MUST READ!! McQuain strikes back!

The time has come.

We finally have a counterweight to all the nonsense that is being spouted by the critics of the F-35 program.

Bruce McQuain has written an article for the Washington Examiner that I will be forwarding to certain 'critics', writers and even to my Congressional Delegation.

It is a must read.

By Bruce McQuain

Created Apr 22 2011 - 10:00am

Budget cuts - 400 billion from DoD? What goes, what stays?

 

Having lived and served in the military during the post-Vietnam drawdown and the end of the Cold War "peace dividend," I'm very aware of the negative impact cuts at DoD had on military readiness during those times.
I'm also very aware of how expensive it was in the long run to bring our military back up to necessary levels again, both in troops and equipment.
That's not to say that DoD can't save money and shouldn't be tasked to do so, but it also warns us that we need to be exceedingly careful when we commit to cuts there so we are sure that we cut unnecessary costs and not necessary future capbilities.  Yet there are again calls out there to cut capabilites, not just cost.
What am I talking about?
Amazingly after cutting back on the F-22 raptor from an initial buy that was supposed to be in the several hundreds, we ended up with only 187. Consider that this 5th generation air superiority fighter was to replace approximately 800 4th generation air superiority fighters.  Is it any wonder, when you cut production like that, that the cost of the airplane shoots up over a 100 million per copy? Of course not. 
Not only did we see the cost increase, but we cut our capability.  Anyone who can make the argument that 187 aircraft can replace 800 others in the same role, do it well and cover all our possible future commitments and contingencies is a wizard. Even the Airforce made it clear that at a minimum they needed about 240 of the aircraft just to cover most of the contingencies they identified.
We're hearing rumbles now that the same sort of thing is going to happen to the F-35.  The F-35 is different than the F-22 in that it is a strike fighter - meaning it is used in multiple roles, but mostly in support of troops on the ground.  It will be the most advanced fighter in the world. Already the F-35's more advanced stealth technology is being streamed to the F-22 to upgrade its stealth capabilities.
We have plans on the books to build 2,443 of the F-35. At that production number, the F-35 will cost about the same as a mission capabile 4th generation fighter we're flying today - except it will be stealthy and instead of looking like a beach ball on enemy radar, it will be more like a BB if it is seen at all.
It will bring advanced avionics as well. A fused sensor system will be a huge upgrade from the federated system now operational in 4th generation fighters. A federated system means that a pilot, in addition to flying the aircraft, has to monitor all sorts of sensor displays and absorb the information on them. The "fusion" of that information takes place in the pilot's head as he tries to decide what is or isn't a threat. In a fused system, the aircraft's software does that for the pilot and on a single display in front of him identifies threats and helps prioritize and engage them as well. He concentrates on the mission and flying the aircraft.
That's a huge technological leap forward, increases survivability incredibly and is exactly how we'll maintain our 60 year edge in the skies.  And don't forget - from 5th generation fighters 6th generation fighters are born.
But if we begin chopping and chipping away at those planned numbers, and given that we've already radically reduced our F-22 fleet, what F-35s we build are going to be very expensive. Not only that, but reduced numbers will hurt our capabilities.  Less airplanes mean fewer availble to fulfill the multiple roles this aircraft must fill.  And that could mean troops in combat don't have the close air support they may desperately need at a critical time.
While I support spending cuts in general and cuts in cost at DoD specifically, I draw the line at programs where such cuts cost us capability.  That would be the case with cuts to the F-35 program. With China  in the early stages of developing their own stealth 5th generation fighter and Russia well on the way with its fighter, cuts in our program would be cuts to capability and, in the long run, possibly jeopardize our national security.
Intelligent cuts to costs at the Pentagon are a no-brainer. No one is arguing against them. However, cuts to capabilities are not "intelligent cuts" and that's why the F-35 program, among other programs that increase and maintain our combat edge, should be left alone.

Hey Sweetman!  Game-Set-Match!

