The definition of "THIS SUCKS"

If you want to experience misery, pain and general "suck-atude" then run this course!

A U.S. Marine helps a fellow Marine through a muddy obstacle at the endurance course at the Jungle Warfare Training Center on Camp Gonsalves, Okinawa, Japan, April 29, 2011. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Patricia D. Lockhart

Against superior numbers, Marines prevail

Editor's Note:  Too little is being written about the bravery shown by ALL members of our armed forces in the current fight...whether Marines, Soldiers, Sailors or Airmen...where ever I see news of their gallantry, then it'll be posted here.  This is the first of many...

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus presents the Navy Cross to Gunnery Sgt. Brian M. Blonder during a ceremony at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Va., May 10, 2011. Blonder received the second highest award given for valor in the face of danger for his actions during an all-day firefight against Taliban insurgents Aug. 8, 2008, during the battle of Shewan, Afghanistan. Although he and the Marines and sailors he was fighting alongside with were outnumbered eight to one against insurgents, they managed to kill more than 50 insurgents and drove the rest out of their fortified fighting positions in the Taliban infested village in southern Farah province. Blonder, a reconnaissance Marine by trade, was serving as platoon sergeant with a force reconnaissance platoon attached to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. Photo by Sgt. Michael S. Cifuentes

BlackFive channeled the opposition ....

UPDATE:  BlackFive has a fascinating conversation going on about the F-35 cost debate.  Most notably McQ (a BlackFive contributor) posted this in the comments....

ARES also blew the call on B5's article. They claim B5 put O&S under PAUC. In fact the chart shows O&S under Life Cycle Costs - exactly where it belongs.

Be nice if they'd learn to read a chart before they go making unsubstantiated claims. Make's 'em look pretty foolish.

 Note that this was posted in my comments section and I chose to give it added prominence.  This is getting good.  Want to read even more interesting stuff?  Go here to follow the conversation at BlackFive!

Yes.

You read that right.

BlackFive channeled the opposition into an area of his choosing and with the natural aggressiveness of a team of highly skilled Infantrymen, initiated contact.

The oppositions response was...as expected...lacking.

Required reading for this weekend is this post of BlackFive's answer to questions regarding the F-35's cost....and then this post on ARES seeking to debunk it.

Quite simply....ARES post ran into an L-Shaped Ambush and is no longer combat effective.

BLACKFIVE strikes back on F-35 costs!

Thanks Bruce for sending me this article!  


UPDATE:  Check out the comment from the Speech Writer/Deputy Communications Director from the US House Armed Services Committee.  BlackFive has the ears of policy makers on Capital Hill.  I'm beyond impressed.

Gentlemen, I present to you the real truth on F-35 costs.  Not the fantasy land dribble spouted by some, but the stone cold truth...and its from none other than one of the big boys on the internet when it comes to defense issue--- Black Five!  I shamelessly post the article in its entirety here.  Read it and weep F-35 critics.

If you've been paying attention to the battle for US air dominance, you might be, like me, a little wary of the comparisons and the rhetoric.  Since there are numbers flying all over the place with regards to cost (mostly from PR firms), I thought we ought to take a look at what the REAL cost of an F-35 is...and we'll look at it in the same terms that the DoD/USAF use to evaluate the bids.
First, we need to talk in terms of 2010 dollars.  We’re talking about what is known as the Unit Recurring Fly Away cost (URF) for a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant (the type the Air Force is buying).  In 2010 terms, it will cost about $65 million dollars.
 
Whoa, wait a minute, you say, I’ve seen costs as high as $110 million a copy!

I’m sure you have.  But they don’t reflect the URF.  Instead they may reflect the Total Ownership Cost (TOC) - the cost of everything necessary to operate the aircraft over the span of its service life - or any of a number of other costs used in the project for various purposes, but it won’t reflect the one we should be most concerned with, the URF.
 
Confused yet?
 
Think of buying a new car.  You go in, look at the sticker price and ask the sales person, “how much will it cost me to drive this car off the lot?”   He or she is going to give you a cost at or near the sticker price.  You’re going to negotiate it down and, if you strike a deal, you’ll drive it off the lot for that negotiated price.  That’s the URF in a nutshell.

With me so far?
 
But does that cost reflect the TOC?
Of course not.
Gas and oil.  Extra cost.  Maintenance.  Extra cost.  Extended warranty.  Extra cost.  Parts.  Extra cost. Labor.  Extra cost.   New tires.  Extra cost. Etc. In fact, if you take all of those costs associated with owning, driving and maintaining the car over the years you own it you’ll find that TOC to be significantly higher than the cost to drive it off the lot (URF).

Of course that’s the case for any fighter aircraft.  However, in the media, the price you see applied to the F-35 may reflect the higher TOC and not the URF.  When such a cost basis is used without identifying it, you end up comparing apples and pomegranates.  The TOC is not what it will cost to fly the plane off the lot.

