 |
| Lance Cpl. Marcus Terry fires the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon through a mock window on an unknown distance course at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., May 18. Terry is an infantryman assigned to the Ground Comabt Element, Marine Barracks Washington. Photo by Sgt. Bobby J. Yarbrough |
The Army's got a problem. They've re-oriented their entire force around the "Stryker" Brigade concept. If this vehicle isn't adequate across all conflicts then its time to rethink organizational philosophy.The double-V hull design, which went from conception to production in less than a year, will replace conventional, flat-bottomed Strykers that have seen extensive service in Iraq and made an inauspicious debut in Afghanistan in June 2009 with the deployment of the 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division to Kandahar province.Members of that brigade, which had 37 troops killed in action and 238 wounded during its yearlong mission, reportedly called the vehicles the “Kevlar coffin.” Things got so bad that part way through the deployment, the Stryker unit was diverted away from the main fighting in Kandahar to a “freedom of movement mission” guarding roads on the periphery of where the toughest combat was taking place.Unfortunately, the strain of repeated combat tours necessitated the Strykers’ deployment to Afghanistan to “take their turn downrange,” said retired Lt. Col. David Johnson, executive director of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. Stryker brigades’ soldiers — if not their vehicles — need to deploy to Afghanistan so that other units have enough dwell time at home.But the Stryker vehicle itself might not be the best option in places like Afghanistan, he said. It was designed to be a rapidly deployable, medium-armor vehicle that would fight in a medium- to high-intensity conflict, carry troops to an assault position and dismount the troops.“[It] isn’t perfectly suited for the environment in Afghanistan or a low-intensity conflict with IEDs,” he said. “The Stryker is a platform. If it doesn’t work, use another tool.”
 |
| The guided-missile destroyer USS Howard leads a formation of U.S. and Royal Thai Navy ships, flanked by the guided-missile frigate USS Reuben James and HTMS Phuttalertlanapalai and followed by HTMS Taksin, HTMS Khirirat, and HTMS Sukhotai as they transit the Gulf of Thailand during Cooperation Afloat and Readiness Training Thailand 2011. CARAT is a series of bilateral exercises held annually in Southeast Asia to strengthen relationships and enhance force readiness. Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Lily Daniels |
 |
| The Royal Thai Navy medium landing ship HTMS Surin, foreground, and the amphibious dock landing ship USS Tortuga, maintain patrol after releasing waves of U.S. and Thai Marine amphibious assault vehicles to the beach during an amphibious landing evolution as part of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training Thailand 2011. CARAT is a series of bilateral exercises held annually in Southeast Asia to strengthen relationships and enhance force readiness. Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Jose Lopez |
 |
| A Royal Thai Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle drives onto the beach during an amphibious assault exercise as part of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training Thailand 2011. The navy medium landing ship HTMS Surin and the amphibious dock landing ship USS Tortuga participated in the beach assault. CARAT is a series of bilateral exercises held annually in Southeast Asia to strengthen relationships and enhance force readiness. Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Jose Lopez |
 |
U.S. Marine Corps amphibious assault
vehicles launched from the amphibious dock landing ship USS Tortuga, not
pictured, prepare to assault a beach during Cooperation Afloat
Readiness and Training 2011. More than 130 U.S. Marines spent 48 hours
training with members of the Royal Thai Marine Corps. (Photo by: Lt. K.
Madison Carter)
|
 |
The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile
destroyers USS Kidd and USS Pinckney are underway in the Pacific Ocean.
