Think Defence wades into the debate from a UK perspective.

Think Defence wades into the JSF debate via the UK's carrier conundrum.  He arrives at this proposal...

A Proposal

I actually think CVF does has a lot of potential, I know you lot might be surprised by this but my objections have always been on cost grounds. This proposal is one possible method of squeezing maximum value for the investment in the most likely missions it will be required to fulfil.

• Switch back to the F35B
• Obtain enough to maintain 6 on board plus 6 on an enduring land based operation (rotating with Typhoon) to support the deployed multi role brigade. This allows for continuous cover for an enduring operation whilst still maintaining enough capacity for the rapid reaction force. Total aircraft and crew numbers would be determined once maintenance and force generation factors become known
• The RAF should stop dreaming about hordes of F35’s and get on with the job of deriving maximum benefit from the eye watering and defence budget distorting entity that is Typhoon
• The Fleet Air Arm and Royal Navy should stop dreaming about having a mini me CVN. The FAA would cease operating fast jets and the aboard aircraft would be RAF operated. We can’t afford two air forces and the largest one, the one that can achieve some economy of scale and is focussed on managing fast jets.
• Complete both CVF with one maintained as an in service spare to cover refit periods.
• Do not replace Ocean, the role to be covered by CVF
• If funds allow, the in service spare could be bought into full service
• Redesign CVF to have an enlarged hangar, at least big enough for Chinook, CH53K and V22 across the full width and length. Also improved command and control and embarked force accommodation facilities. These should be relatively easy changes, even at this stage of the build.
• Invest in a Merlin based ASaC

To be honest, he floored me when I read it.  Check out the whole thing to see how he got here.  I definitely don't agree with all of his conclusions...most especially the idea of doing away with fast jets in the Royal Navy.

Naval Aviation has a flavor all its own.  One that can't be duplicated by an Air Force.  I digress...head to his site.

RAF Tornado gun camera footage from the Libya conflict.

Looks like the Brits aren't as shy as we are about sharing gun camera footage from the conflict in Libya.  I don't know what type of munition is being used but I'd guess its a Brimstone Missile...finally note the hit on the last APC in the footage.  It didn't look like a clean hit to me...the crew might be KIA/WIA but the vehicle should be recoverable.

Man in the arena...

The Man in the Arena .02

Pic of the day. March27, 2011.

A CH-46E Sea Knight helicopter prepares to land onto the deck of USS San Antonio (LPD-17). This was the first 4-Sea Knight landing on the deck of the San Antonio. Marines from HMM-264, Aviation Combat Element of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, piloted the aircraft. Portions of the 26th MEU Command Element, the MEU's Combat Logistics Element, CLB-26, and Battalion Landing Team 3/8 are aboard the San Antonio to support the ship's Operational Evaluation. (Official U.S. Navy photo by MC1 Erik Hoffman) (Released), 3/12/2008 1:17 AM

The above photo was taken in 2008 and since then the helo detachment aboard the LPD-17 class ships have demonstrated a capability to handle many more aircraft than the photo illustrates.

Pay real close attention when the JSF is being debated.

I don't know quite how to approach this one.  So when in doubt run full speed ahead.

ARES ran a story about the F-35's being grounded and GAVE in my opinion, the impression that the generators/back up generators failed on the airplane...Ole Bill likes to dance on the head of a pin when making some of his statements so pay close attention.

Luckily a commenter on the blog gave me food for thought...

Atomic Walrus wrote:

Hang on a second, here - many of the comments on this article seem to be assuming that the dual generator is intended to be a redundant design. Is that accurate? A closer reading on some of the news reports from the program suggest that it's more like 2 generators ganged up to provide the desired electrical output, with the integrated power pack providing the back-up system. This doesn't mitigate the fact that there was a generator failure due to a simple maintenance issue, but it's a far cry from asserting that LockMart is so foolish as to allow primary and backup of a critical system to be taken out by a single event.

3/26/2011 11:48 PM CDT

Atomic Walrus is exactly right.

This is one of Sweetmans statements found on line 3...

Bill Sweetman wrote:

I think that what is interesting about this thread is how pro-JSF people can't accept a very straightforward observation: that if you have two widgets that are there to provide redundancy in a flight-critical function, and one failure (technical or human+technical) takes both of them out, you have an issue that bears further investigation.

Now when I say pay attention...thats what I mean!

Bill DID NOT say that the generators involved were there to provide backup emergency power.  Quite honestly when I first read Atomic Walrus's statement I was high and to the right ... when I finally caught on to the wordsmithing going on... I was still high and to the right.

This one neat, tidy, simple---heck even elegant statement was constructed in such a way as to have a casual reader believe that the primary and backup generators had failed and that the airplane was mere seconds away from falling out of the sky.

That wasn't the case and the issue was quickly solved and resolved.

The entire point is this--  PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO ANY DEBATE INVOLVING THE JSF.  FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE ANTI-JSF CAMP THIS IS A WIN AT ANY COST ENDEAVOUR!

Even the neutral (at least I think he is...he hasn't exactly stated a position and I have yet to detect one in his writing) Graham Warwick made a curious statement in the comments section...