100 for BF3

Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was at the controls for the 100th flight of F-35B BF-3. The flight was from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. Five F-35s have reached or surpassed the 100th flight mark.

Fan accounting and the F-35.

I continue to be amazed at the 'fan accounting' regarding the F-35.  Want an example of the confusion involved and why I find Bill Sweetman (I like the guy but his fixation on the F-35 is not giving me the answers that I would normally expect) so infuriating?

This discussion on Information Dissemination sheds the light.

First Galrahn (author of the article)...
Joint Strike Fighter is an acquisition tragedy. The estimate for the per unit F-35 is only $25 million more than the F-22, and that is before a single F-35 is operational. This program is also part of Secretary Gates legacy, and it isn't pretty.

Then the rest of the comments...

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan 

The R&D costs for the F-22 are now sunk costs, while the current marginal unit cost for additional F-22 airframes is reputed to be roughly $160 million.

Someone please correct me on that last figure for the F-22's marginal unit cost, if you have updated information.

Paul Wayner

I must be misreading something, isn't the Unit Cost for the F-22 listed as 67000/188~=358.2 while the F-35 is 379392/2457~=154.4? 

 

 

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan 

The R&D costs for the F-22 are now sunk costs, while the current marginal unit cost for additional F-22 airframes is reputed to be roughly $160 million.

Someone please correct me on that last figure for the F-22's marginal unit cost, if you have updated information.

Paul Wayner  

$160M marginal cost for the F-22 sounds right although the marginal cost for the F-35 looks below $100M (from those numbers). 

 

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan  

The F-35's marginal cost is less than the F-22s, but the F-35 cannot come close to covering the F-22's air superiority mission when operating in the kind of high threat environment that will exist in the 2020 timeframe and beyond.

On one simple blog post we go from the author of the story stating that the F-35 is a tragedy...then when his readers comment we finally arrive at the truth.

The F-35 costs less than the F-22 and the costs are being driven down.

The F-35 discussion is no longer fact driven.  Its all spin by its critics all the time.

My complaint is simple.  If the biggest blogs on the net (talking Information Dissemination and ARES) aren't giving their readers the right answers then how can we ever learn the truth?

UPDATE:
If you read the article then you'll also note the cost increase in the LHA-6 program for the third ship.  If I'm not mistaken then that increase has everything to do with a design change adding a well deck to the ship...not an increase in production costs.

B1-B Lancer Aerial Refueling Mission

A B-1B Lancer, from the 37th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, returns to mission after receiving fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker, assigned to the 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, while flying over Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, March 29

All photos by MSgt William Greer, USAF

NAVAIR Photo Releases.

Fire Scout prepares for CENTCOM deployment

The Navy’s Fire Scout Unmanned Air Vehicle system is about to begin its first land-based deployment to U.S. Central Command this month.

The Fire Scout effort is led by the Navy and Marine Corps Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Air System program office, PMA-266, at Patuxent River, Md. In response to an urgent needs requirement from DoD’s Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance task force, the team rapidly modified, tested and verified the Fire Scout system to adjust to land-based operations and the demanding environmental conditions in CENTCOM.

“This is an exciting time for the Fire Scout program,” said Capt. Tim Dunigan, PMA-266 program manager. “The system has proven its capability on its two ship-based deployments, and I am confident it will perform well in CENTCOM.”

A combined team of military, civilian and contractor personnel loaded 90,000 pounds of equipment, including three aircraft, two ground control stations (GCS) and associated hardware, on U.S. Air Force C-5 and C-17 aircraft. The C-5 left with the GCS and hardware April 8, and the C-17 deployed April 13 with three air vehicles.

“It’s very unique for an aircraft to deploy directly from Pax River,” Dunigan said. “The activity conducted by our test team at Webster Field was done exceptionally well. We were able to meet tight schedule timelines so we could support the warfighter as soon as possible.”

The Fire Scout will provide hundreds of hours of Full Motion Video in theater supporting U.S. Army and coalition forces during its year-long deployment. The system will be operated by contractor personnel.

