Open Comment Post. 21 June 2019

Is the shoot down of our drone worth a retaliatory strike against Iran...

Is losing this airplane worth a retaliatory strike? 

We've seen several provocative acts so we can assume that the Iranians have a game plan.  What is it?

My guess, if the last intel estimate we received from the Pentagon is true, is that the Iranians are ready to use their proxies in a series of strikes against the Saudis, Israel and a few US installations.

Are we ready to repulse those attacks once we send a few hundred Tomahawks Iran's way?

Do we have a plan to limit the potential for a wider conflict erupting?

Have we determined a way to keep this from escalating IF we see a series of dramatic attack plastered all over the world's newspapers?

I don't know.  What do you think?

Arquus Scarabee via Daily Mail (Vid & Pics)...

StormBreaker takes another step toward IOC...

via Air Force Technology.

Raytheon has completed all operational test drops of its new StormBreaker smart weapon, bringing it one step closer to achieving initial operational capability.

Raytheon Air Warfare Systems vice-president Kim Ernzen said: “All operating modes of StormBreaker have been rigorously tested in operationally-relevant scenarios against real-world targets in environments that are similar to actual battlefield conditions.

“With its tri-mode seeker and datalink, this smart weapon will close a capability gap and make adverse weather irrelevant.”

In normal mode, the tri-mode seeker uses infrared imaging (mode one) and millimetre wave radar (mode two) to help fighter pilots hit moving targets from standoff ranges and in bad climatic conditions. A tertiary mode employs semi-active laser guidance technologies to hit targets.

Story here. 

How soon will some issues with the F-35 be fixed?

How soon will some issues with the F-35 be fixed?: After breaking a series of stories on problems with the F-35, Valerie Insinna asks Lockheed Martin's program head when they'll be fixed.

Consider this BONUS coverage on the F-35 by Valerie!

EU wants to shut US companies out from competing for their programs?

via Defense News.

The top Pentagon official attending the Paris Air Show this week made clear she would use the venue to make a declarative statement about a subset of European arms funding: Either give the United States the ability to compete for work, or risk retaliation.

The U.S. Defense Department is concerned about restrictions that would limit its ability to participate in the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative, otherwise known as PESCO — a group of projects spearheaded by the European Union, as well a €13 billion (U.S. $15 billion) pool of money for military programs known as the European Defence Fund.

“As we read the language right now, even European-based subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, with European facilities and European employees, would not be allowed to participate with intellectual property exchange and a number of other issues of programs that grow out of EDF and more importantly PESCO,” Ellen Lord, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said Monday during a roundtable with reporters at the air show.

Story here.

Wow.

I don't think I'm actually heated by the EU wanting to make this move.  We've been banging on them to increase their defense spending and this is a natural reaction to that news.

Their desire is purely rational.

If they're gonna spend their citizens tax money on military equipment,  then they should be building the equipment at home, not buying it overseas.

What do you guys think?  In my opinion this should have been a predicted response.

F-35 News. Jacked up supply chain...over 50% of the parts sent to bases are unusable...

via Bloomberg.

The lack of compliant parts is widespread. Of 74 spare parts delivered to Hill Air Force Base in Utah from Sept. 17 through Sept. 30 of last year, 59 of them, or 80%, weren’t ready to install. Of 263 parts delivered to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona in June of last year, 213, or 81%, didn’t meet requirements.

“Despite the Joint Program Office being aware of this problem, it did not resolve the issue or require the services to track the number” of non-compliant spare parts received, the report found.

A representative for Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The inspector general recommended that the Pentagon program office seek refunds or additional services free of charge from Lockheed to compensate the military for the chronic parts problems.

This is the hill on which the battle of the F-35 will be fought!  But I'll get into that later.  Check out this section from the same article...

 The lack of information “creates a life and safety concern for aircrews” if Pentagon personnel “make mistakes on the number of hours the spare part was flown.” it said.

Investigators found instances at two F‑35 sites where pilots had flown aircraft with non‑compliant spare parts, such as wheel, seat and window assemblies, as early as August 2017. That “unintentionally inflated aircraft availability hours,” which is one measure for incentive fees to Lockheed.

