Aviation mystery...why isn't the SpeedHawk gaining traction?

It looks right.

Its performance is impressive.

Current helicopters can be modified easily (I think).

So why isn't the SpeedHawk gaining traction.  I also wonder why Piasecki isn't screaming to high heaven that it can solve the helicopter speed problem but is being ignored by the DoD.

Well, this mystery demands a solution.  Time to contact Piasecki and find out whats going on with this fantastic concept.

Note*
I also wonder if this concept hasn't gone black.  SOCOM produced a stealth BlackHawk, why would we doubt that they have this in their toolbox too?

Gun control.

If you're on the fence about the 2nd amendment then check out this quote...

”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Wow.

The bastard was right.  Germany, England, Australia, France and many other nations have followed.  Looks like he just might win in the end...at leas in those countries.

On Rappel

Cpl. Gerard Coon with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit's battalion landing team 3/1 rappels from a parked CH-46E Sea Knight aboard USS Makin Island Feb. 10. The Sea Knight is with the unit's aviation combat element, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 268 (Reinforced). The unit is currently deployed aboard the amphibious assault ship as part of the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group, which is a U.S. Central Command theater reserve force. The group is also providing support for maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet area of responsibility.

Rawley gets it wrong. Marines on aircraft carriers is about self preservation.

Chris Rawley pinned an article for Information Dissemination in which he lauds the idea of putting detachments of Marines aboard aircraft carriers.

He is missing the real issue here.  It isn't about making the carrier more effective.  Its about preserving the aircraft carrier. 

Take a look at the pic above.  It shows in great detail the standard compliment of a deployed US aircraft carrier today.  A ship designed to carry approximately 100 aircraft is lucky to leave the dock with 60.  Additionally a squadron or two of those airplanes are Marine Air.

Carrier aviation is in trouble and if a bean counter ever takes a good look at the number of carriers that we have and the way that we're utilizing them then you'll see an axe come out quick.  But this is what Rawley has to say....

LCDR Benjamin Armstrong, one of the up and coming naval officers who truly gets irregular warfare, has written a fine article on maritime raids for this month's Proceedings. His recommendation to expand the utility of carriers by adding small Marine landing teams and MV-22s makes a lot of sense. CVNs can easily augment our amphibious capacity and provide significant flexibility to conduct raids and other ground-centric missions when gators are not around. This move could be compared to the addition of F-35Bs to large deck amphibious ships to augment our CSGs striking power. In other words, our CSGs should become more ARG-like and our ESGs/ARGs can become more CSG-like. If our gator fleet shrinks further, we’ll need to get creative in how we employ all ships in support of objectives ashore, and implementation of BJ’s suggestions would be a smart step in that direction.

Read the whole thing but a few things are telling.

1.  Notice that he talks about putting F-35B's aboard carriers...a nice fig leaf but that was dismissed out of hand by carrier Navy.  They stated that it would disrupt flight operations when HQMC offered that as a possibility to make up for the loss of carrier squadrons that was complained about.

2.  Notice the attempt to make the carrier into a more ARG type vessel.  A bigger fig leaf.  If the carriers can perform ARG type missions then it should be asked why do we need the ARG?  It is a power play that is so obvious its pitiful.

3.  Lastly, notice that no one is talking about embarking SOCOM aboard carriers.  Wonder why?  I make the guess that it would cause a loss of autonomy.  Yeah you could put SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces aboard carriers and rotate them but you would have an new master in Tampa to answer to.  Its nice supporting SOCOM but having to work for them can be a bitch if you're not part of the clubhouse.

This whole thing is a farce.  Its all about making the carriers more relevant especially in light of the rise of the Amphibians (Libya most recently when no one asked where are the carriers, before that Japan and Haiti...Carriers are faster but have no manpower to do the soft missions...Marines on board would open up that possibility as well).  This is a bad idea.  Everyone knows it, no one will admit it.

Elements of Power nails it on the new bomber.

Elements of Power nails it in his analysis of news on the new Air Force Bomber.  Read the whole thing and subscribe to him but this part had me saying out loud...damn it!  Why didn't I remember that!

Hey Phil? About that 'doing things differently' angle. If we would have bought 80-100 B-2s, in the first place the unit acquisition cost would have been far less than those "$550M" in 2010 dollars, and probably much less than that even in then-year dollars. CBO numbers for only 26 B-2s in the early 90s was $540M per plane. Northrop offered to sell the AF only half as many (40)  B-2Cs in 2001 for a fixed price of $545M/aircraft.

We've been down this road before and it looks like we're going down it again.  Being penny wise and pound foolish!  I'm referring specifically to the offer by Northrop of selling the plane for a fixed price!

Wow.

Perhaps what we really need in our Defense Procurement System are a group of historians.  We seem to keep forgetting ours.

David Cenciotti has a couple of great articles out.

David has a couple of great articles out.

The first is an outstanding photo essay on a new (at least to me) Nato Tactical Leadership Program, and the second is news from the other side of the Atlantic on the recent Italian decision on the numbers of F-35's to procure.

Therefore, along with the reduction by 43,000 people to abate the current 70 percent of the overall defense budget for spending on military personnel, the review has led to the revision of the some important programs. First of all, the much criticized F-35 program.
Accordingly, 41 aircraft will be scrapped leaving the Italian Air Force and Navy with only 90 F-35 in the A and B version. The latter, recently removed from probation, will replace the Navy’s AV-8B+ Harrier II on board the Cavour aircraft carrier as well as the Air Force’s AMX, both involved in the recent Air War in Libya.
“The F-35 program was reviewed. Nevertheless it remains a major commitment in terms of technology, technology transfer to the industry and employment” Di Paola said few days after placing the first order for three F-35s.

I love reading this guys blog especially when it comes to the F-35 because I can't quite pin him down on being a supporter or hater.

He is definitely playing it down the middle and is to be commended for it.  Go to his site to read it in full.  Now, if I could only get him to make that watermark just a tad smaller, all would be right with the world.

24th MEU's certification exercise continues.