Kidd and Pinkney are part of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group
and are participating in a composite training unit exercise off the
coast of Southern California. (Photo by: Seaman Apprentice Carla Ocampo)
|
 |
| Amphibious assault vehicles exit the amphibious dock landing ship USS Tortuga during an amphibious assault exercise as part of Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training Thailand 2011. CARAT is a series of bilateral exercises held in Southeast Asia to strengthen relationships and enhance force readiness. (Photo by: Petty Officer 2nd Class Katerine Noll) |
 |
| Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin took the third F-35C on its first taxi test at NAS Fort Worth JRB on 19 May 2011. |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Australian Army Maj. Gen. David Morrison (right), commanding general, Forces Command, orders a bayonet charge here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting (AASAM). The charge was carried out by Marines with Marine Shooting Detachment Australia, New Zealand Army soldiers and Australian Army soldiers. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:20 AM |
 |
| UCKAPUNYAL RANGE, Victoria, Australia-Marines from Virginia, Hawaii and Okinawa, Japan line up side-by-side with Australian and New Zealand counterparts before firing on targets during the bayonet portion of the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting (AASAM) May 15. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Cohen A. Young), Master Sgt. Cohen A. Young, USAF, Defense Media Activity, 5/15/2011 2:03 PM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Australian Army Maj. Gen. David Morrison (right), commanding general, Forces Command, inspects an M4 carbine and bayonet used by Sgt. Jonathan Shue (left), noncommissioned officer-in-charge, machine shop, Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 36, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:17 AM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Sgt. Jonathan Shue, noncommissioned officer-in-charge, machine shop, Marine Aviation Logistics Group 36, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, III Marine Expeditionary Force, bayonets a target here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. “From a Marine’s standpoint, a bayonet charge is nothing more than absolute aggression,” said Shue. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:09 AM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Sgt. Jonathan Shue, noncommissioned officer-in-charge, machine shop, Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 36, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, III Marine Expeditionary Force, fires on a secondary target after bayoneting the first here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:04 AM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Sgt. Matthew Gullete, competitor, Combat Shooting Team, Weapons Training Battalion, Marine Corps Base Quantico, bayonets a target here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 8:49 AM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Sgt. Jonathan Shue, noncommissioned officer-in-charge, machine shop, Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 36, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, III Marine Expeditionary Force, preparers to bayonet a target here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. “There is nothing that a Marine wants to hear more than ‘fix bayonets’ and nothing that the enemy fears more,” said Shue. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:09 AM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Sgt. Jonathan Shue, noncommissioned officer-in-charge, machine shop, Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 36, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, III Marine Expeditionary Force, preparers to bayonet a target here May 15 during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. “There is nothing that a Marine wants to hear more than ‘fix bayonets’ and nothing that the enemy fears more,” said Shue. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:09 AM |
 |
| PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia-Staff Sgt. Edward Ortiz, staff noncommissioned officer-in-charge, Combat Shooting Team, Weapons Training Battalion, Marine Corps Base Quantico, bayonets a target simultaneously with an Australian soldier May 15, during the 2011 Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting. The week-long meeting pit military representatives from partner nations in competition in a series of grueling combat marksmanship events. Represented nations include Canada, France (French Forces New Caledonia), Indonesia, Timor Leste, Brunei, Netherlands, U.S., Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand as well as a contingent of Japanese observers. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud/Released), Lance Cpl. Mark W. Stroud, 5/15/2011 9:16 AM |
Sensors and VLO are two sides of the same coin, the ability to be the first to see the other guy.
High altitude and supercruise are not features unique to "pure A2A" fighters. For example the F-35 can go above 50k and both Euro-cards claim super-cruise above M1.2 in A2A config.
While the F-22 has a kinematic advantage over current fighter/weapon configs, that will soon be changing as newer weapons are introduced at a faster rate than the F-22 can compensate (without changing it s own weapons).
I do not want you to forget 60 years of fighter combat history; I want you to learn from it. The in the 1st combat jets, maneuverability was absolute as you needed to get your target into a very small cone in order for your cannons to hit. Later, the need for absolute maneuverability was relaxed due to the cone becoming larger due to the introduction of AAMs. That cone expanded up to 180 degrees with the latest HOBS missiles like AIM-9x, ASRAAM, etc. Throughout these changes the need for absolute maneuverability was relaxed as the sensors & weapons became better (ie the latest F-16C Blk50 is not as maneuverable as the first F-16A).
The F-35 is just the next evolution in this process. It gives up nothing to previous generations, but gains much in terms of combat persistence, situational awareness and weapons capability. Maneuverability is still important due to the need (in a WVR fight) to keep from being in front of the enemy (and taking an AAM up the arse), but you only need to keep that up for a few seconds till your AAM hits.