As an example, imagine the original cost of the B-52.  Now imagine – with the aircraft having been in constant service for 50 years or more – the total cost of ownership.   The difference is going be huge.  We could easily see a difference of several hundred million dollars per aircraft between URF and TOC as fuel, maintenance, upgrades, modifications, parts, labor, crew costs, and basing costs are all added to the aircraft’s original price, correct?  Imagine seeing the TOC for a B-52 represented as the URF.  You’d say “no way, we can’t afford it”.
 
So, given that understanding, what will it cost us to fly the aircraft off the dealer’s lot (URF)?  Again, in 2010 dollars, assuming all the aircraft originally contracted for are bought (2,443) and production can begin in a timely manner, a CTOL variant F-35 is going to cost $65 million to fly away.  The Marine variant, the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) will be in the $75 million range and the CV version (more robust frame/undercarriage built for carrier operations) for the Navy in the $70ish million range. 
I briefly talked about other versions of cost associated with this or any other defense project.  They are only meaningful within the government/defense procurement community and are used in reporting and monitoring each program within that community.  They have no real relevance to the URF but are sometimes quoted in the media as reflecting that price.  They provide another example of the wildly divergent costs we see.

As an example, one cost used is APUC or Average Process Unit Cost.  Essentially they take the URF and add some other costs to it (see chart) to arrive at that cost.  There’s another called PAUC or Program Acquisition Unit Cost.  Again, in the case of PAUC, URF has some selected costs added to it to arrive atthe particular cost. They’re not costs we should be concerned with as they deal more with program costs over the life of the aircraft (as well as some R &D costs) than the eventual cost per plane to fly away. If you see a cost of $93 million per copy floating around out there, for instance, it is likely the PAUC cost as reflected in the chart. Again, that’s not the cost per plane to fly it away (URF).

Finally, just because it is interesting, let’s talk about something else associated with cost and also not properly compared.

So, I think we can agree that we can fly an Air Force F-35 CTOL away for about $65 million (2010 dollars). But I can fly a 4th generation fighter away for, say, $50 million – why not build a whole bunch of those for less money?

Two reasons – they’re significantly inferior in technology and not very stealthy at all. And that $50 million really doesn’t reflect the true cost – not if you want to do anything with the aircraft other than just fly it around. The F-35 as delivered is mission capable. That means it comes with everything already on board to fly missions in combat. It’s combat ready. The 4th generation fighter? Extra cost is required to make it combat ready. You get a basic 4th generation fighter for the quoted price and then have to buy, at extra cost, what is necessary to configure it for combat. Once you pay to configure a 4th gen fighter to be mission capable, i.e., buy what it needs to do its mission in combat, its cost is pretty close to the same as a CTOL F-35 and it is still an inferior aircraft.

Bottom Line: The actual cost to get a new Air Force F-35 into service is about $65 million (2010 dollars). Claims of higher costs for an Air Force F-35 are usually misleading attempts to include years of operating and maintenance costs (costs applicable to all aircraft across the board regardless of generation) in the purchase price.

Just thought that you should be aware of that.
Let's hear what you think about this in the Comments.
Update 1:  Just heard from the House Armed Services Committee on this post:

Just to piggyback, the Committee is expected to pass an Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act today that authorizes GE-Rolls Royce to self fund  their F35 engine. Since the F35 contract will last 3 decades, the Pentagon originally planned for an annual competition for sustainment and procurement costs. The short term cost of developing the GE engine was deemed too high by the Defense Department, and they canceled the program, ignoring the hazards in handing a $1 billion engine contract to a monopoly. With the Pratt & Whitney engine is already $3.5 billion over budget and wrought with thrust and nozzle problems, the General Electric proposal to pay out of pocket couldn’t have come at a better time.
So in the spirit of your post, today Congress is in a unique position to significantly mitigate the costs of the F-35 program, with no further financial obligation from the Pentagon. We get taxpayer free competition for JSF engine contracts, avoid the pitfalls of a $100 billion Pratt & Whitney monopoly that’s already taking Congress to the bank, keep thousands of employees working, and finally will start to reap the rewards of industry-led acquisition reform. In short, the precise type of reform that the Pentagon and Congress have been pleading with the defense industry to institute for years.
John Noonan
Speechwriter & Deputy Communications Director
U.S. House Armed Services Committee

Update 2:  Got a question about how much the ball park cost for upgrading a 4th gen fighter to combat mission capable?
$10-15,000,000 which makes it about the same cost as the F35.  But you don't get the next gen technology, weapons, capabilities, etc. for that price.

Wow.

Just f*cking wow.

We've all been deceived.  And those that were spouting the various falsehoods know better.

Amazing.

RG-35 4x4 Data Sheet.

Ares broke the story, Defense Tech has the video...I have the data sheet.


baes_pdf_ds_rg35_4x4

What real training looks like.

Marines and Sailors of 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, conduct counter-improvised explosive device training May 6 at Marine Corps Base Hawaii's Boondocker Training Area. During the portion of the exercise shown, they used IED simulators, which produce a puff of smoke and an audible bang. Navy corpsmen and Marines to reacted to the simulated blast and treated mock casualties. The IED simulators were not heard outside the training area. America's Battalion, as 3/3 is also known, is scheduled to deploy later this year to Afghanistan. Provided by Marine Corps Base Hawaii - Kaneohe Bay. 

