This is....embarrassing.

Embarrassing! 

via CBS St Louis.US

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – In the midst of Marine Week with tanks, guns, and heavy weapons parked on lawns all over downtown, the Mayor is wondering how two unarmed prowlers out-fought and robbed three Marines on the street.
Police report that two Marines in their early 20s were walking near the Soldier’s Memorial downtown around 2:30 Monday morning, when two suspects in their 20s approached. According to the police report, the suspects tried to sell the Marines jewelry and then an argument led to a fight.
Police say one of the suspects punched a Marine. Another suspect reportedly took a pocket knife from the other Marine and poked him with it, causing a minor cut. The Marines told police the suspects took one of their wallets and ran away.
Police say a third Marine was also present, but was not fully involved in the fight.
“We take this story at face value and we’re going to investigate it,” said Police Chief Dan Isom.
In the hallways of police headquarters, some police officials were struggling to understand the incident, saying it didn’t sound right.
Even Mayor Francis Slay reacted to the news with skepticism, wondering how three Marines, one of whom was carrying a knife, would lose their knife and a wallet to two un-armed men.
“They were in an altered state because they had a fair amount to drink and it was 2:30 in the morning,” Slay said. ”The Marines are great to St. Louis and certainly this is not indicative of Marine Week.”
But a Marine spokesman shed more light on the mugging, suggesting that the Marines turned the other cheek to avoid violence.
“Marines have been given rules of engagement not to engage in any violence except to protect their lives,” said Marine Spokeswoman Capt Kate Vanden Bossche.
When asked if the Marines have essentially been told to hand over their wallets in St. Louis, rather than fight to protect their property, Vanden Bossche said: “If someone is in such dire need that they need to rob someone,  I don’t think that’s a fight Marines need to get into.”
A Marine press release on the attack indicates how the fight ended: ”After a brief altercation, the parties were separated with the help of the third Marine and police were contacted. The Marines relinquished their wallets and both assailants fled the scene.”

Just fucking wow.

What unit is doing this "Marine Week" and did they do any Marine Corps Martial Arts Training?  This should have been ultimate open a can of whoop ass, be declared city heroes and drinks are on the house from every cop in the city.

Instead, everyone, everywhere is just saying...WHAT THE FUCK!

Sidenote.

Hey Capt Bossche.  Did you really mean to say that??????

APA and its Cabal declar war and the F-35 stealth debate.

John Reed enters the F-35 fray and gives no new information but continues Sweetman's line of thinking as far as the stealth characteristics of the airplane.  Pity.  I like the guys writing but it appears that he has been seduced by the Dark Lord.  Go to Defense Tech to get the full read but again, here are the tidbits that caught my eye.

The question was raised toward the end of the presser by an Italian journalist who referenced an “Australian source” postulating online that JSF partner nations are getting F-35s that aren’t as stealthy as the American fleet.

I desperately want to know who this Italian Journalist is!  Obviously part of the cabal and I under-estimated how far the tentacles of the Air Power Australia organization reach.  They have a lacky in the Italian press?!

So, there you have it. Moore kinda, sorta tried to say the Aussie report was bunk but didn’t really. Saying the plane is going to meet everyone’s needs doesn’t exactly give the definitive yes, export jets will be less stealthy than American ones or no, all JSFs have the same degree of low-observable tech aboard.

This is the part that annoys me to no end.  The guy cleared up the issue and only belief that the man is telling bald faced lies would lead one to think other wise.  The question was asked and answered. 

Which leaves a simple little question.

Why did someone tap Reed on the shoulder and prompt him to continue this story?

Because it serves the purposes of Air Power Australia and the Merry Band of Haters to attempt to keep this story front and center.

Did I say story?  Sorry.  Let me restate.

It serves Air Power Australia's purposes to keep this lie going as long as possible.  Its bunk and they know it!  But if it sows doubts among partner nations then all is well.


The problem is this.  How do you defend a program against blatant dis-information?


Answer.  You can't.  All you can do is muddle through.  

Well, not quite all you can do.  

What can Lockheed Martin do??????

THEY CAN MAN THE FUCK UP AND PULL ADVERTISING FROM PUBLICATIONS THAT ARE OUT TO KILL THEIR PRODUCTS!!!!!

Grow a pair boys.
  
In case you didn't know it...wars been declared!

Grand Logistics on Libyan Air Ops.

Grand Logistics crunches the numbers on the Libyan Air Ops.

It is definitely required reading.

Its also not pretty at all.  Again read the whole thing.  But this is his conclusion.

Thus weapon expenditure in 50 days of combat over Libya probably totals less than about 120 tonnes of ordnance and could be as little as 12 tonnes.