As an example of how sensor & weapons upgrades will counter fighter generations at a faster pace, look at weapon integration. UAI allows new weapons to be used, fleet wide, with a few months of being developed. Far example; when ATK is done working on the AIM-120D+ s new motor and they complete whatever other changes they create as part of it s IOC capabilities, it can be shipped to any F-35, F-15E, and F-16 within 3 months of testing being done. No block upgrade needed. The same will be true of NGM, MALD, NGJ, etc.
A couple of/three points if I may,Suffice it to say that in my mind this debate is dead. The F-35 will be a potent air to air platform and the critics are clutching at straws and depending on Korean War type solutions (invalid tactics) to solve modern combat problems.
1. BB1984 and Privateer:
Please read carefully and try to grasp my point as I typed it without overlaying emotion. I indicated that that increasing maneuverability does not bring much military advantage. I believe my use of a form of the verb 'increase' without any modifiers such as 'in relation to' or 'compared to x', to most people, would have immediately indicated that I was speaking in relation to current state. That should have in no way, shape, or form, indicated to any reasonable person implied anything other than what I typed. If you would like an aeronautical and operational explanation as to why what I typed was true, just ask. But don't twist other's words just to create an opening for making cr*p up.
2. I've noticed the question as to which version of the F-18 the F-35B maneuverability is being compared. Does it matter? The F-35B is replacing the Harrier, not the F-18. What kind of maneuverability does the AV-8 have at Mach 1+? Oh....(yeah).
3. A data point for the ‘hobbyists’:
------
The F-15 was larger and more visible than its predecessor the F-4, wrote Sprey, making it vulnerable in daylight close-in dogfighting. He claimed the Eagle was too dependent on radar guided missiles, which “are not likely to be more effective than those used in Vietnam.”
Since 1960, Sprey wrote in the 1981 piece, too much of the Air Force tactitcal aviation budget had been devoted to complex night/all-weather systems “of highly questionable capability.” Sprey urged the Air Force to emphasize the F-16 over the F-15 because “in visual combat, the F-16 has been demonstrated to be the superior aircraft.”
This was the point where the military reformers misfired.
Future air combat would not, as they assumed, take place largely in daytime, close-in engagements. The F-15 would go on to become the dominant air-to-air force in the skies precisely because of its radar missiles and long reach.
In the first Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of 40 Air Force aerial victories. Of those, 28 involved radar guided missiles. Worldwide, the Eagle has racked up an unprecedented kill ratio of 104-to-zero.
Writing in 2004, David R. Mets of Air University summed it up this way:
“The Korea-style dogfight seems to have all but disappeared from the air-to-air battle. The agility of both [the F-15 and F-16] remains highly useful in dodging surface-to-air missiles, but that is not what Boyd and the [military reform] acolytes had in mind.”
------
ref: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August%202010/0810failures.aspx
Just a data point.
 |
| KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan-A Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 CH-53E Super Stallion lands next to a downed Canadian Forces CH-47 Chinook during a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel mission in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, May 17. Utilizing a trio CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461, with assistance from 2nd Marine Logistics Group’s helicopter support team, the Canadian and American team was able to transport the injured aircraft back to its home at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan., Cpl. Rashaun X. James, 5/17/2011 1:22 AM |
 |
| KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan-Helicopter support team Marines with 2nd Marine Logistics Group prepare the rigging for a transport of a Canadian Forces CH-47 Chinook helicopter during a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel mission in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, May 17. The Marines and Canadian Forces were able to transport the injured aircraft back home safely to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan., Cpl. Rashaun X. James, 5/17/2011 1:12 AM |
 |
| KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan-A Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 CH-53E Super Stallion transports a Canadian Forces CH-47 Chinook during a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel mission in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, May 17. Utilizing a trio CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461, with assistance from 2nd Marine Logistics Group’s helicopter support team, the Canadian and American team was able to transport the injured aircraft back to its home at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan., Sgt. Thomas W. Dowd, 5/17/2011 2:42 AM |
Since the officials confirmed that 3 Chinooks were involved and given that a mixed formation of stealth and non-stealth helos would have rendered the entire formation clearly visible on radars and audible from distance, I believe that there must be also a modified MH-47 flying with the 160 SOAR. Unlike the Black Hawk, we have no photographic evidences of it, but I think that their existence is somehow confirmed by the fact that the officers admitted their presence on the scene. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that the sources are trying to deceive the public opinion when they say to the AP journalist that:Read it all here. I don't quite buy it but ...