In writing policy and funding legislation, three of the four congressional defense committees have added F-35 jets beyond the 78 the Pentagon requested for fiscal 2020. Such increases have only exacerbated pressure on the supply chain and added to the F-35’s chronic failure to meet goals on its availability for missions.

But wait there's more!

 Lockheed Martin Corp. has failed to supply ready-to-install spare parts for its F-35 fighter -- from wheels and tire assemblies to seats -- and may have been overpaid as much as $10.6 million in bonuses, according to the Defense Department’s inspector general.

“We determined that the DoD did not receive ready-to-issue F‑35 spare parts in accordance with contract requirements and paid performance incentive fees on the sustainment contracts based on inflated and unverified” hours that Air Force and Marine Corps planes would be ready to fly, the Pentagon’s internal watchdog said in a report released Monday.

It happened because the Pentagon’s F-35 program office “did not conduct adequate oversight of contractor performance,” according to the report. It found the office hasn’t resolved “contractor non‑performance related to the delivery of non‑ready-to-issue spare parts since 2015.”

Story here. 

I'll make the call.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program should have been declared in breach of McMurdy-Nunn.

I'll now make an accusation.

Military leadership knows better.  They've so lusted after this plane that they've essentially aided and abetted a corporation in defrauding the American public.

Because they've been so desperate to get this vehicle into service they paid bonuses to LM that allowed them to ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE their performance and increase their stock price.

But it gets worse.

They risked pilots lives so that they could keep up the fiction of the F-35 being on a proper trajectory so that the program would escape Congressional scrutiny.

So what do we have?

We have an incestous, vile, and criminal procurement program that has been protected from necessary scrutiny by the public.

Who is involved in this travesty?

Every person that has sat in the seat of Chairman of the various services, the US Congress, a couple of President's of the United States and Lockheed Martin.

IFV " PUMA " / German Armed Forces...via Combat Camera Europe...

Note.  Interesting isn't it.  The Puma IFV is one of the German Army's newest vehicle but the builder of that vehicle is putting onto market a vehicle that most consider vastly superior...the KF-41 Lynx.  

The new Infantry Fighting Vehicle by the German Armed Forces. This infantry tank replaces the IFV Marder in the coming years. A total of 350 vehicles will be procured. Please follow on my sites for new Pictures and Informations:www.facebook.com/combatcameraeurope.pictures/ and specially the IFV PUMA Group : www.facebook.com/groups/1268976056548060/

Pic of the day. Assault Breacher Vehicle @ NTC..pic by Cpl. Alisha Grezlik

Soldiers from A Co, 116 Brigade Engineer Battalion, position their M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle during a live-fire training exercise at the National Training Center (NTC) in Fort Irwin, Calif., June 12, 2019. The M1150 is a U.S. military mine and explosives clearing vehicle, equipped with a mine-plough and line charges. NTC is a month-long rotation that provides more than 4,000 service members from 31 states, including units from 13 National Guard states and territories, with realistic training to enhance their combat, support and sustainment capabilities. 

F-35 News. Lockheed Martin claims it will lower operating costs....my thought..FAT CHANCE!

via Breaking Defense.

While it is true — and impressive — that the F-35A has come down below $80 million in Lot 13, the program has had much greater difficulty lowering operating and maintenance costs. Part of the problem is the acknowledged mess of ALIS, the hugely complex and often ineffective planning and maintenance software system designed for the plane. The Air Force is pressing hard to break ALIS down into a series of apps that can be easily upgraded and provide faster and more accurate planning and maintenance, with Air Force acquisition head Will Roper personally pressing hard for change.

Story here.

A little chest thumping first.

I told you that the fight wasn't about the cost of the airplane!  Anytime the opposition stresses an issue then you KNOW its gonna be solved. 

The cost of operating the thing.  That is the true flex point and one that I don't think will be easily resolved.  It's not simply a matter of supply chain as many would have you believe.

This is a basic matter of economics.

Lockheed Martin is basing their future defense PROFITS on the F-35 not only being bought but on them maintaining it for the next 50 years.

That alone tells you that at least on their side they're looking at the actual sale of the plane being a LOSS LEADER.  They might get to a point where the sell the plane at cost but will make up with it by profiting off the maintenance portion of the thing.