Graham Warwick wrote:

If I can be permitted to comment on my own post...this will not be news to ardent JSF watchers who caught the story by Steve Trimble of Flightglobal which appeared - briefly - earlier this week.

When it did, my colleague Bill Sweetman made the very valid point that a single maintenance action resulting in the failure of both engine-driven generators must call into question the redundancy of the system, which mounts both generators on a single line-replaceable unit.

But the redundancy of the system isn't in the dual generators...its in the back up to those generators....

Want a balanced reporting of this story?  Lets check out our friends at F-16.net...

The grounding appears to have occurred because of the potential for loss of control posed by such a combination.

Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35's flight control surfaces are controlled by electro-hydrostatic actuators. If they don't have power then the pilot can lose control. In this case, the back-up power system — the Integrated Power Package which also serves as the starter and air conditioner — kicked in as designed, allowing the pilot to return to base.

Again...pay careful attention when reading news on the F-35.
UPDATE:
Commenter BowlWeavel said it best...

All I can say is wow

listen to some of you people

Do you have any idea how many different ways there are to wreck an aircraft and/or kill someone with a maintenance error or by failing to follow proper procedures?

give it a rest already

this wasn't the problem you hoped it was

Canadian F-35 Website.

Definitely worth checking out gents...especially in light of all the disinformation being put out.  See it here.  Oh and for the curious, below you'll see some of the fast facts that the Canadian Minister of National Defense is going over...

Update:
Since the Canadian election is the latest card that the anti-JSF people are hanging there hats on, here's a site that has current election polling.  Sorry anti crowd...the conservatives are winning.
F-35-Fast-Facts-Feb-15-2011

Kel-Tec sucks....

PMR-30

RFB

KSG

I'm done with Kel-Tec.

They can't get the products to market.  They spend more time on marketing jackets, hats and other merchandise than the do their guns....

And if the video from Nut-n-fancy is any indication then they don't even spend time with their own weapons and the gun I was looking at in particular (the PMR-30) seems to malfunction an awful lot.

I'll stick to Rugers or Walthers when it comes to 22 caliber fire.  As far as the shotgun and rifle from Kel-Tec is concerned...not a chance.

Paul McLeary at ARES nails it.

Paul McLeary over at ARES has a couple of posts that cover the Marine Corps energy independence expeditionary energy initiative (here and here).

If ARES has a ground guy then Paul is that man(trust me...I consider that a compliment!)...and thankfully he covered something that's been bothering me in regards to Distributed Operations and the Company Landing Team Concepts...the issue of resupply.

If you think that the K-Max and upcoming CH-53K's solved the problem of resupply of dispersed company sized units then you're wrong.  The idea that in addition to just ammo, food, water and other supplies would have to be supplied...in addition to whatever their energy needs are then you can understand my doubting the very efficacy of the project.

Paul's stories have me switching from doubting to the 'hey its possible lets try' camp.

According to Marine Corps documents, the system proved itself such a success in operations that two patrol bases are currently operating entirely on renewable energy, with a 90 percent reduction in fuel required at a third base—and the unit was even able to conduct a three-week foot patrol “without battery resupply, reducing load on Marines by 700 lbs.”

If that doesn't convince you then how about this...

One India company squad leader, Sgt. David Doty, is quoted as saying that on his patrol base, “our generators typically use more than 20 gallons of fuel a day. We are down to 2.5 gallons a day,” thanks to the exFOB technology.

But wait...there's more...

A $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, at current consumption levels, would be equivalent to the entire Marine Corps’ procurement budget.

The new Commandant is winning me over ... not only because of this but because I made a mistake in believing that the wings on his chest carried more weight than the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on his chest.  He's talking the talk and with initiatives like this ... walking the walk.  If we can get our bases operating on this same concept worldwide...and find a high capacity magazine for the IAR that will work then he's off to a good start.

I'll even forgive him for signing on to buy the F-35C.

Marine Expeditionary Energy Initiative Website.

US fires more Tomahawks on Libyan defenses

 via Alert 5 from AFP.

US fires more Tomahawks on Libyan defenses

(AFP) – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The United States fired 16 new Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan targets on Thursday and Friday as part of the US role in the UN-mandated mission to protect Libyan civilians, the Pentagon said.
The new missile launches brought the total number of Tomahawks used by US and coalition forces to at least 170 as they enforce a UN resolution to set up a no-fly zone over Libya to stop air attacks by the forces of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi.
Pentagon officials said 16 new missiles were fired in the 24 hours to 0500 GMT Friday by US warships and submarines. The missiles are aiming to take out Kadhafi's anti-aircraft and artillery positions.
In the nearby seas, submarines including the USS Providence, USS Florida and the USS Scranton are patrolling alongside the destroyers USS Stout and USS Barry.
The number of Tomahawk missiles used in Libya has started to approach the number used in the 1991 Gulf War, the first conflict in which they were deployed. In that conflict, some 297 missiles were used.
During the same 24-hour period coalition warplanes carried out 153 sorties, officials said, including 67 by US forces.
Washington has said it hopes to turn over command of all Libya operations to NATO while maintaining a support role.
NATO has so far agreed to take control of enforcing the no-fly zone, and is considering whether to broaden its role to take over all military operations from the US-led coalition.