 |
| Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descend to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation. |
 |
| A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descends to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation. |
 |
| Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provide security along likely avenues of approach the rest of their team can cross a trail during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The 2nd-19th SFG were recently at Camp Atterbury for a week-long drill period. |
 |
| A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group covers the rearguard as his team moves out after a break during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained Soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible. |
 |
| A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provides security for his team during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible. |
“The last of the 14 Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that General Dynamics NASSCO is building in San Diego will be named after Cesar Chavez, the late civil rights and labor leader. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will visit NASSCO on Tuesday afternoon to make the formal announcement. Some members of the Chavez family are expected to be in attendance, says NASSCO, which recently laid the keel of the ship.”http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/16/navy-ship-be-named-after-cesar-chavez/
 |
F-35B 100th Vertical Landing
The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing variant test program achieved its 100th vertical landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on May 12, 2011. All four F-35B aircraft at NAS Patuxent River have contributed to the milestone.
|
Wow.Pentagon Planning To Spend $25 Billion On Music Bands
Actually, this posting is about the F-35 fighter. But the headline is correct -- the nation's military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years. In fact, if you add inflation and indirect costs like retirement benefits, the "then-year" cost of military bands is more like $50 billion. But here's the catch: I'm talking about the cumulative cost for military bands between now and the year 2065.
Ridiculous, right? By the time we get to 2065, the bands will probably be unmanned (robotic) anyway. But that hasn't stopped various news organizations from reporting that the after-inflation "life-cycle cost" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter through 2065 has risen above a trillion dollars. The story generated a lot of buzz, mainly because few of the reporters who cover the Pentagon know anything about economics. If they did, they'd realize that in the 1970s you could buy a new Mustang convertible for less than $5,000 and half a century is a very long time in economic terms.
I imagine a few grizzled editors actually did know this, but they just couldn't resist attaching a trillion-dollar pricetag to the F-35 because it was a sure-fire way of attracting readers. So how come they never apply the same bogus methodology to other government expenditures -- like music bands? Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post on September 6, 2010 that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines were spending around $500 million annually on bands. Multiply that number by 50 years and then add in a modest inflation factor -- say 2.5 percent per year, compounded -- and half a century later you're talking real money, as the late Senator Everett Dirkson might have put it. Many tens of billions of dollars, it turns out.
It's hard to measure the benefit of spending so much money on music, but the stakes in the F-35 debate are a bit clearer. If the joint force doesn't field a more survivable fighter sometime soon, we can forget about operating our aircraft over places like Iran and North Korea in the future. And the fact that no U.S. soldier has been killed by an enemy aircraft since the Korean War will be a thing of the past. Air superiority is one of those things that is hard to fully appreciate until you've lost it, and then you really, really miss it. So maybe we should set aside all the imaginative ways that pundits dream up to try to discredit a plane that actually won't cost much more to own than current fighters, and just do what we need to do to stay on top.
Incidentally, did I mention that the "then-year" cost of illegal drugs in the U.S. through 2065 is likely to be around $20 trillion?
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Update May 15: I have received a few emails about the chart being incorrect. Here is one good post about the perceived error. I don't believe it is an error. I could be wrong, but here is why I think some folks are misunderstanding it.Awesome.
In my opinion, APUC and PAUC both contain exactly what they should.
What some people reading the chart don't seem to understand is if you take you finger and run it along the line of a particular cost - where the line stops is above the column that particular cost adds to what's already to its left.
In other words, if you look a PUAC, it adds RTD&E plus MILCON to the APUC, weapons system cost, total fly away cost and URF costs to its left. The cost structure builds as you go to the right. TOC then adds the things in the final column to everything (cost) to its left.
PAUC is defined as:
PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost) = RDT&E $ + Procurement $ + unique MILCON $ (in program base year dollars)/Total procurement quantity + RDT&E prototypes that are production reps used for IOT&E (if any)
Run your finger over the PAUC line and it stops right above the column that says "RTD&E" and "MILCON".
I hope that helps. It's a difficult issue and I am trying to explain costs as clearly as I can.
I know that doesn't matter to some who are against the F35 for various efficacy reasons, but let's all be clear about the cost.