The Fire Scout’s first flight in CENTCOM is expected this month. The system is also currently deployed aboard the USS Halyburton (FFG 40) tallying more than 200 flight hours to date in support of humanitarian assistance and counter-piracy missions. 

Photo release: Third F-35B aircraft completes STOVL mode flight

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - Over an Atlantic test range near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Fred "Tinman" Schenk completes the first flight of F-35B test aircraft BF-4 in short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) mode. The flight marks growing maturity of STOVL flight with the third F-35B aircraft at NAS Patuxent River performing STOVL test missions. BF-4 is also the only mission systems test aircraft flying Block 1.0 software to fly in STOVL mode. The F-35B STOVL variant and F-35C carrier variant are undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet. Photos courtesy of Lockheed Martin.

A theory on the J-20.

I haven't heard this theory regarding the J-20 and I want to throw it out there...

What we do know.

1.  The Chinese are developing weapons to not only exploit perceived Western weakness but also to match our capabilities and if possible exceed them.
2.  The Chinese have a hacking enterprise second to none.  An enterprise that fetched them details on the F-35...presumably on its avionics package.

What has been speculated.

1.  The J-20 is a large airplane to allow it to operate across the expanses of the Pacific.
2.  In its production version it will sport thrust vectoring and F-22 class engines.
3.  Its extremely agile and achieves it in a unique way not currently being utilized (exactly) in the West.

What I'm guessing.

The J-20 is a long range missile truck that operates under the assumption that maneuvering is irrelevant.  A Chinese version of helmet mounted cuing...rearward facing AESA and some form of EOTS would in essence change what is needed in modern day aerial combat.

If the Chinese have been reading and keeping up with Air Force and Navy Journals regarding the use of Electronic Attack...the possibility of microwave and solid state lasers in the near future and the Achilles heel of power generation then it would lead them to build what we consider a huge fighter.

My guess is that the Chinese have put it all together, possibly much quicker than we did, with primary considerations NOT being agility but instead power production, long range, extremely large internal weapons bays and the ability to carry large all aspect sensors.

Just a guess but I can't get past how big this sucker is!

AH-1Z / UH-1Y vid...

NATO, Europe and the US.

Military.com has an article detailing the movement of a US Army Combat Brigade out of Europe.  I find it surprising that moving so small a formation could cause so much controversy.  Read the article but this stood out.

First this...

Moving the brigade would weaken the NATO alliance, said Ståle Ulriksen, chair of the Security and Conflict Management Department at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. Norway, for instance, went to Afghanistan, like the other European nations, "to show solidarity and to stay on the good side of the U.S. -- to be an ally," he said.
Ulriksen said that "free-riding" on the U.S. had enabled Europeans to avoid devising their own coordinated defense structures and that they should "grow up and take responsibility."
But he also said a European alliance was hard to imagine without the U.S. as leader.
"It's a kind of a comfortable situation. You have a leader no one disputes," he said. "What would be the alternative -- the British? The French? The Germans?"

and then this...

In the House, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spearheaded a plan last year to eliminate an Air Force fighter wing overseas, two Marine Corps infantry battalions on Okinawa -- and one Army brigade in Europe.
"NATO was a wonderful concept. But 61 years later, I think it's time to say our Western European allies should be on their own. We'll cooperate with them, but we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense," Frank said.

In the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, whose state stands to gain troops at Fort Bliss in the restructuring, was advocating similarly.
"For the future security posture of U.S. military forces and for the fiscal health of our nation, [the] military construction agenda should be guided by these words: build in America," she wrote in Politico last year. "Some argue that the U.S. overseas presence provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has proven otherwise."

Long story short.

US forces will be coming home.  Europe will have to stand on its own two feet.  The alliance, if its to survive, must evolve.

Notice one thing.

You have a prominent Republican and Democrat saying the same thing.  They're reading the political winds.  Forward deployed forces on even allied soil is something that the American people are tiring of.

Bell Helicopter - Scouts Out Website.