That alone is why talk of lowering operating costs is such an issue. 

That is why they're fighting so hard to deny the Pentagon access to ALIS and to give auditors any insight to the parts inventory/usage charts.

That's where their profits will be in the future and that's what they will protect till their dying breath...and why operating costs will be high for the life of this program.

The only economic part of this thing that you need to remember is this.  They can sell the F-35 at a loss and still profit from maintenance.

Sad but that's just a fact.

Open Comment Post. 19 June 2019

Famous Starships Poster Series - Created by Jungle Cyborg

Each design is available for sale as a print or canvas at The Pixel Empire shop.  (note I used his pics so I had to include his caption...just roll with it guys...and if you want a poster of this then hit him up!)

Marine Corps Captain claims the ACV is the wrong vehicle for Marine Operating Concepts....he's wrong, a myopic focus on forcible entry is his critical point of failure, not the vehicle...

via USNI Mag.

The amphibious assault vehicle (AAV) is more than 40 years old and has been rendered obsolete on the modern battlefield through the advancement of technology and doctrine. The amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) was recently declared the AAV’s successor. By selecting the ACV to replace the AAV, however, the Marine Corps is recklessly disregarding the “key drivers of change” identified in the MOC, in particular, the “increasingly contested maritime domain.”

The latest MOC recognizes that naval power projection ashore now faces serious opposition, particularly from sophisticated long-range missiles. Specifications for the new ACV are no better than the AAV’s—neither can operate independent of naval support in an antiaccess/area-denial, over-the-horizon environment because of their inability to achieve high water speed (HWS) of greater than eight knots and lack of range. Wheeled and tracked amphibious vehicles have, thus far, been unable to achieve the HWS and range necessary to conduct amphibious operations on the modern battlefield. To fight and win in the contested maritime domain the Marine Corps must insist on a modern, long-range, HWS-capable landing craft to serve as the ship-to-shore connector capable of executing the expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) called for in the MOC.

Story here. 

This is what I miss about the Marine Corps I grew up in.  I could read the professional mags of the sea services and get REAL debates about how/why/when we conduct operations and what leaders would think about the future.

In that I applaud USNI Mag.

This shit is real.  I'm thrilled to finally getting some meaty discussions again and NOT a bunch of nonsense written by Midshipmen or Lt's just hitting the fleet raging about social issue this or why the fuck do we do parades that.

But back on task.

While I'm thrilled by the Captain's article I think he's illustrating a frustration that I have.

Current Marine Corps Operating Concepts focus on one thing to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Forcible entry.

You say good?  You say that should be the focus?  I say you're ignoring a critical part of the fight.

What happens after you're established ashore?  That's where the ACV will shine...and that's my irritation point with the article.

The Captain points out several raw points with the ACV.  Mainly the lack of water speed.  I get it.  But If we do as the Operating Concept calls for then we're gonna leap frog those enemy strong points.  We will be launching MV-22s from far off shore.  CH-53Ks will be bringing in supplies to help those rifle companies assault key positions that would hinder our surface landing force.

In essence we've kinda flipped the script. 

The ACV will land in the Follow On Echelon with M1A1 Abrams or they will land where we've determined the enemy isn't in coordination with helo-borne forces in the initial assault..

Additionally we can land helo-borne forces to carry out attacks on key installations but we will eventually have to close with and destroy that peer threat.  If they can threaten our landing to the extent that the Captain fears then they will also be backed up with heavy mech forces, probably superb infantry and credible enough airpower that we will need to have an equally if not superiorly equipped force to deal with them.

It would seem (in my opinion) that the failure here isn't how the Marine Corps will get ashore.

Planners are working that problem to death.

The issue is what happens once we're on land and facing threat forces that are more lethal than ever and what will we do to meet that threat.

The ACV is part of the solution to that problem.  Upgrading the Abrams, refurbishing the MTVR, getting the HIMARS the latest and greatest missiles, seeing the JLTV properly deployed/equipped, getting anti-ship missiles and other initiatives will aid that.

Properly fund the Ground Combat Element to make it viable in the 21st century is essential.  That should be the take away from this article, not a problem with the ACV or the reasoning behind it.