Yes.  Thats what real training looks like.  Not glamorous---nothing romantic...but vital nevertheless.

NG Firebird...the video.

A quick note to the Media Dept of Northrop Grumman. GUESS WHAT GUYS! No one gives a damn about the 'artistic' quality of your video. All we want are great views of the airplane...all this video jumping and other nonsense...save that for the music vids.

Looks great.

The F-35 Lightning II jet known as AF-7 arrives at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on Friday to begin its flight testing program. Flown by Maj. Scott “Shark” McLaren, U.S. Air Force Pilot with the 461st FLTS at Edwards AFB.

Helmand Night Life. Photos by Cpl. M. Mancha

COMBAT OUTPOST OUELLETTE, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – A Marine with 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, sleeps next to his tank after a hard day’s work. The night breeze keeps the Marines cool when they sleep outside under the moonlit sky.

COMBAT OUTPOST OUELLETTE, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – A tank rolls into position at the outpost late at night after a recent overwatch mission. The tanks with 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, weigh about 70 tons and can hold more than 500 gallons of fuel. Their AGT-1500 turbine engines push out up to 1,500 horsepower.

COMBAT OUTPOST OUELLETTE, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – A Marine with 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, takes in the scenery atop a tank. COP Ouellette sits on a hill that allows the Marines on guard duty to have a better view of the area.

COMBAT OUTPOST OUELLETTE, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – A Marine plays a game on his portable media player as the moon rises over the horizon behind the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. The Marines and sailors say it’s a treat to sleep outside because they get to see a sky that’s untainted by artificial light. They stay pretty busy during the day, so at night, when all becomes calm, the Marines try to unwind by playing video games or cards and sleeping after a hard day’s work.

COMBAT OUTPOST OUELLETTE, Helmand province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Marines unwind and play a friendly game of cards while listening to music after a hard day’s work. This scene is a common nightly ritual the Marines do to help them escape the stress of a deployed environment.

Was the modified Black Hawk a modern version of the Credible Sport?

Question.  Is the modified Black Hawk that 'controlled crashed' into Bin Laden's compound just a modern day version of the C-130 Credible Sport?  By that I mean are we seeing a one off 'Black Project' that was used to ensure the element of surprise?

Rationale.
1.  The trade offs in performance expressed by various aviation experts would seem to make this a not very worthy (even) limited production airframe.
2.  Failure of JSOC to authorize an airstrike on the remnants of the airframe after it was discovered that a large portion remained.
3.  The presence of other airplanes that did not have the same treatment.

Speculation.
1.  I've heard many "Former" Special Ops people state that the SEALs leaving on one helicopter was part of the plan.
2.  The 160th has the best helicopter pilots in the US, if not the world flying for them.  Surely they would have been aware of the issues surrounding performance with landing within the walls of the compound.
3.  They rehearsed this mission several times before (probably in Colorado to simulate the altitude) and would be well aware of the performance issues.

It is my contention that this is simply a hastily designed, special mission helicopter for this one job.  Aviation experts might be chasing ghosts.

UPDATE:

Commenter "me" reminded me that the purposeful crash landing of a helicopter into a compound of a high value target has been done before...Operation Ivory Coast.  Better known as the Son Tay Raid.

Quote of the day. May 7, 2011.

Lightning Commitment
"[The F-35] is our highest priority program. Air superiority is something we absolutely have to have, operationally, forever. And so, we're going to get that program delivered."
—Frank Kendall, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, meeting with defense reporters in Washington D.C., April 20, 2011.

Col. Morgan-real American hero... / Bell Helicopter...get a freaking clue.

Big Time Apologies to Col Morgan.

Big Time Hat Tip to SMSGT MAC for getting me the article and his citation.

Bell Helicopter get a freaking clue.

I ran an earlier post here, where I questioned what Col Morgan was doing at the Bell Helicopter plant in the context of the US Army about to run a competition for their next generation scout helicopter and whether his appearing in the video amounted to product endorsement.

Bell Helicopter deceived me.  Either intentionally or unintentionally.  The results were the same.

They used a real life American hero for an advertisement when he was there to simply thank them for their product that he used to save lives.

Excerpts from the narrative that accompanied Lt. Col. Mike Morgan’s Silver Star:
“His heroic actions and those of the aircrews he led were singularly responsible for saving American lives that were on the brink of being overrun by a determined enemy insurgents of numerically superior force.”

“LTC Morgan’s quick reaction, skillful employment of his and other attack weapon systems, and mastery coordinating multiple aircraft over a target simultaneously resulted in a confirmed three insurgents confirmed killed and an estimated 20-30 unconfirmed.”

“LTC Morgan, with his aircraft munitions expended, determined that American lives were at risk. He quickly decided to make two additional direct passes with his team, enabling his copilots to use their M4 rifles to suppress insurgents attempting to maneuver and over-take the pinned down route clearance team lead vehicle. His actions provided critical time and space to enable the vehicle to maneuver out of the kill zone and back to the north.”