F-35C on the catapult.

Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

The US is vital to NATO...NATO is NOT vital to the US.

A disturbing story for my European readers from the Guardian...

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.
David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.
"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.
Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.
But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.
"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.
"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."
Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the French, who have been the two biggest military players until now, are retaining national control over substantial military forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to Nato authority.

The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are under the Nato command and control which was announced last Thursday.

Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike aircraft.

Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have pledged more.
"We're very happy that one country decided to bring in more assets," said Van Uhm.
When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that it had assumed "sole command and control" of all air operations.
However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, withdrawing "air assets" for national operations before returning them to alliance control.
"It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the lead," said Van Uhm. "There are assets under national control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what Nato does ... You could say nothing is happening without Nato knowing."
The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.
Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing campaign – France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway – with many others involved in policing an arms embargo and enforcing a no-fly zone.
Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.
In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.
Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The previous day, they fired Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles south of Sirte.
On Saturday, they fired Paveway IV missiles at two tanks in Sirte and also hit "several small ground attack aircraft" on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.
Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct ground attack operations.

 So much for NATO.

Stick a fork in it.  For all intents and purposes, this alliance is the 'walking dead'...Perhaps even more disturbing for Europe is the understanding that at present levels even a limited air war appears to be beyond its capability to wage independently.

Pic of the day. April 5, 2011.

F-35C CF-1 completes Flight 44 on 1 April 2011.  Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was the pilot.

I couldn't disagree more.

Cpl. Chad Wade and his wife during happier times..via Stars and Stripes.com

Battle Rattle has an article today that bothers me a great deal.  Read the whole thing but here are a few tidbits.

For another reminder of that, we need to look no farther than the story of Cpl. Chad Wade, a member of 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, Calif. He was killed by an improvised explosive device while on patrol Dec. 1, and four months later, the grief shared by his friends and family continue to spill out in new and painful ways.

then this...

No matter how well intentioned military journalists are, some of their work will sting families who don’t deserve additional pain. There’s no joy in that.
However, failing to publish those painful stories and take on those scary assignments will only leave the rest of our country in the dark about a fight directly involving 100,000 U.S. service members each day. It must be done.
This is a harsh, cold reality of war. I don’t like it, and I’m sure you don’t, either.

Dan Lamothe is trying to have it both ways and it annoys me to no end.  This guy had the honor of being embedded with US Marines...writes about the agony of losing a member of the unit and then proclaims that this is the harsh, cold reality of war and isn't talking about the combat itself but his interpretation of what needs to be reported?  Ernie Pyle must be turning in his grave.

Modern journalist have taken their 'art' too far.  The details of how a young man died and relating that to their families is just a step too far in my opinion.  To describe not only in words but also in pictures the suffering of a dying man...to record the frantic efforts of his buddies...to record for time immortal the pain and suffering of his comrades while they mourn his death isn't necessary.

Its ghoulish.

Its morbid.

It just shouldn't be.

But more importantly than my feelings about it is how the wives and mothers must feel.  Watching the son you raised in pain...moments before his death or soon after must be chilling and hearbreaking.  Watching the man you loved and wanted to spend your life with broken, bruised and dying must be like repeating the sorrow of being told that he died again and again and again.

Political correctness almost always protects the indefensible.  Its seems like the 1st amendment is being used to do the same.  Its time for the Department of Defense to grow a pair and start censoring news reports and photos.  Our military families deserve better.

Remember this.  Police departments that suffer officers killed in the line of duty often hide the fallen from the prying eyes of photographers cameras.    The news media often self-censors images of civilians that are dead or dying.  Only the military is not given the same respect.

And this from a man that we allowed to embed with our units.  Shameful.

F-35 STOVL Engine News.

via William (thanks...much appreciated!) from Defense Daily...