By way of comparison,a large aircraft carrier like the Nimitz class carries about 3,200 tonnes of ordnance,with the replenishment vessel which accompanies it carrying a similar amount.

It would be interesting to know how much ordnance is carried by the Royal Navy's Invincible class ships and also by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's replenishment vessels,unfortunately we do not know the answer to that but it is likely to be far higher than 120 tonnes.

If this doesn't scream...The Brits were wrong on the SDSR....The Brits were wrong to retire the Harriers...The Brits were wrong to gut their Navy....


Then nothing will...

The good news for the UK?  IT'S NOT TOO LATE!  SAVE THE ROYAL NAVY!

Its all about ballistics!

Massive hat tip to Neptunus Lex...who would've thought a 'fly guy' would be interested in small arms???

Marine Corps Quotes

David Cenciotti on Italian Call 2011.

I've got a soft spot for Southern Europe.  They're getting screwed by the North (Germany) yet still stay in the fight and are working their way through the drama.  Luv you guys...stay strong.  But I digress.  These photo's from David's blog are worth a look and there are plenty more.  Take a look.

Pic of the day. June 22, 2011.

Two US Marine Corps MH-53E Super Stallion helicopter crews perform an aerial refueling training exercise with a KC-130J Super Hercules tanker crew above the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5) in Mediterranean Sea on 10 June 2011. The helicopters are assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (Reinforced), attached to the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group, which is conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the US 6th Fleet area of responsibility. The deployed KC-130J crew is assigned to Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252 (VMGR-252) at MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina.

Wonder Woman to the rescue

Wonder Woman No. 601 by *AlexGarner

Ya know.  I don't know the guy that's in charge over at Aviation Week but the guy must be about ready to punch walls.


I mean seriously.


His star reporter has a hard-on for the F-35....and he can't get the boy  under control.

So what does an editor in chief do?

Do you sack the guy?

No.

A couple of other publications would be all over him.

Do you suspend him?

Naw...tried that, it didn't work.

So what do you do?

You have other reporters on your staff write corrections.

Let me introduce you to Amy Butler aka Wonder Woman.

Partners to Get Equal JSF Stealth Posted by Amy Butler at 6/22/2011 9:17 AM CDT

JSF partners and customers will be able to have the same stealth characteristics as the U.S., according to Joe Dellavedova, the F-35 program office spokesman. 

There is a caveat: "each partner will have the option to add 'unique' capabilities that may have minor LO characteristics," he tells Aviation Week. One example, he says, is the addition of a drag chute, an item Norway has eyed. 

Such "capabilities may have minor implications on LO characteristics," Dellavedova says. Dellavedova made his comments in response to follow up questions during the F-35 briefing at this week's Paris Air Show. During the briefing, deputy program manager USAF Maj. Gen. CD Moore and Lockheed Martin executive vice president Tom Burbage seemed flatfooted at a question posed by a journalist asking whether a report in the Australian media that the radar cross section capability would be degraded for the partners. 

Moore said, "All I can tell you is we have every intent on meeting the KPPs on the aircraft as designated by our partners," adding that the report was "speculative." 

After the briefing, a program source also said the discussion about RCS is largely classified.

Totally different from Sweetman's earlier post huh?

Aviation Week must be in turmoil!

I wish I could be a fly on those walls.  Watch your back Amy!  The Dark Lord might be after you!

Sweetman bashes the F-35 in 3...2...1...

I'd say that I was surprised but I'm not.

I'd say that I'm disappointed but that's not strong enough.

I guess the best description is...Par for the course.

Read it here but check out this turn of phrase.

The two program leaders broke left and right and demonstrated evasive maneuvers that would have done credit to an Su-35 formation tackling a salvo of AMRAAMs. The report was speculative with no access to program information. The partners have been fully involved in defining requirements. The F-35 will meet all its requirements. And so on and so forth. Following it was enough to cause a G-LOC episode.

Sweetman is spoiling for a fight on the JSF.  He walked into that briefing room ready to confront the program officials, not gather information.

Who was it that asked the question I wonder?  Was it one of Sweetman's sycophants?  Probably.

He wants a fight so badly that he's seeing boogey men where none exist.

Damn bro.  You're better than this.

F-35 expected to enter service in 2015 (my bet would be mid 2014)!

Via...Aviation Week????!!!!