Wow.  This is an impressive war load for a few Destroyers and Subs that are operating in the area.  What would be nice is to see a 'war time replenishment' mission.  Regardless, the sea services continue to deliver.

Arlington (LPD 24), to be christened on March 26.

101123-O-XXXXX-001 PASCAGOULA, Miss. (Nov. 23, 2010) The future USS Arlington (LPD 24) launched Nov. 23 from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding's Pascagoula shipyard, marking a key milestone in the ship's construction process. Arlington honors the 184 victims who died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the first responders from the county. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding/Released) 

 

 

 

The good news keeps coming...

The Navy will christen the newest amphibious transport dock ship, PCU Arlington (LPD 24), during a 10 a.m. CDT ceremony at Northrop Grumman shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss, March 26.

The ship is named for the city of Arlington, Va., honoring the 184 victims in the air and on the ground who lost their lives when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the military and civilian employees, emergency, fire and rescue personnel of Arlington County and surrounding communities who provided critical assistance after the attack.

Arlington County Fire Chief James Schwartz, the incident commander coordinating the rescue response efforts on the ground at the Pentagon during the Sept. 11 attack, will deliver the ceremony's principal address.

Joyce Rumsfeld, wife of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is the ship's sponsor, and in accordance with Navy tradition, will break a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship.

Designated LPD 24, Arlington is the eighth amphibious transport dock ship in the San Antonio class. As an element of future expeditionary strike groups, the ship will support the Marine Corps "mobility triad," which consists of the landing craft air cushion vehicle, amphibious vehicles and the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Arlington will provide improved warfighting capabilities, including an advanced command-and-control suite, increased lift-capability in vehicle and cargo-carrying capacity and advanced ship-survivability features. The ship is capable of embarking a landing force of up to 800 Marines.

Two previous ships have carried the name Arlington. The first was a steel-hulled C1-B type cargo ship operating during World War II. The second USS Arlington was a 14,500-ton Vietnam War era, major communications relay ship, which assisted with communications during a June 1969 conference between U.S. President Nixon and Republic of Vietnam President Thieu.

Canadian JSF Briefing Notes.

Thanks Michael!  This should spark some debate...they definitely contradict information given on ARES Defense Blog.

UPDATE*
This is the actual article written by Sweetman over at ARES.  Just to flesh out the information that Michael sent me and is contained in this presentation document, here are the more 'inflammatory' statements made by Bill...

Canada is likely to be headed for new national elections by the end of the day, following a vote of no confidence inspired, in part, by the majority Conservative party's handling of the F-35 issue.

A single defense project...not even one as important as the F-35 could bring down a government.  Bill knows this...

This figure was challenged by a Canadian reporter who noted that the U.S. Government Accountability Office, in its latest report, is projecting an average acquisition cost of $133 million. No, Ross said, that number includes research and development -- a direct misstatement of facts.

This is a favorite tactic of F-35 critics...they parse numbers, compare apples and oranges and use different dynamics than that being used by the Department of Defense (US) and the F-35 Program office.  Its not dishonest...but it is misleading.

DoD acquisition czar Ashton Carter has also made it clear that, absent new management initiatives and efficiencies ("should cost") the program is headed ("will cost") towards a price that the customer cannot afford in planned numbers.

Another misleading statement.  Carter has already taken steps as has Lockheed Martin to drive down the price of the F-35 toward the established goal.  To be honest at this point in the program, the airplane is already remarkably affordable.  I can't help but restate that the F-15K, being sold to S. Korea costs 110 million dollars.  For the F-35 to have a cost of approx 130 million dollars per plane at this stage is quite simply astonishing.  Well done DoD, Lockheed Martin and the Program Office.



Presentation Deck 15 Mar 11_blue_FINAL

Terrible couple of weeks for the world...great weeks for the sea services.

Think about it...

The tragedy in Japan...the start of fighting in Libya...war still raging in Afghanistan...everyone holding there breath to see if the 'uprisings' in the Islamic world spread to nuclear power Pakistan....

But through it all the sea services have had great weeks.

I'm don't mean to be ghoulish but consider this....

On one side of the planet the US Navy/Marine Corps mobilized a fleet of ships/personnel/aviation assets and sailed to the aid of the Japanese..

And on the other side a Marine Expeditionary Unit, a couple of Destroyers, some subs (with another unidentified and unconfirmed sub landing Navy SEALs) and began an air campaign in conjunction with the USAF and our allies.

Add to it the 26th MEU mobilized a TRAP mission and sent an MV-22 along with a couple of AV-8B Harriers riding shotgun to pick up the crew of a downed F-15E Strike Eagle.

And before that happened (and even during it) they've been sailing around the world conducting partnership missions, anti-piracy missions, keeping an eye on the N. Koreans, performing exercises and normally scheduled training.

The sea services have delivered.