F-35 STOVL Engine Challenges Surmountable By Year's End Manufacturer Says
By Marina Malenic

      WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--The manufacturer of an engine that powers
a jump-jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is confident that
engineering challenges facing the engine will be resolved this year.
      "By the end of 2011, no one will be talking about difficulties
with this engine," Warren Boley, the head of Pratt & Whitney's military
engine business, told Defense Daily in a March 31 interview.
      Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies [UTX], builds
the F135 engine that powers all three variants of the F-35--a
conventional variant for the Air Force; a short take-off and vertical
landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps; and a carrier variant for
the Navy. Lockheed Martin [LMT] is developing the airplane.
      Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a
"probation" period for the STOVL variant, which has encountered more
developmental challenges than the other two, simpler models (Defense
Daily, Jan. 7). The Marines have said they need the STOVL variant to
replace the 25-year-old AV-B Harrier, which is used when landing on
amphibious warfare vessels and improvised airstrips.
      Boley said his company can complete all necessary improvements
to the engine by the third quarter of fiscal 2011.
      "If there are still problems at that time, I know they won't be
with the engine," he said. He added that he does not have "visibility"
into the avionics or any other airframe-specific problems that Lockheed
Martin may be having.
      "With the engine, we are dealing purely with application
engineering at this point," he added. "Tech development is complete."
      Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney is preparing to submit a pricing
proposal for the sixth low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch of
F135s to the Pentagon by the end of the month. According to United
Technologies CEO David Hess, the company was able to provide a 16
percent cost cut on LRIP 6 and is on track to keep reducing costs with
each follow-on production batch by 13 percent.
      Earlier this year, executives from the company said they would
require an additional $1 billion to add flight-test engines and related
support to the program after Gates restructured the F-35 program as a
whole. An extended development timeline and additional flight testing
will likely mean that four to six flight-test engines will be added to
the current fleet of 18, according to Boley.
      He added that about $600 million to $700 million of the $1
billion would be flight-test costs, while the remainder accounts for
incremental "product improvement" demanded by the F-35 Joint Program
Office following a technical baseline review completed earlier this
year. Most of those improvements relate to maintainability and field
support, according to Boley.

This must be repeated...shouted to the roof tops and broadcast to all interested parties.

THE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A 16 PERCENT COST CUT ON LRIP 6 AND IS ON TRACK TO KEEP REDUCING COSTS WITH EACH FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION BATCH BY 13 PERCENT!

I love it when a plan comes together.

First hand tour of the LCS-2.

Lee sent me this evaluation of the LCS-2 that I wanted to share.  Seems as if he shares my initial impressions.  The LCS-2, despite its limitations, has the potential to be much more than the sum of its parts.

If the USMC can develop mission modules designed for Infantry Companies with an eye toward mini-MEU capabilities then the idea of dispersed operations at sea become a reality. 

The idea of Company Landing Teams via the LCS is nothing short of brilliant.

But before I get ahead of myself here's his review.

Well gents I got onboard the second LCS on Friday 26 Feb.  The an officer new to the ship (Blue/Gold crewing) led the group, he did not have all the type experience which the other crew had.  I tagged along with a group of medical type sailors from local shore commands.  The contractors were weight testing the after gantry aka twin boom lift system so I did not get to ask much about it.  Did not get into ICC2 which is the enclosed CIC space.  Did not get into engineroom not offered.  Was NOT allowed to photograph the flight deck because Fire Scout UAV was on it?  I will start from bow and go aft  These are my deckplate impressions.  I will go into programmatic and operational matters SEPCOR.

 

The first and overlying observation is the LCS-2 is MUCH larger than LCS-2 (which I got on last year).  All the working spaces, passageways, ladders, overheads – everything is bigger.  While the interior layout amazed some sailors in the tour group, it seemed conventional for some used to civilian crewed T-ships.  Flight deck is huge by comparison to Perry and wider than DDGs.  See the deck problem below.  Here are my other observations

 

The height above water of the Mk110 gun is notable especially when compared to Burke DDG that the Independence was bow on to.  I would also assume that it keeps the mount somewhat drier from seas?   The soft patch on foredeck behind the gun is big.  I was told that there is a large space under it.  The new missile system could certainly be changed out for something bigger? (Topic of any earlier discussion).

 

The view from the bridge is exceptional (about a 280 deg view), but there are NO bridge wings. There are many cameras installed onboard for both internal and external viewing with large displays in several positions on the bridge.  There are two roll-down windows to look out for during UNREPs (sort of like hanging out a truck’s window while driving?~).  There is a removable pilot platform which apparently is disliked?

