE USMC!

Having said that I would love more info on this combat simulation.  Who did it, under what circumstances.  How could the Gripen have such an outstanding turn against the SU-35 yet the F-35 fail so horribly?

I ask that and I'm a critic of the airplane!

Additionally what about the other airplanes in play today?  How would a Typhoon, Super Hornet, F-16 Block 60 and others do?

 

F-35 News. Weekend Rant.

via Defense Industry Daily...

The Pentagon lowered the forecast procurement cost of the F-35 program by 2 percent today – that’s $7.5 billion in savings over a roughly $400 billion program. The fighters are slated now to cost a mere $159.2 million per copy, if the military does indeed purchase 2,457 of them.

Good news huh? The Pentagon announcement was Friday, but earlier in the week we heard this from DoD Buzz...

The cost to develop and build the Joint Strike Fighter fleet rose 1.88 percent over the past year because of delays in the production line and failures of the engine producer to bring down costs, said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer.
The cost of the program rose by $7.4 billion to $398.58 billion in 2012-year dollars, according to the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report that is released each year to Congress. The increase in costs means tax payers will end up paying $162 million for each fifth generation fighter jet by the end of the program at the current rate.
Bogdan blamed the increased costs on the decision to push back production of the F-35 and failures by Pratt and Whitney, the company building the fighter jet’s engine. The costs of the JSF engine increased by $4 billion, Bogdan said.

So which one is it?  Did the cost go up or is it going down?  Do they even know or are we the "human terrain" that is being manipulated, spun, lied to (accounting gimmicks are lies) and deceived?

Seabase & Seaplanes

Thanks to Lee for the document.

  Seabase & Seaplanes

Weekend Reading...New Wars Blog.

This is an oldie but a goodie.

Mike over at New Wars Blog put up some of the most thought provoking stuff to be found on the internet.  Unfortunately he's no longer blogging (I hope he's ok) but his blog lives on.

Want some good, blast from the past reading?  Head here and drink it all in.

Russia's Pak Ta Supersonic Heavy Transportation Aircraft

Sea Basing/ACV Wrap Up.

  Mpf Se Spmagtf

SPMAGTF-CR Sea Basing.

  Mpsron Laydown

MPSRON Laydown.

SEA BASING Summation.

This all leads to my wrap up with the sea basing concept (and to an extent the Amphibious Combat Vehicle).

Bear with me because I have to tell a little story.  Remember back when you were boot and you got the briefing from the Battalion Commander?  You left that meeting fired up ready to run into walls, you thought that it wasn't only possible but that it would be fucking easy as pie....you wouldn't even break a sweat getting it done!  Then halfway back to brief the troops on the Commanders Intent and you're looking at your notes and suddenly you ask yourself...What the Fuck just happened?  Hearing the briefs from Strock and Mullen will have you thinking you can run through walls...so a cooling off period was needed.  Lets just say that I had to chew on this a bit.

The Sea Basing Concept and the plan for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle look awesome.  With the ACV, it might be out of our hands.  I don't know the Washington landscape (and don't want to!) and it appears that there are budget games being played that I don't even want to dig into.  With the sea base we're looking at something different.  We have the capability NOW.  Its just a matter of advertising the capability to combatant commanders.

The ACV and the Sea Base.  Both are vital parts of the future Marine Corps.


Sidenote:  A little birdy told me that we could get the RFP for the ACV as soon as today and if not then definitely next week.  Heads up peeps!

Blast from the past. The potential of barges in Amphibious Logistics (Sea Basing) circa 1974

  Ad 0922406

Note:  This document is from Marine Corps archives circa 1974.

To paraphrase, the Marine Corps stands on the shoulders of our forefathers...

A terrible day at the office...eyes firmly shut holding on for dear life....

Like the Army Facebook Page says...this guys face says it all!  He's having a terrible day at the office, his eyes are firmly shut and he's holding on for dear life.

Must read about the role of Armor in the Battle of Debaltseve & implications for the US Army.

via Foreign Policy Blog

Finally, the Ukrainian experience indicates that combat vehicles which cannot protect soldiers from the threats they face on the contemporary battlefield are of limited value. These vehicles lack the capability to influence the fight. Based on the Guardian’s report, Ukrainian troops had a greater chance of escaping Debaltseve if they abandoned their vehicles. Most of the Ukrainian army’s vehicles are Soviet-era designs. This includes armored fighting vehicles such as BMPs and BTRs, trucks and utility vehicles, as well as towed and self-propelled artillery. Some new tank models have been introduced since Ukrainian independence, such as the T-84, but these vehicles are evolutionary upgrades of Soviet-era main battle tanks such as the T-72 and T-80, which also remain in service. Ukrainian troops haveupgraded some aging armored vehicles with field-expedient protection designed to prematurely detonate incoming rocket-propelled grenades. These modifications reflect the vehicles’ vulnerability to lightweight, portable anti-tank weapons. The key lesson here is that outdated vehicles cost money to maintain and employ, but add little to combined arms capabilities when facing a complex enemy force armed with heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, not to mention heavy artillery and tanks of their own.

Read it all here.

Colombian Army to acquire US Army Mobile Gun Systems.

Read the story here.