Special Forces Descend on Camp Atterbury

All photos by Staff Sgt D. Bruce.

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descend to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descends to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation.

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provide security along likely avenues of approach the rest of their team can cross a trail during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The 2nd-19th SFG were recently at Camp Atterbury for a week-long drill period.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group covers the rearguard as his team moves out after a break during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained Soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provides security for his team during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible.

The US Navy has lost its freaking mind.

From the USNI Blog...

“The last of the 14 Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that General Dynamics NASSCO is building in San Diego will be named after Cesar Chavez, the late civil rights and labor leader. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will visit NASSCO on Tuesday afternoon to make the formal announcement. Some members of the Chavez family are expected to be in attendance, says NASSCO, which recently laid the keel of the ship.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/16/navy-ship-be-named-after-cesar-chavez/


My opposition to this is definitely not racial.  Its not about not wanting to honor a person that some consider a civil rights leader and a union activist.

Its about not naming a naval vessel after a controversial figure.  What if an extremely conservative President is elected and he wants to name a ship after David Duke?

Sounds extreme but we're opening up the door with nonsense like this.  Time to set some kind of limit on this.  Unless the person was killed in combat then he must be dead for at least 100 years before he can be honored this way.

Something has to give on this stupidity!

But whats worse is that this smacks of using the Navy in an overtly political way.

How can I say that you ask?  Because the President's support among Hispanics is ebbing.  He's delivered a speech to them and received no bounce in his support.  Am I off the mark when I suspect that this is a bone tossed to a valued constituency?

Pic of the day. May 17, 2011.

F-35B 100th Vertical Landing

The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing variant test program achieved its 100th vertical landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on May 12, 2011. All four F-35B aircraft at NAS Patuxent River have contributed to the milestone.

Thompson muscles in on the F-35 cost debate...

Loren Thompson, never one to miss a good fight, adds his two cents to the current debate on F-35 costs.  Read it below...

Pentagon Planning To Spend $25 Billion On Music Bands

Actually, this posting is about the F-35 fighter. But the headline is correct -- the nation's military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years. In fact, if you add inflation and indirect costs like retirement benefits, the "then-year" cost of military bands is more like $50 billion. But here's the catch: I'm talking about the cumulative cost for military bands between now and the year 2065.
Ridiculous, right? By the time we get to 2065, the bands will probably be unmanned (robotic) anyway. But that hasn't stopped various news organizations from reporting that the after-inflation "life-cycle cost" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter through 2065 has risen above a trillion dollars. The story generated a lot of buzz, mainly because few of the reporters who cover the Pentagon know anything about economics. If they did, they'd realize that in the 1970s you could buy a new Mustang convertible for less than $5,000 and half a century is a very long time in economic terms.
I imagine a few grizzled editors actually did know this, but they just couldn't resist attaching a trillion-dollar pricetag to the F-35 because it was a sure-fire way of attracting readers. So how come they never apply the same bogus methodology to other government expenditures -- like music bands? Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post on September 6, 2010 that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines were spending around $500 million annually on bands. Multiply that number by 50 years and then add in a modest inflation factor -- say 2.5 percent per year, compounded -- and half a century later you're talking real money, as the late Senator Everett Dirkson might have put it. Many tens of billions of dollars, it turns out.
It's hard to measure the benefit of spending so much money on music, but the stakes in the F-35 debate are a bit clearer. If the joint force doesn't field a more survivable fighter sometime soon, we can forget about operating our aircraft over places like Iran and North Korea in the future. And the fact that no U.S. soldier has been killed by an enemy aircraft since the Korean War will be a thing of the past. Air superiority is one of those things that is hard to fully appreciate until you've lost it, and then you really, really miss it. So maybe we should set aside all the imaginative ways that pundits dream up to try to discredit a plane that actually won't cost much more to own than current fighters, and just do what we need to do to stay on top.
Incidentally, did I mention that the "then-year" cost of illegal drugs in the U.S. through 2065 is likely to be around $20 trillion?
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

Wow.

The issue of the F-35's costs is getting pounded harder than a thief caught trying to break into a police station.

F-35 critics...you want answers?  You've been given the answer-- something tells me you can't handle the truth.

BlackFive responds to the chart.

Below you'll see the update that BlackFive posted on there website today...