 

The bridge is laid out well, but smaller than the T-AGS60 class which I spent a lot of time on.  On the aft part of the bridge is ICC-1 which is essentially a mini-CIC cordoned off only by a black-out curtain.    There are 3 “operator seats” tight together on the bridge centerline with a chartable (no full paper portfolio onboard just harbor charts) to port and the CO’s chair to stbd with large display panels in front of all chairs.  Ship has no conventional helm being steered by joystick.  While there were peloruses on the bridge, apparently traditional fixes were only done as backup?   Windows had rounded corners and were deep set in structural frames.  Engineroom monitoring is done by the Readiness officer seated to left of Conning officer.   Then engineroom is unmanned with two roving patrols and full monitoring on the bridge.

 

Tour went down to centerline passageway which doubled as cafeteria food line.  Wardroom, CPO and crews mess rooms were along it.  Hospital aka sickbay also there was aft.  Staterooms had bunks for 74 (crew + air det + 1 mission team) and were installed 1, 2 or 4 person arrangements depending on rank/rate.  We were told that the ship bunks had not filled up during normal operations to date, but when more than one mission module was onboard a habitability module would be added on the mission deck.

 

Can you believe that everyone onboard has to bus and clean their own dishes?  While this may be egalitarian, it certainly seems like a poor use of rather limited manpower.  The galley crew was small.  I spoke with the LPO and it would appear the galley arrangement, crewing and messing are, once again, similar to T-AGS 60 Pathfinders (which has only two mess rooms and stewards to serve/cleanup).  I would suggest that someone go over and look at how an MSC ship operates for a better food service arrangement.  This is even more important since the galley staff is small and must be augmented by crewmembers at times since the cooks are assigned extras duties outside foodservice.  This is partially because there are NO E-4 or below in the crew.

 

The hangar and mission deck (in fact most interior surfaces) have some form of metal foil wrapping & insulation on them.  It everywhere! The hangar has room for two H-60s.   Apparently they have only operated one aircraft at a time so far.  Hopefully the Navy will test for both H60 and two Fire Scouts which would be a really effective “fire team”.  The Fire Scout reps onboard said that the UAV had been operated out to about 110 nmi from ship and currently flys for over 6 hrs, but when test gear is removed and a new model enters service (in a year!?) flight time could be up to 8 hours.  One UAV had a 6 person test team.  They thought that 2 UAVs could be operated by 6 buy that is TBD.

 

Now comes the weird parts.  While the Fire Scout was landed on a large landing platform about 10 ft square~ that apparently is used for shipment and securing purposes.   BUT the flight deck itself was NOT rated for H-53s?!   On a ship whose dry goods/provisions are expected to delivered by VERTREP, and where other cargo like mission modules may be larger than an H60 capacity, why in the world should that big deck be so restricted?   It also means that support of large USMC lifts may not be feasible.  A bad design decision which needs to be corrected.  (subsequent discussions have indicated that the deck can be strengthened to accept an MH-53)

 

That leads me to another design flaw which I think is unacceptable.  There is an elevator from the hangar (stbd side long.) deck to the mission deck which is NOT capable of lifting anything over 6000 lbs.  The elevator is about the dimension of a TEU container.  Why in the world the ship is so restricted from moving cargo/gear between main deck and mission deck is beyond me?  So in essence nothing large/heavy can be landed and lowered below or vice versa?  Again a dumb design and certainly part of this “box” which needs correction.  A shipalt should be considered (if any changes are being allowed)?

 

Dropping down to the mission deck.  A couple of features stand out.  First there are three longitudinal “bays” for modules with structural columns in-between.  This is a typical configuration of Austal HSVs. There is a straddle loader for moving containers and boats etc around the deck.  A rather large piece of MHE, but seemingly flexible.   I could not get to see how the containers onboard were secured, but both ISO sockets and raised D-rings were installed in the mission deck.

 

The overhead gantry, aka twin boom lift system, was well into the overhead on the overhead aft to midships.  The officer said that boats could be launched at 5 to 8 knots easily, but he had not launched more than one type boat.  The ship had a Navy Standard 11 meter RHIB onboard for utility and testing support.  This ship needs to be tested with a full boat det onboard to prove capacity for boats, spares and crews.  Operating one boat is a bare minimum capability. NECC/NSW unit support should be anticipated.  There was a rescue boat outside the skin to port launched by at SLAD.

 

The sideport ramp is very substantial and can support a full ISO 20 ft container on a forklift truck.  I would say the mission deck is a vast improvement over the LCS-1 design (which was rusted from water intrusion and had an inoperable smaller ramp).