Bell Helicopter has a website up that I hadn't seen before...its called "Scouts Out" and its advertising the upgrades to the OH-58.

Bad news EuroCopter fans.

The US Army looks like they're just going to do an upgrade to an existing system and the competition for a new observation helicopter is going away.  In a way its positively brilliant.  An upgrade.  No worries about a competition.  Easily approved by Congress.

To be honest I'm not sure if the OH-58 will be more capable than the UH-72 but its here now and good enough, appears to be enough these days.

F-35B BF-4 Flies STOVL Mode

BF-4, the fourth F-35 short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) test aircraft, flies mode 4 for the first time on April 7, 2011, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Mode 4 engages the F-35 STOVL’s shaft-driven LiftFan system that allows the aircraft to hover, perform short takeoffs and land vertically. BF-4 is the first aircraft equipped with full mission systems to fly mode 4.

New Marine AH-1Z attack helicopter ready for war

Is the war in Libya about immigration?

Think Defence has an article in which he goes to great pains to lay the problems that British forces are having mounting a credible attack on Libya on the back of their involvement in Afghanistan.  He further goes on to state this...

It is therefore in the UK’s interests to have a stable country on the southern border of Europe, a nation that is not a source of tens of thousands of refugees that Italy will happily rubber stamp permits for and send them on their way to the land of milk and welfare honey, the UK that is, and a nation that could be a valuable trading partner.

Is this what its all about?

Is this why the UK and France were so gung-ho about military action in Libya?

If so, then all the talk about a humanitarian military action was just a cover.  A flimsy cover but a cover non-the-less.

It appears that many of my friends in Europe have been holding back some vital information.  It also explains why the effort has been so haphazard.  If the real goal isn't regime change but rather to prevent illegal immigration then that goal has already been achieved...

Force Protection. The Marine Corps growth industry.

It hasn't happened yet but it will.

Whether its an Afghan recruit that is a sleeper walking up to his trainers and blowing himself up...which sadly has happened several times but is under reported...

Or having a 'refugee' board a helicopter to be transported from a flood zone and detonating himself once the plane is in the air...a big fear of mine during the operation to help Pakistan during the floods....

Or even the threat that boat borne explosive devices will be used against our ships in Bahrain...

Force Protection is a growth industry for the Marine Corps and one that we should be into in a huge way.  Whether deploying as ships company or patrolling the waters around fleet ships in port, this is a mission that the Marine Corps should taking up from the Coast Guard right now.

Equipment is necessary and fortunately the Navy is already procuring just the type of boats the Marines need.  The Metal Shark...

Brochure 5774

The issue isn't that the Coast Guard or the Navy aren't capable...its that they're designed more for a law enforcement type action...not to act as an anti-terrorist force.

When dealing with someone willing to die for their cause then its a war time situation on friendly or allied soil.  Master-at-arms aren't what you want.

A Marine Rifle Man is what you need.

While we're preparing to add boat spaces to Marine Special Operations perhaps we should do the same with our FAST Companies and add a few more so that they can expand their mission.

Could the UK retake the Falklands?

Patrick made this statement...

Speaking of Argentina, if they tried to retake the Falklands today I seriously doubt the British would be able to defend their territory without seeking outside help. Without a carrier force, the U.K's only hope would be to throw the Argentinians back into the sea. Should they succesfully occupy the islands, it would be nearly impossible for the British to dislodge them on their own. I think if conflict returns to that region expect the British to ask the French, and maybe even the Italians or Spanish, to join the war and commit their carriers to the fight.

I agree.  Under the exact same circumstances the UK would not be able to retake the Falklands.  Mike at New Wars once lauded the Brits and there small carriers as being outstanding examples of what the US should follow.

Too bad they threw it all away.  Also notice that interoperability with the US Marines has been sacrificed in order to gain limited cross training with the US Navy.  In doctrine, and approach the Marines/Royal Navy are closer in philosophy than the Royal Navy, French Navy and US Navy are.