USMC Expect First F-35B In Service Early 2015

Jun 19, 2011 
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

The U.S. Marine Corps expects to get its version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into service in late 2014 or early 2015, a two-to-three-year slip, says Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, the commandant for aviation.
He is confident the short-takeoff vertical-landing (Stovl) F-35B will be ready for use by then if the fixes in place for technical issues proceed as planned, he tells Aviation Week during a June 19 interview in advance of the Paris air show.
As a contingency plan, the general showed no interest in procurement of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, which are being bought by the Navy. “Plan B is to try harder” at JSF, he says.
In the meantime, Robling says that the current AV-8B Harriers and F-18 Hornets can continue to handle the attack mission. These can undergo service-life-extension programs only “to a degree,” he says. In the middle of the next decade, it is “not viable” to continue extending the lives of these aircraft.
“SLEPs are not easy and they are expensive,” Robling says. Taking the existing Marine Corps Hornets to about 10,000 hr. of service extends the life by two to four years depending on how the aircraft are used. He notes that a Stovl capability is needed for the Marine operational concept.
Recently, Harriers were used for strikes in Libya owing to the lack of availability of a refueling tanker for other aircraft suitable for the mission, he adds. The Harriers, though, aren’t without their problems. Extra water is needed for takeoff in Stovl mode for these missions, he said.

The two-to-three-year slip was brought on by outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision this year to put the Stovl JSF on

“probation.”

“That is a poor choice of words,” Robling says. “This is a time for us to get these fixes done.”

The general reports that the testing of the B continues faster than expected this year, after a lackluster showing last year. As a result, the Marines have opted to remove two Bs from the test schedule earlier than planned to undergo modification in preparation for shipboard testing on the Wasp amphibious assault ship this fall. Robling says this accelerated modification plan “takes out risk” from the program.

Boy talk about a buried story!

But I won't complain too much.  At least Amy reported the news.

The Marine Corps is planning on an initial operational capability by 2015.

In Marine land that means that it better be ready by mid 2014 or you'll see an adverse fitness report inserted into your SRB.

I wonder what the haters, spinners and bullshitters have to say now?

The Navy picked the wrong V/STOL UAV.

Yesterday I ran a post on the FireScout UAV that got downed in Libya.  In response to that post BB1984 made this statement to my question ... are rotary winged UAVs an evolutionary dead end?

To get back to your original questions:

Ref 1: Sure rotary wing UAVs are more vulnerable. The trade off is a lot of neat things come along with VTOL. Helicopters are more vulnerable than jets, it doesn't mean you replace all your helicopters with fast movers.

Ref 3: Given the choice of operating fixed wing vs. rotary wing for maritime patrol and ASW, everyone picks fixed wing. This line of thinking is why I think the Osprey is criminally under-used in future navy planning, but I digress . . On anything smaller than a through deck cruiser, fixed wing isn't really an option so VTOL vehicles have a place for everything smaller. Also VTOL drones (usually but not always rotary wing) allow aviation capability on even smaller ships than helicopters both because of physical size and because losing one is not as big a deal as it is with a manned helo. The reasons there is a future for maritime VTOL UAVs are the same as the reason there is a future for maritime helicopters.

Ref 4: It's not a one to one comparison. Firescout is about 1/7th the size of a Navy Helo by weight. Having several drones instead of one helo lets you cover more water and gives resilience against mechanical failure and combat losses. this combines with the unmanned nature of the beast to let commanders use drones much more aggressively. If you look at how much capability you can get out of a fixed amount of deck space, support crew, and fuel, smaller UABs will look better in many applications by weight of numbers, not individual platform capability.

The theory is moot however. The LCS is a disaster and the targeting capabilities that UAVs bring are only significant to a Navy that arms surface ships to kill other surface ships and attack shore targets, things the US Navy has no requirement for nor interest in

After reading that I reconsidered and arrived at this conclusion.

Rotary winged UAVs do have a place.

The Navy just picked the wrong one to develop.  They should have picked the Eagle Eye.  Specs from Wikipedia.

Specifications

General characteristics

• Crew: 0
• Length: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m)
• Wingspan: 24 ft 2 in (7.37 m)
• Main rotor diameter: 2× 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)
• Height: 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)
• Main rotor area: 157 ft² (14.6 m²)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW207D turboshaft, 641 hp (478 kW) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 225 mph (360 km/h)
• Endurance: 6 hours
• Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,096 m)

Armament

• 200 lb (91 kg) payload

.

First thing that stands out in my mind is the lack of weapons carriage and the relatively short endurance.

The revolution in munitions toward smaller more effective weapons makes weapons carriage moot and proper engineering can solve the endurance problem.  

The Navy played it safe when it came to equipping its surface ships with UAVs.  Because it did, it missed the opportunity to team with the US Coast Guard on the development of this revolutionary machine.  Instead of being bold, they entered the field of UAVs in a half hearted way and we're seeing half hearted results.

Its not too late.

Fly Eagle Eye!

Pilots Discuss the F-35