Sunday, May 01, 2011

This will end badly.



So we NATO France and/or the UK NATO attempted a decapitation strike.

What does that leave us with.

Probably increased acts/attempts of terrorism in Europe and the US.  Why would you go after the leader of a country and not use a big enough bomb to get the job done is beyond me.

A wounded (either physically or mentally) man is a sight to behold...especially if that man has the means to strike back at the person(s) that caused him that pain.

The leader of Libya has the means to strike back at the West.  Financially---thru oil---and murderously---thru terrorist organizations that he's backed.

This my friends will end badly.

UPDATE*
A commenter named "me" stated that Belmont Club Blog stated that its being reported that a GBU-28 was found (unexploded) at the site and that indicates that the US dropped the bomb.  My question is this...if our allies requested a bunker buster, do you think that the Pentagon would deny the transfer?  Not bloody likely.  Additionally, I don't know how good journalist are at weapons recognition but I've met many that didn't even know the difference between a magazine and a clip, much less a Mk82 and a GBU-28.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Pic of the day. April 30, 2011.

Bjonar Bolsoy sent me these pics from Lockheed Martin......Enjoy. 

F-35A AF-2 flies over the sea test range off the coast of California on 22 February 2011 on its ninetieth flight. USAF Maj. Scott McLaren is the pilot.

F-35A AF-1 aerial refuels over the Pacific Ocean on a flight from Edwards AFB, California.

AF-1 has logged 178 total flight hours in its first 100 flights.

Friday, April 29, 2011

First flight for second F-35C

Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti was at the controls for the first flight of F-35C CF-2 on 29 April 2011.

Finally! Mainstream US Media is touting my position on Europe!

Joe Anselmo over at ARES is basically repeating my argument when it comes to Europe, NATO and the current weakness shown by both.  This from his article...
Unfortunately, just a month into the campaign, the European-led NATO coalition is showing signs of strain, such as a shortage of precision bombs. These problems are probably more a matter of logistics than money. But they also highlight an inconvenient truth: Europe has been underfunding its defense capabilities for more than a decade.
But wait my friends...it gets worse...
“I think there is a disconnect between the diplomatic ambitions of European countries and their military power,” says Antoine Gelain, leader of the aerospace and defense practice at Candesic, a London-based consultancy. “France and the U.K. still see themselves as the kind of countries that are able to bring law and order to renegade regimes. But the reality is they don’t have the means to do that anymore.”
The worse part of all this is the face that Joe is a business reporter!  He's looking at this from that perspective and as an explanation for why European companies are making a bee line to the US market place.

What he doesn't touch on, and what many don't want to see is this --- Unless Europe/NATO picks up more of the load, this Atlantic partnership is in serious trouble.  The danger doesn't exist between the US and individual countries but more with the European Union and NATO.  The US and UK, Poland, Romania, The Netherlands, Finland etc...will remain strong...but with the alliance...with the umbrella organization?  Not so much.

Anytime, Baby! F-14 Tomcat Sunset

Thursday, April 28, 2011

A question for the aviation experts...


I've been playing catch-up on my reading and I keep running into conflicting, confusing and what I believe is misleading information.

Exhibit #1 is this post by Winslow Wheeler from Huffinton Post back in 2009.

If the latest iteration of "beyond visual range" turns out to be yet another chimera, the F-35 will have to operate as a close-in dogfighter, but in that regime it is a disaster. If one accepts every aerodynamic promise Lockheed currently makes for it, the F-35 will be overweight and underpowered. At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."
The question I have is this...
If bigger wings confer greater agility then why isn't the F-35C more agile than the F-35A.
Yes its a simple question.

But this type of thing has gained traction and is repeated by many...its even a pronouncement that I've seen on a site where the authors claim to be aviation experts and when challenged on any of the claims that they make "insist on comparing  resumes"...the comparison to the F-105 is also a much repeated phrase that I see popping up all over the internet.

So I'm asking the guys that might fly by this blog to give me the real deal...is it that cut and dry or am I being deceived?

Latest F-35 Vids

F-35A Compilation Vid



F-35B Compilation Vid


F-35C Compilation Vid

The UK's Huge Helicopter Carrier.


DoD Buzz (Phillip Ewing wrote another great article) has a story on the UK's carrier misery.
The Royal Navy’s pending class of two aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, could end up costing more than double what government officials initially projected, according to a BBC report today. It underscores how big a deal it was for the U.K. to decide to buy F-35C Lightning IIs, as opposed to the delayed B version.  When the Brits shifted to the Cs last fall, it was read in Washington as just another blow against the B, but many Americans may not have realized the consequences it would also have in today’s Austerity Britain. The Royal Navy now needs to redesign one or both carriers to accommodate the conventional C models, and that could raise the cost of the ships from £5.2 billion — or about $8.7 billion — to £7 billion, or about  $11.7 billion.
Or it could be worse — although there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, wrote the BBC’s Robert Peston:
One defence industry veteran said the final bill was bound to be nearer £10 billion, though a government official insisted that was way over the top. The Ministry of Defence and the Treasury believe that total final costs could be nearer £6bn, if only one of the carriers is reconfigured to take the preferred version of America’s Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. An MoD official said no final decision had been taken on whether the first carrier to be built, the Queen Elizabeth, or the second carrier, the Prince of Wales, or both would be reconfigured. He said it would probably be the case that changing the design specification for the Prince of Wales would be the cheapest option.
But if that happened, it is not clear when — if ever — the Queen Elizabeth, due to enter service in 2019, would actually be able to accommodate jets (as opposed to helicopters). Whatever happens, the increase in the bill will be substantial — and is only regarded by the Treasury as affordable because the increment is likely to be incurred later than 2014/15, when the expenditure constraints put in place by the Chancellor’s spending review come to an end.
The Royal Navy likes to look on the bright side: It argues that the F-35C will end up being a more capable aircraft (longer range, more payload) and cheaper to buy per bird. And it will make the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales — or whichever one is the full-fledged carrier — an equal partner with the U.S. in a potential future conflict, launching first-day-of-the-war sorties with the same aircraft that the Americans will be flying. Assuming, of course, that Britons are willing to continue paying what it costs to field carriers and air wings.
I never considered that part of the story when it was first announced.

The British leadership must be drinking/smoking something illegal.

In an attempt to cut costs, they might have instead raised them, gotten little in the way of commonality with the US Navy (they'll operate almost the same number of F-35C's that the Marines will) and have in essence thrown away one of the good news stories in regards to their attempt to field joint forces (having the F-35B continue in the role that the Joint Harrier Force occupied).

The decision to retire the Harriers, scrap the Nimrods, cancel the Sentinel project and switch to the F-35C all add up to some very disturbing trends.

The UK MoD has made some very serious miscalculations.

Unless they're lucky, they'll be cleaning up this mess for decades.

Note:

I believe the C version will be capable, but will lack the basing flexibility of the B model.  For the USMC and to a lesser extent the Royal Navy but perhaps more importantly the Royal Air Force (if they were still operating in the Desert Storm mode) this flexibility is extremely important.

Perhaps the best thing to come out of this is the fact that the F-35C will save Royal Navy Aviation...unless the Royal Air Force pulls a modern day "Buccaneer" on them.