The French in Afghanistan.

Bryaxis sent me this vid (Thanks guy!  I guess I would label this counter point to my "bashing" of the EU..well done Bryaxis!)  One question though. 

The UK fought alone more effectively than NATO is against a more capable foe!

Grand Logistics came by and added this to the discussion on Libya...

Hello Solomon,

you hit the nail on the head there.

To understand what is going on you would need to read the Lisbon Treaty,Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Anglo French defence agreement.

That is a lot of dull reading but it can be summed up as follows:

Eliminate individual European nations' ability to conduct independent military operations by cutting force sizes and eliminating capabilities to enforce military integration.

Hence eliminating British aircraft carriers, there is a European agreement on creating a Pan European carrier group,and maritime patrol aircraft and probably the heavy tank fleet in future.

The idea being that all European countries will work together to project European power overseas.

Sarkozy and arch Europeanist Cameron appear to have seen Libya as a demonstration of European military power.

Hence U.S.S.Enterprise staying in the Arabian Sea and U.S.Air Force operations now drawing down as Obama lets them get on with it.

Good call Mr.President.

Cameron and Sarkozy have been rudely reminded of their military impotence.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy has been shown to be a sham.

Europe is looking a bit silly.

The United States has reinforced it's global dominance.


GrandLogistics.

What has me going from amused at the situation to being shocked is this simple fact.

The UK went up against a more powerful foe, at a greater distance from home, with a more challenging set of mission objectives than NATO is facing right now.

The UK beat the Argentinians.

This current conflict is in doubt.

Whether its because of politics.  Because of the UN mandate (essentially politics).  Or a lack of military capability (I would guess this is the main reason).  One thing is readily apparent.

If the current conflict is stressing resources then those resources need to be increased.

NATO is useless. The UK has shed its military power. The EU is nothing.

Let be clear on a couple of facts.

1.  This war in Libya shouldn't be a major lift for NATO.

2.  The UK faced more serious opposition alone in the fight against Argentina.

3.  The UK shed present day capability for the POSSIBILITY of future savings.

4.  The Germans practice an almost isolationist foreign policy and an aggressive trade policy.

5.  The smaller EU nations are punching above their weight but can't be expected to shoulder burdens in two war zones.

6.  French military power has been greatly over estimated.

7.  NATO is useless if not dead.

This from Reuters...

By Erik Kirschbaum and David Brunnstrom
BERLIN, April 15 (Reuters) - NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Britain voiced optimism on Friday that NATO allies would supply more combat planes for the Libyan mission, but Italy ruled out ordering its planes to open fire.
Britain and France are urging other NATO allies to provide more planes capable of hitting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's ground forces after Washington cut back its role in the operation and passed command onto NATO on March 31. I GUESS TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE ISN'T SO USELESS AFTER ALL...ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS A WAR THAT EUROPE WAS BEGGING TO GET INTO.  MEANWHILE IN THE US, EVERYONE EXCEPT NEO-CONS AND NO THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE US MILITARY, WANTED TO SIT THIS ONE OUT.  THIS IS AN ALLIANCE OF LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS THAT I THOUGHT I WOULD NEVER SEE.  A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.

"We have got indications that nations will deliver what is needed ... I'm hopeful that we will get the necessary assets in the very near future," Rasmussen told a news conference at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin.
The leaders of France, Britain and the United States published a jointly-written newspaper article on Friday vowing to keep up their military campaign until Gaddafi leaves power. Some countries, such as Russia, say that goes beyond the terms of a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising the campaign.
Libyan rebels have pleaded for more air strikes, saying they face a massacre from government artillery barrages in the besieged city of Misrata.
The United States and European NATO allies have so far rebuffed French and British calls to contribute more actively.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who has been lobbying other NATO allies to provide more strike aircraft, also said after talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that he was hopeful more strike assets would be made available. Asked if Britain might be prepared to contribute more combat aircraft if other allies did not step forward, Hague said: "We'll always keep that under review but ... as of today this question doesn't arise."WTF!!!!! THEY'RE PUSHING THE US TO CONTRIBUTE MORE AIRCRAFT BUT ITS UNDER REVIEW?  THE QUESTION DIDN'T ARISE???

