FireStorm and the Marine Corps.

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.

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.

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...

British Ministry of Defence Insanity.

I got this article from Jonathan..thanks guy!

~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. 

This falls under the category of WTF!

British involvement is suppose to be winding down in Afghanistan.  They already have a vehicle issue (as in too many different types) and its a little late in the game to be adding additional heavy MRAPs that will have limited utility in other war zones.

If this is an example of the course of defense spending in the UK, then I must amend my complaint about the retirement of the Harriers.  It wasn't foolish.  It was criminal.

Operation Rawhide II.

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.

 

 

Photos by Cpl. Adam Leyendecker, USMC.

MUST READ!! McQuain strikes back!

The time has come.

We finally have a counterweight to all the nonsense that is being spouted by the critics of the F-35 program.

Bruce McQuain has written an article for the Washington Examiner that I will be forwarding to certain 'critics', writers and even to my Congressional Delegation.

It is a must read.

By Bruce McQuain

Created 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.
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.

Hey Sweetman!  Game-Set-Match!

100 for BF3

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.

Fan accounting and the F-35.

I continue to be amazed at the 'fan accounting' regarding the F-35.  Want an example of the confusion involved and why I find Bill Sweetman (I like the guy but his fixation on the F-35 is not giving me the answers that I would normally expect) so infuriating?

This discussion on Information Dissemination sheds the light.

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...

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan 

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.

Paul Wayner

I must be misreading something, isn't the Unit Cost for the F-22 listed as 67000/188~=358.2 while the F-35 is 379392/2457~=154.4? 

 

 

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan 

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.

Paul Wayner  

$160M marginal cost for the F-22 sounds right although the marginal cost for the F-35 looks below $100M (from those numbers). 

 

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan  

The F-35's marginal cost is less than the F-22s, but the F-35 cannot come close to covering the F-22's air superiority mission when operating in the kind of high threat environment that will exist in the 2020 timeframe and beyond.

On one simple blog post we go from the author of the story stating that the F-35 is a tragedy...then when his readers comment we finally arrive at the truth.

The F-35 costs less than the F-22 and the costs are being driven down.

The F-35 discussion is no longer fact driven.  Its all spin by its critics all the time.

My complaint is simple.  If the biggest blogs on the net (talking Information Dissemination and ARES) aren't giving their readers the right answers then how can we ever learn the truth?

UPDATE:
If you read the article then you'll also note the cost increase in the LHA-6 program for the third ship.  If I'm not mistaken then that increase has everything to do with a design change adding a well deck to the ship...not an increase in production costs.

B1-B Lancer Aerial Refueling Mission

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

All photos by MSgt William Greer, USAF

NAVAIR Photo Releases.

Fire Scout prepares for CENTCOM deployment

The Navy’s Fire Scout Unmanned Air Vehicle system is about to begin its first land-based deployment to U.S. Central Command this month.

The Fire Scout effort is led by the Navy and Marine Corps Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Air System program office, PMA-266, at Patuxent River, Md. In response to an urgent needs requirement from DoD’s Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance task force, the team rapidly modified, tested and verified the Fire Scout system to adjust to land-based operations and the demanding environmental conditions in CENTCOM.

“This is an exciting time for the Fire Scout program,” said Capt. Tim Dunigan, PMA-266 program manager. “The system has proven its capability on its two ship-based deployments, and I am confident it will perform well in CENTCOM.”

A combined team of military, civilian and contractor personnel loaded 90,000 pounds of equipment, including three aircraft, two ground control stations (GCS) and associated hardware, on U.S. Air Force C-5 and C-17 aircraft. The C-5 left with the GCS and hardware April 8, and the C-17 deployed April 13 with three air vehicles.

“It’s very unique for an aircraft to deploy directly from Pax River,” Dunigan said. “The activity conducted by our test team at Webster Field was done exceptionally well. We were able to meet tight schedule timelines so we could support the warfighter as soon as possible.”

The Fire Scout will provide hundreds of hours of Full Motion Video in theater supporting U.S. Army and coalition forces during its year-long deployment. The system will be operated by contractor personnel.

The Fire Scout’s first flight in CENTCOM is expected this month. The system is also currently deployed aboard the USS Halyburton (FFG 40) tallying more than 200 flight hours to date in support of humanitarian assistance and counter-piracy missions. 

Photo release: Third F-35B aircraft completes STOVL mode flight

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - Over an Atlantic test range near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Fred "Tinman" Schenk completes the first flight of F-35B test aircraft BF-4 in short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) mode. The flight marks growing maturity of STOVL flight with the third F-35B aircraft at NAS Patuxent River performing STOVL test missions. BF-4 is also the only mission systems test aircraft flying Block 1.0 software to fly in STOVL mode. The F-35B STOVL variant and F-35C carrier variant are undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet. Photos courtesy of Lockheed Martin.