 

From an operational viewpoint, the ship was a little hard to judge.  The tour time did not allow for more discussions about weapons or sensors.  I was told there was relatively new ROC/POE, but the CONOPS was several years old.   The lack of installed weapons was obvious.  One medium caliber gun and SeaRam plus small arms.  There was a comment that these ships are “not expected to conduct offensive operations like a conventional warship”.  The comment was amazing, but since there was a tour group, I did not press the point.

 

The two 30mm guns were not expected until later as that was a different mission?!  To date the ship had been used/tested for one mission at a time and that was mainly MIW.   It would appear that while an air det (composition?) was expected as SOP, ALL other mission modules were on a one at a time only basis?  This may be testing peculiarity?   I submit that an air det (1 H60 + 2 UAV) and SUW mission module should be minimum for most operations,  but of course that is debatable.  OT&E was still going on, final trials and PSA had not been completed.  I did not discuss engine problems.  The ship is reportedly very maneuverable inport.

 

I obviously could have gone back to discuss more topics, but the crew was busy preparing for u/w ops next week.  Some other info noted:  The whole crew is cross trained, seems like every sailor had a collateral duty?  I did not discuss DC/FF.  Survivability was not discussed. There are lots more details that need to be looked at and the final OT&E report should be scrutinized for problems.

 

The ship is big, it has potential, I am very skeptical of its naval warfare capabilities especially in the dangerous green waters

 

For now, I think the characterization some have used before is applicable: 

 

LCS-2 has potential but for now it is a sub-optimal platform.  It must be improved up front.  BUTI suspect the Navy has cut a no change order deal for the dual buy, so improvements won’t be seen for years to come??

 

Lee

News on the F-35 that many won't want to hear!

via DoD Buzz by John Reed...

It looks like the first quarter of 2011 was a good one for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test program, with the plane logging 57 more test flights than the planned 142, even in the face of a fleet-wide grounding last month, according to Lockheed officials.
Interestingly, it was the Air Force’s F-35A conventional variant and the Marine Corps’ F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant that did much of the heavy lifting in achieving the 199 test flights last quarter.
The F-35As flew 82 times against a plan of 62 flights while the F-35Bs flew 101 flights against a plan of 62 sorties. Heck, the embattled Bravo performed 61 vertical landings last quarter. Compare that to the 10 vertical landings it performed in all of 2010!

Meanwhile, the Navy’s F-35C carrier variant racked up only 16 out of 18 planned flights for the quarter, according to Lockheed. No information was provided as to why the Cs missed their targets.
Two production model F-35As also took to the skies for a total of seven flights in 2011.
All told, the F-35 now has 753 flights under its belt since 2006, according to Lockheed.

Absolutely--Positively--Great News.

The critics are spinning and banging their heads.

APA is about to have a coronary.

I proudly say "I TOLD YA SO!"

Amazing.

Read the whole thing here.  This is ... inexplicable ... I don't get it.  But it does explain some of the operational decisions we've seen from the RAF.  Germany for all the hatred that I send their way seem to have the best grasp of things.  Either you fund a military that's able to fight or you don't.  If you don't then they stay on the sidelines.

How do you describe this Marine? Unbreakable!

via Marines Magazine.

