Thanks for the heads up David!!
Noted aviation experts have been warning that the F-35 was so expensive that allied nations wouldn't be able to buy enough to satisfy homeland security requirements OR participate in expeditionary missions.
At one time I called them crackpots and idiots.
I was wrong.
My naivete in hindsight is breathtaking.
Not only is the F-35 costing allied airforces to basically dismantle themselves but its having the knock-on effect of destroying army's and Marine Corps too. via FMV.
The Norwegian government announced today that they have chosen to leave the cooperation on the Archer artillery system. It began in 2007 as Archer turned out to have just as good, and in some cases better performance than alternative artillery system at a significantly lower cost.I continue to marvel at this program.
Today, says Norwegian government that they intend to terminate the agreement.
- Archer is a modern, fast and accurate artillery system at a good price. The challenge has been to find the balance between protection and weight and it has been achieved. FMV has been about normal development, says Lena Erixon, Director General of FMV.
Cooperation with Norway has not been in vain. Sweden and Norway have shared in the development costs of the artillery system, and where the state has saved many hundreds of millions. However, it becomes less system to knock out the operation cost in the long run.
The first Archer The pieces have been delivered to the Swedish Armed Forces and FMV may formally pursue the acquisition on its own.
- We now have regular contact with the manufacturer BAE Systems to discuss how we move forward, says Lena Erixon.
Lockheed is predicting future profits that are a sight to behold. I assume BAE and others involved can say the same.
But what's happening to other departments in those businesses must be bordering on disaster. Lockheed Martin put forward a credible vehicle for the MPC program. The F-35 killed it. BAE has the Archer. The F-35 killed it.
What does a military force look like that only has F-35's and nothing else?
I hope we never find out.
Archer + PGM = CAS substitute
ReplyDeleteShip's VLS + TLAM = the majority of strike needs
Without F35b we in the UK don't get carriers. But it is killing far too much when there are cheaper alternatives.
the finances of all the western democracies require a smart, cost effective defense. the F-35 doesn't fit into that line of thinking.
DeleteWithout F-35 western capitalocracies would not have advantage over russian, indian and chinese 5th gen planes.
DeleteF-22 is not produced anymore, their combat losses is irreplaceable. What else if not F-35? Half F-22 get downed -- then what? Waste few years to reestablish F-22 production while war will go on?
Its not F-35 is broken, its "finances" went FUBAR.
The Archer delivery was way late (September 2013). The system and forecasted operational costs did not live up to the billing throughout the testing and acceptance phase. And THAT is why it was dumped by Norway. Standby for Sweden to probably do the same. But they have the Grippen, so there won't be much of a conspiracy theory linking them cancelling the Archer with the F35.
ReplyDeleteSo was the F-35. And the NH-90. Norway didn't suddenly drop them.
DeleteNeither one have underdelivered where performance is concerned. Unless of course you're a conspiracy theorist/contrarian. All systems run over in cost and many come late. But when you fail at all three, you're a prime cancellation candidate.
Deleteyep.
DeleteToo bad some people make mountains out of molehills.
ARCHER is VERY expensive for what it is.
Solomon, this is getting excessive. The withdrawal from Archer has nothing to do with the F-35.
ReplyDeleteSolomon, with your recent "best of" posts for tanks and planes, are you planning one for artillery?
ReplyDeletei hadn't but its a good idea. its on the menu now. thanks.
DeleteF-35's lined up on the airstrips and used by the enemy as target practice much like the P-40's at Pearl Harbor.
ReplyDeleteI thought the Archer has a lot of potential. MRSI capable, rapid emplace displace. Everything you need to fight and win.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI id the math 1 trillion progam cost/ 100 million person workforce/ thrity years = 334 dollars a year per american is a lot of money for the just the f-35 program. We need to find a way to a cheaper way to get an equivalent quality fighter.
DeleteMaybe they are doing what we (USMC) should do, getting rid of all artillery, replace with 120mm mortars, and AH-1/UH-1s. If it can't be landed on a beach and utilized on that beach under fire... mothballs.
ReplyDeletei'm far from convinced that the 120mm mortar is an answer to anything. i'm leaning toward the idea that 105mm howitzers would have been a better buy. additionally what are you talking about?
Deleteaircraft can be grounded due to weather, they can't provide on call fire support 24/7. you're smoking some funny cigarettes talking that way.
I like close air support and the short time to impact of mortars but I'm pretty against putting all our eggs in the short range basket. Solomon saw the wisdom of the lightweight towed howitzer as a necessity and I'd like to take that a step further.
DeleteI think the USMC and US Army light infantry should take the leap and replace all the 105 mm towed howitzers incrementally as they age with M 777 155 mm howitzers. It will press on with the technological friction and simplify future munitions and the logistical chain. Additional standoff, and more room to maneuver within the over watch. This is something they would have done back in the 80's if the technology had existed.
The Marine Corps has no 105s, all 777s, cant put a M777 on a beach, not quickly and no one trains to do it anymore. Not smoking any cigarettes, funny ones or not (random piss tests and all), just thinking outside the box, we can roll an M327 off an LCU or LCAC and have effects on target almost immediately, its not a 155, but it will suppress and it keeps us from relying on naval gunfire that can be better utilized firing at more hardened targets, if we are going to go with artillery we have to be able to roll it off a landing craft and have the ability to put rounds on target quickly, something the M777 cannot do. Artillery is great for the open battlespace where you need to be able to shoot 10km, but when you are trying to forcibly enter a beach...the M777s are a non-factor. That said I also don't want the Marine Corps getting more than one foot out of the water either. Just thinking outside the box, which is a dangerous proposition these days. I'm also not opposed to a 105 or gasp.... bringing back a modernized pack howitzer
Deleteok. the funny cigarettes was a step too far but i have NEVER seen an exercise where artillery shoots from the beach. not once. i haven't even seen anyone do a bullshit "lets see if this works" kinda thing from that community. why would we want to fire arty from a beach anyway? we should still be operating under the protection of 5in naval guns, we should still have our airpower with us (until the combatant commander decides to place it all under AF control so he can dictate who gets what)....
Deleteone last thing about artillery. have you seen gunnery drills with the M777? i have. 11th Marines are fast with them (or were)...i've only seen the 120mm on video and quite honestly a minute worth of fire from a M777 will put waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more steel on target than even a 5 minute barrage from a 120. if we had gone with dragon fire then it would be a different story but we didn't and in conventional form the 120 just doesn't impress.
USMC and Stryker Brigades should have some of this beauties, proven in combat like Afganistan and Mali. Some countries are already buying them.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=sh_6sJiQrr4&feature=youtube_gdata_player