USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)

Slan the Fighting Irishman sent me a tip on something I didn't know about but should have.

The US NAVY is going to dedicate the DDG-1001 to Master at Arms Michael Monsoor, US Navy SEAL.

Outstanding.

Follow the link to read the story by Boston Maggie.  The video dedication is beyond awesome and I shamelessly post it here.  Another hero is remembered by the services.  Well done.

Homeland Security and the C-32 Flights.

Homeland Security is dropping the ball.

Again.

David Cenciotti has caught them flat footed again. He has posted two stories covering the movement of this airplane to and from certain locations that I bet they'd prefer to keep secret.

You can read his posts here and here.

If this is something that was planned and they don't care about the publicity then GREAT JOB!  If they flubbed up (which I suspect) then get it together boys!

A new player enters the "F-35" cost fray...

SMSgt Mac enters the F-35 cost fray via his blog "Elements of Power"...Read it all at his spot but this is a primer on his thinking...

When it comes to F-35 ‘costs’ Sweetman is still playing it like he does when frequent commenter 'jackjack' calls him out on the Ares' abuse of F-35 cost numbers. In other words, he talks past the point being made to keep beating the "B.S. Anti-JSF Drum" (patent pending) and holding the JSF costs he does note as 'high' while carefully avoiding equivalent costs (if the info even exists) for other systems. While this Sweetman tactic has at times driven poor 'jackjack' around the bend in frustration, I doubt if it will be little more than mocked at BF for the fey strawman tactic it is. The part of Sweetman's Ares response that directly referred to and linked back to BF's post demonstrates either:
1. The Ragin' Hedge Baby from the Shires didn't really read Blackfive's post or
2. He's assuming a $ cost number used by BlackFive was directed only at Sweetman's use of it.
3. He read the BlackFive post, but thinks his interpretive dance schtick will keep foolin' the rubes.

Sweetman Channels Groucho: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?"

I said this was gonna get good...and it is.  I'm running to the store for more popcorn and beer.  This is a good sub for Sunday Football!

Elements Of Power: BlackFive Clears Up F-35 Cost 'Confusion'

USAF Light Attack and Armed Recon?

The USAF is doing a Light Attack and Armed Recon comp.  To be honest both aircraft in this are appealing but to be honest, if I had my druthers the USAF would buy American (not assembled in the US...US built).

My opinion and the USAF will do what it wants.  Info on both planes follows.

AT-6

AT-29

f.r3_at6_brochure_flipbook

Note: Embraer does not have a brochure for the AT-29

BlackFive launches a full frontal assault on Sweetman/ARES!

Told ya this was gonna get good!  BlackFive launches a full frontal assault on Sweetman/Ares and it appears that no prisoners will be taken....read it and weep critics!

Posted By Blackfive • [May 14, 2011] 

RE:  So How Much Does an F35 Actually Cost?

One thing a blogger enjoys about as much anything is when someone else unwittingly ends up making the point he blogged about.  Such is the case with the F-35 cost post I put up this week.  And who made the case for me?  Bill Sweetman – a blogger for the ARES blog at Aviation Week.
Sweetman is a critic of the F-35 program.  And, it is clear who he is writing about when he opens with this, in a post entitled “F-35 cost: A Bit of Reality”, a day after the F-35 post appeared here.

There is an unusual amount of utter bilge being talked about Joint Strike Fighter costs …

Hmmm, wonder who he’s talking about?  A couple of paragraphs later, it becomes clear:

(Blogger BlackFive, for some reason, thinks that APUC includes lifetime O&S costs, and goes off to draw some predictably inaccurate conclusions.)

I do?  I challenge Mr. Sweetman to back up that claim.  Nowhere in the post do I even mention O&S costs.  In fact the only place you’ll find O&S is on the chart included in the post to clarify what Mr. Sweetman would seeminly prefer remained murky. 
One can only conclude that Mr. Sweetman doesn’t know how to read the chart, but O&S is clearly listed under “Life Cycle Costs” there.
Sweetman then proceeds to do exactly what I talked about in the post.  He throws all sorts of numbers around with no context.  For instance:

The average procurement unit cost for the USAF F-35A, over the planned 1,763-aircraft run, is about $125 million (page 29).

What does the “average procurement unit cost” include? He doesn’t bother to tell you.  Without the chart, or unless you’re intimately familiar with the procurement process and what it entails, you won’t the foggiest idea, will you.  But he’s now established a cost which has no comparative relevance in the discussion of 4^th and 5^th generation fighters.
By that I mean the critics will use that cost to trot out the old “we could buy two 4^th generation aircraft for that price” argument.   Of course they’re using the unit recurring flyaway cost (URC) for the 4^th gen fighter (they have no idea what the APUC is for those aircraft and if they do, they don’t use it) and a completely different cost for the F-35 (in this case APUC).
Something like, “Well Bill Sweetman at ARES says the F-35 costs $125 million (APUC) a copy and a F/A 18 only costs $55 million (URF) so we could buy two of them for every one F-35”.  Apples and pomegranates. 
And of course, that was the entire point of my post.
My thanks to Mr. Sweetman and the ARES blog for helping me make the point about as well as it could be made.  I'm no accountant and was just trying to be extremely clear about costs.
Much appreciated.

So how does this all shake out?  See the video below...

F-35A AF-9 First Flight

The fourth production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-9, completed its inaugural flight on 13 May 2011 from NAS Fort Worth JRB with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls.

F-35 Range and the reporting on it.

The DewLine broke the story (at least as far as I can tell)...

Everyone else is jumping on it as another fail for the F-35...

But what's the truth?  The below chart is from the DL...

The facts as I see them...

1.  The F-35B...supposedly the weakest of the bunch is meeting KPP requirements already.  That fact is getting lost in this story.  The "B" will be a winner.  Expect it to sell extremely well, especially with so many Navies acquiring LHD type ships.
2.  The F-35A misses its KPP by only 6 miles.  This will be an extremely easy fix.  That's getting lost in this story.
3.  The F-35C is (like the "B") meeting requirements.

In short, although I'm a fan of Trimble (like I am of Bill---I just think he's waaaaaay off the reservation when it comes to the F-35 program) but he made a non-story into a story.

One thing is for sure.  News of the F-35 drives web traffic.  Even here.

UPDATE:

Something about Trimble's post sparked a memory of this debate before...especially the fact that the F-35B is performing so well range wise.  Then it hit me...This post by Sweetman!  The US and its allies will be gaining Stealth, Speed, Superior Avionics and Extended Range with the F-35.  The parties that choose to replace AV-8B Harriers with F-35B's will see Amphibious Ships finally able to perform not only legacy missions but everything from Fleet Defense to Sea Control Missions.  The F-35 in general and the F-35B in particular are poised to be game changers.