Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Pic of the day. Nov. 17, 2010.

A U.S. Navy Sikorsky SH-60B Seahawk helicopter, flown by Lt. Brian Roberts, assigned to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 37, and Cmdr. Brian Gebo, the commanding officer of the squadron, lands next to the Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor on Ford Island in Hawaii Nov. 16, 2010. The helicopter was delivered to become a part of the museum?s collection after reaching the end of its service life cycle. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Mark Logico, U.S. Navy/Released)

The C-141 did the A400 before the A400 did!

Once the USAF had a capable airlifter that had about the same carry capability as the A400, was cheaper, faster and could fly further...as a matter of fact this airplane (if it were still in production) would be the main rival to the A400.

What is that airplane from years ago?

The C-141.

Might be time to dust off the old birds from the scrapyards and stick modern engines on them and put them back into service!




UPDATE!
Thanks to everyone for their comments but a few points...
1.  The C-141 cubing out before reaching its max takeoff weight was examined and to a certain degree rectified by the stretched C-141B.
2.  In the light that the C-141 was tweener...between the C-5 and the smaller C-130 makes it similar to the A400 in mission profile..
3.  If you think that any of the partner nations in the A400 project are going to be using the A400 on rough fields, etc, then I've got a bridge in a dark swamp to sell ya...it ain't going to happen.
4.  The idea that in addition to A330, the A400 will make a superior tanker is nonsense.  The A400 will not be procured in large enough numbers for it to perform a swing role...a role that the A330 is more than adequate for.
5.  The C-141 is faster, flies farther and carries as much as the A400...the only place where the A400 might be superior is the fact that it can carry SOME outsized cargo.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

LHD Juan Carlos.

Got this from MilitaryPhotos.net...no english translation but it gives a good view of the ship.  Enjoy.

Pic of the day. Nov. 16, 2010.

101102-N-8069G-169
GULF OF ADEN (Nov. 2, 2010) Marines assigned to 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (26th MEU) embarked aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50), depart Djibouti in an amphibious assault vehicle after conducting amphibious training exercises. Carter Hall is part of Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group and is supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kristin L. Grover/Released)

Monday, November 15, 2010

Cameron to the British people..."keep calm and carry on"...


Keep calm and carry on is a catch phrase often quoted by "Morning Joe" headliners.  Unfortunately the British people sense that the massive defense cuts forecast by their leadership is helping to diminish the UK on the world stage. 

They're right and just like here in the US, the people are getting it before the politicians.  Additionally with the UK and the rest of Europe (with the exception of the former Soviet bloc countries and 'gasp' France) falling back into a fortress Europe crouch, its up to the US, Australia, Japan and S. Korea to keep China at bay.

Read the whole story here, but I posted a snippet below.

"The reality of the Prime Minister's foreign policy so far is a shrivelled role for Britain in the world at the expense of British interests."
Sky News' political editor Adam Boulton said: "If you wanted to sum the speech up in a phrase it would be 'keep calm and carry on'.
"Sometimes these annual speeches by the Prime Minister on foreign policy come at moments of crisis and they have become very significant in the years that follow.

A magazine you should read and subscribe to.

Shepard Group out of the UK has a couple of digital magazines that you've got to check out.  My favorite is Defense Helicopter. 
DH NovDec10 Digital Ed                                                                    


Diplomacy I can get behind.


This via Alert 5 and the Jerusalem Post...

Second squadron of F-35s is ‘an offer hard to refuse’


Defense officials say arrival of joint strike fighters was of critical importance for the security of the State of Israel.


  Top IDF officers and Defense Ministry officials claimed Sunday that the arrival of a second squadron of F-35 joint strike fighters was of critical importance for the security of the State of Israel.

In an effort to convince the Netanyahu government to impose a three-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank, the Obama administration offered Israel last week a long list of security and diplomatic benefits, including 20 F-35s for free.

Israel signed a contract for 20 F-35s – a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet made by Lockheed Martin – in early October in a deal valued at $2.75 billion. Under the offer made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his meeting last week with US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Israel would receive a second, free squadron of the advanced fighter jet if it agrees to impose a three-month freeze on settlement construction.

The F-35 will be one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world and will enable Israel to phase out some of its older F-15 and F-16 models.

According to the IAF, the plane will significantly boost Israel’s deterrence in the Middle East and provide it with an edge over adversaries that operate advanced anti-aircraft systems, since it cannot be detected by existing radars.

The offer of a second squadron of F-35s was first made to Israel in early September, in talks which Defense Minister Ehud Barak led in Washington ahead of the expiration of the previous 10- month freeze on settlement construction, in a bid to get Israel to extend the freeze. At the time, Israel rejected the offer.

After the offer in September, the IDF established a team consisting of officers from the air force and the military’s Strategic Planning Division, which analyzed the effect the arrival of an additional squadron of F- 35s would have on Israel and its strategic standing in the Middle East.