Update May 15:  I have received a few emails about the chart being incorrect.   Here is one good post about the perceived error.  I don't believe it is an error.  I could be wrong, but here is why I think some folks are misunderstanding it.
In my opinion, APUC and PAUC both contain exactly what they should.
What some people reading the chart don't seem to understand is if you take you finger and run it along the line of a particular cost - where the line stops is above the column that particular cost adds to what's already to its left.
In other words, if you look a PUAC, it adds RTD&E plus MILCON to the APUC, weapons system cost, total fly away cost and URF costs to its left.   The cost structure builds as you go to the right.  TOC then adds the things in the final column to everything (cost) to its left.
PAUC is defined as:
PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost) = RDT&E $ + Procurement $ + unique MILCON $ (in program base year dollars)/Total procurement quantity + RDT&E prototypes that are production reps used for IOT&E (if any)
Run your finger over the PAUC line and it stops right above the column that says "RTD&E" and "MILCON".
I hope that helps.  It's a difficult issue and I am trying to explain costs as clearly as I can.
I know that doesn't matter to some who are against the F35 for various efficacy reasons, but let's all be clear about the cost.

Awesome.

Finally, answers to this vexing cost question.

Oh and Bill, I'm still waiting for your response.  Heck, to be honest Sean, Bill, Ares Team...we're all waiting for your response.  Love you guys but this is getting much too big to ignore.

So my friends where does that leave Bill right now?  I imagine he's having a Bill Paxton moment in Aliens.  See the video below.

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.
Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.
Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said.
Stealth will allow the F-35 to go into the teeth of enemy air defenses, which are becoming increasingly lethal, Thomas said. The Marines intend to operate the F-35 for 30 to 40 years, when stealth may be required even for close-air support.
"Stealth is going to be a requirement," Thomas said, echoing a point one normally hears mostly from U.S. Air Force officials.
Alongside stealth, the sensors and networking are crucial to the F-35 program.
To that end, Kelly said that mission systems testing for the jet's radar and infrared sensors have been going well. He offered unqualified praise for the F-35's APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar.

F-35 Production Ramps Up Nicely.

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 16, 2011 – The second F-35A Lightning II production aircraft flies above the compass rose of Rogers Dry Lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., May 13. The aircraft, designated AF-6, ferried to Edwards AFB from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base following the Air Force formally accepting the fighter into its inventory May 12. The first production jet, AF-7, was delivered to Edwards AFB May 6.

Notice how quickly the delivery dates are between the first and second F-35A!  Learning curve gentlemen.  Learning curve!

A video feast.

XF-104...Fast Blast From The Past.

Col Sanborn heads to Europe and a uniform question.

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan-Col. Russell A.C. Sanborn, the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) assistant wing commander, is slated to leave Afghanistan in mid-May for Stuttgart, Germany, to become the U.S European Command’s deputy operations officer. Sanborn has accumulated more than 2,400 flight hours in the Harrier, and deployed multiple times, including to the first Gulf War. On Feb. 9, 1991, while serving as a pilot in the Gulf War, Sanborn’s aircraft was shot down over southern Kuwait by a surface-to-air missile during a combat mission. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war until his release on March 6, 1991.His personal decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Strike Flight Award with Combat V, and the Combat Action Ribbon.,Staff Sgt. James R. Richardson, 3/5/2011 6:49 AM

Congrats goes to Col Sanborn.  Fair winds and following seas---as they say.  But his picture leaves me with a uniform question.  Is subdued rank allowed for wear?  And if it is then why isn't qualification badges allowed to also be subdued?

The Marine Corps is going to hate it.  Heck I'm not sure I like it but it does appear to be the most practical of all possible solutions.

Its time boys.

Time to allow uniform and qualification badges to be sewn on---God Forgive Me---in the fashion that the US Army does it.

Either that or move rank to the shoulder pocket flaps and eliminate the wear of qualification badges with cammies.


UPDATE:


I have my answer guys.  It appears that this was approved back in 2002 (Much thanks to the person who set me straight!).  Funny though, I never saw men I worked with in this particular wear of uniform (meaning insignia at all).  In my battalion, when in the field, we all knew who was who on sight and in garrison it was all shiny all the time.  In the field, they left it behind.  Without knowing the background on this particular photo, any further comment is unwarranted.