Unbreakable

by Sgt. Mark Fayloga | Thursday, March 3, 2011 9:17 

SOUTHERN SHORSURAK, Afghanistan – Cpl. Matt Garst should be dead. Few people survive stepping on an improvised explosive device. Even fewer walk away the same day after directly absorbing the force of the blast, but Garst did just that. 
A squad leader with 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, Garst was leading his squad on a patrol in Southern Shorsurak, Afghanistan, June 23 to establish a vehicle checkpoint in support of Operation New Dawn.
The men were four miles from Company L’s newly established observation post when they approached an abandoned compound close to where they needed to set up their checkpoint. It would serve well as an operating base — a place for the squad to set up communications and rotate Marines in and out of. But first, it had to be secured.
As they swept the area with a metal detector, the IED registered no warning on the device. The bomb was buried too deep and its metallic signature too weak. Two men walked over it without detonating it.
At six feet, two inches tall and 260 pounds with all his gear on, Garst is easily the heaviest man in his squad by 30 or 40 pounds — just enough extra weight to trigger the IED buried deep in hard-packed soil.
Lance Cpl. Edgar Jones, a combat engineer with the squad, found a pressure plate inside the compound and hollered to Garst, asking what he should do with it. Garst turned around to answer the Marine and stepped on the bomb.
“I can just barely remember the boom,” Garst said. “I remember the start of a loud noise and then I blacked out.”
Since Garst’s improbable run-in with the IED, his tale has spread through the rest of the battalion, and as often happens in combat units, the story mutates, becoming more and more extraordinary: He held onto his rifle the whole time … He actually landed on his feet … He remained unmoved, absorbing the impact like he was muffling a fart in a crowded elevator …
What really happened even eludes Garst. All went black after the earth uppercut him. When he came to, he was standing on his feet holding his weapon, turning to see the remnants of the blast and wondering why his squad had a look on their faces as if they’d seen a ghost.
Marines in Company L think Garst is the luckiest guy in the battalion, and while that may seem a fair assessment, it was the enemy’s shoddy work that left Garst standing. The three-liters of homemade explosive only partially detonated.
Marines who witnessed the event from inside the compound caught glimpses of Garst’s feet flailing through the air just above the other side of the building’s eight-foot walls. The explosion knocked him at least fifteen feet away where he landed on his limp head and shoulders before immediately standing back up.
“My first thought was, ‘Oh [shoot], I just hit an IED,’” he said. “Then I thought, ‘Well I’m standing. That’s good.’”
Garst’s squad stared at him in disbelief. The square-jawed Marine has a tendency to be short-tempered, and the realization that the blast was meant to kill him spiked his adrenaline and anger.
“It pissed me off,” he said. He directed his men to establish a security perimeter while letting them know in his own way that he was OK.
“[What are you looking at?]” he said. “Get on the cordon!”
Garst quickly radioed back to base, calling an explosive ordnance disposal team and quick reaction force.
“I called them and said, ‘Hey, I just got blown up. Get ready,’” he said. “The guy thought I was joking at first. ‘You got blown up? You’re not calling me. Get out of here.’”
Once EOD cleared the area, Garst led his squad the four miles back to their observation post — just hours after being ragdolled by an IED blast.
“I wasn’t going to let anybody else take my squad back after they’d been there for me,” he said. “That’s my job.”
The next day Garst awoke with a pounding headache and was as sore as he’d ever been in his life. “Just getting up from trying to sleep was painful,” he said.
But he saw no reason being sore should slow him down. He popped some ibuprofen and after a day of rest, Garst was back out on patrol, showing his Marines and the enemy that just like his resolve — Cpl. Matt Garst is unbreakable.

Its time.

Time for a bit of unfortunate truth telling.  Europe is in decline and is no longer worthy of defense discussion as a whole.  Certain countries are maintaining robust capabilities, developing them etc...but as a pseudo-nation state, Europe is unworthy of discussion as a military power.

Roll Call.

England is no longer worthy of discussion.  They have destroyed their own forces in a way that no enemy could.

Germany is a non player in defense matters.  They maintain a strong industrial base solely for the opportunity to export weaponry.  A pacifist, isolationist strain exists to such an extent that they are the European version of what Japan once was.

Italy is worthy of discussion.  Besides maintaining strong naval forces, they have proven that they have the will and the means to exercise force.

Spain.  Ditto.

Romania is definitely worthy of discussion.  They are an example of "new" Europe and probably represent the saving grace of the continent.  Romania, along with the rest of the former Soviet Union satellite nations still possess a strong view when it comes to national security.  It is tinged with a big dose of practicality.  Once economic conditions improve expect these nations to shoulder the burden of the defense of Europe.

The Netherlands and the rest of the Nordic Nations.  Worthy.  They maintain strong forces that punch well above their weight.  Again, economic conditions will determine exactly how robust those forces will be in the future.  They do bear watching though.

NATO is dead.  This Libyan Conflict has shown that it is an institution that is out of balance and is not composed of equals.  Time to "hold it underwater till its feet stop moving".  The US gains no benefit from this alliance.

A favorite European past time is to discuss the demise of the United States.  Time they looked in the mirror.  It appears that not only has the US shouldered the burden of the defense of the West, but we also saved most of Europe's Banks during the economic meltdown.