“This is a very difficult offer to say no to,” a senior defense official said on Sunday, amid news that Netanyahu was working to obtain a majority in his cabinet to approve a new moratorium.

It is unclear when the additional squadron would arrive, if Israel accepts the US offer.

Delivery of the squadron Israel ordered last month is scheduled to begin sometime between 2016 and 2017.


My boy does it again!



Way to go Loren....I'm sure a certain group of Australians are going nuts!

Rumor Of Marine F-35 Termination Talks Is Wrong

The Navy has made its latest run against the Marine Corps version of the F-35 joint strike fighter, and for something like the twentieth time, it has been rebuffed. The latest failed assault came after the United Kingdom decided to switch its buy of joint strike fighters from the Marine vertical-takeoff version to the Navy carrier-based version. The Navy trotted out the same tired arguments it has been using for a decade -- lack of range, lack of forward support, etc. -- and the Marine Corps responded with its equally aged rationale for why tactical aircraft need to be where the troops are. The Marine Corps prevailed, as usual.
These ritualized exchanges have been going on for a long, long time. I well remember running into my old friend Gordon England in the Pentagon's E-Ring shortly after he was made Navy secretary in 2001, and hearing his misgivings about the Marine variant. He said he wanted to commission studies of the subject, but the more operational doubts he cited, the more he started to sound like studies that OpNav had already conducted. It seemed that certain admirals were trying to maneuver the SecNav into believing he had discovered problems they had long since decided should doom the new jumpjet.
So now rumors that the Marine variant is in trouble have surfaced once again, and as is often the case, by the time word started getting around the issue had already been resolved. The plane is safe for the fiscal 2012 budget request, because there is no other option for replacing Harriers in the vital role of providing firepower and protection to forward-deployed Marines. The range issue doesn't matter much if the planes are located close to the troops, which is what having vertical agility makes possible. What matters is being there when the air cover is needed. And while it might be nice to have forward-deployed jamming aircraft too, the fact that F-35 is too stealthy to be seen by enemy radars greatly mitigates that concern.
The main reason this argument never goes away is that Marine programs are funded out of the Navy budget, and the Navy usually has some other purpose to which it wants to apply the money. That's why the argument over how many amphibious warfare vessels the Marines need also never dies. Each new amphibious assault vessel is a destroyer or submarine the Navy will never have. But let's be realistic about what it would mean to the Marine Corps to lose the vertical agility it is buying in F-35. It would mean tethering expeditionary warfare to a handful of aircraft carriers that can't be all the places the Marine Corps needs to be. Or it would mean sending Marines in harms way without the continuous air cover that the rest of the joint force counts on for its survival. Since the Navy doesn't seem to have a solution for these dilemmas other than sticking with the program of record, we already know how similar arguments are likely to turn out in the future.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Republicans are back in charge and Senators are being courted...

Sen. John McCain visits Marines

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, along with Maj. Gen. Richard P. Mills, commander, regional command (southwest) and the commanding general, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), make their way off of the Forward Operating Base Jaker landing zone during a visit to Nawa, Afghanistan, Nov. 11, 2010. Graham, a senior senator from South Carolina, and McCain, a senior senator from Arizona, along with Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, a junior senator from New York, and Joseph I. Lieberman, a junior senator from Connecticut, visited Marines of 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, where they toured Khalaj High School, the Nawa District bazaar and the Nawa District Governance Center as well as meeting with Nawa government officials. (Official Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Mark Fayloga)

 After seeing this, do you really think the V-22 will be canceled?  Do you think that a leading Republican Senator that championed killing the F-22 will suddenly switch and revive it?  Our friends from across the sea (includes ex-pats) have alot to learn about the current political environment.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

The F-22 cabal...diverse with a single goal.


via Alert 5 and the Atlanta Journal Constitution...

“This isn’t just for the sake of home-cooking, but also for the sake of the country,” Gingrey said in a telephone interview.
But Gingrey conceded that concerns over spending and the federal deficit could make the funding battle a difficult one. The planes have a price tag of $120 million each. “We would have to look at it with a very, very sharp pencil,” he said. “It would take some negotiating.”
Suggestions from the debt commission, made public this week, may hold some possibilities A three-year freeze on federal pay and a 10 percent reduction of the federal workforce “are things that really get me excited,” the Marietta congressman said.
Production of the F-22 ended with its omission from the 2009 defense bill. Critics called the plane a Cold War relic poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of State Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, recommended the end to F-22 production, and President Barack Obama threatened to veto the defense bill if more funding for the stealth fighter were continued.
Originally, 381 F-22s were to be built. Production ended nearly 200 short. Gingrey said he and many military analysts think the planes are necessary to meet a scenario in which the United States faces two hot wars at the same time.
Is the F-22 Dracula or what? 

What does it take to make this issue go away!