How do you best describe the operation in Libya?

One word.

Clusterfuck.

How did he arrive at this?

Galrahn over at Information Dissemination has some 'interesting' thoughts on the second engine fire/explosion to occur to US Navy/Marine F/A-18C's within a month.  Read his whole article at his place but these are the statements that caught my attention.

My second thought is how the Joint Strike Fighter would have been FUBAR once the engine goes out. It is hard to believe the US Navy is still going down the one engine path.

My final thought is what a good job the pilot did getting the Hornet back on deck. There really is lots of good stuff here. Well done to the Navy for releasing the video, even in what is ultimately bad news (an engine blows up on a flight deck) there is a lot of great stuff in this simple video.

Wow.

An old airplane has suffered two engine mishaps in less than a month and we get into a debate on which is better...single or twin engines?

Galrahn knows better and has access to NAVAIR studies on the issue.  As Derek stated on his blog...

Two engines are not any better than one. It is a myth that all twin jets can survive on one engine. Not all systems are redundantly powered by both engines. Also if the failure is catastrophic it could kill the other engine too.

If you understand probability if you have two engines with the same rate of failure then you are doubling the chance of an engine failure over a single engined aircraft.

The F-8, A-4, and A-7 had similar safety records as all the other twin engine aircraft of their generation......

As far as the part about the pilot doing a good job...I agree.

As far as there being alot of good stuff on the video...totally disagree.  He lauds the crash crew for getting quickly to the crash but to be honest (unless he's never been up close to flight ops)...crash crews are on alert for all landings at military sites.  Additionally even if they weren't they'd be alerted after a pilot aborted his landing (especially during night ops)...but lastly...the main focus should be on a second engine going tits up.  I'm really surprised we aren't seeing a safety stand down so that these engines can be inspected.  Could ops tempo be interfering with fleet safety?

Comment of the Week. April 16, 2011.

I get tons of great comments during the weeks and I've decided to start doing a comment of the week post.  This week SMSgtMac wins the prize.  Here he's commenting on my post "JSF making progress"...

I'm not worried about the B at all. Among other things, I've been reviewing the history (not just the popular myths) about the LWF competition and subsequent acquisition of the F-16 and F-18, including what was called 'The Great Engine War'. Fascinatiing how history repeats itself with only minor differences. The Marines NEED the B model first and want it only because they need it. Their aviation track record for the last decade makes them look pretty smart, and like the other programs, everything with the B seems to be playing out as they have forseen. The B model is only the fourth Marine Air program in a row that I can think of that the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' have dumped on. So far the nabobs are proven to be 0 for 2 (V-22 and UH-1Y) about to go 0 for 3 (AH-1Z), and they can't point to anything concrete to hang a claim on they'll win the next one. The F-35 program overall can accrue development costs up to $1 under the equivalent of three separate development programs that would have occurred by developing these planes separately and the program is a bargain. The question was executability: could it be done? Guess what? the really 'hard' stuff IS done and now the SDD program is on the downhill slope. Are there challenges ahead? Sure- that's why you don't have every 'dotcom' shop or second/turd-world design house building latest-gen military aircraft. The second thing you'll never hear out of the weak sisters on the sidelines, is that even at 'Block 1' maturity, the F-35 is MORE effective and deadly than the LATEST F-16. BTW: The APA's biggest contribution is in the entertainment value derived from observing a spark chaser and a mechanical engineer trying to sound cogent on Computational Electromagnetics.

F-35B purchase reduced to 3...lies, damn lies and APA lies.

"Without going all Hearst" on ya, I've got to tell you how "Perplexed" I am at the decisions that our Congressional leaders have made when it comes to the F-35 program.

They have taken lies, damn lies and APA lies and used it to justify a slow down in the development of the B model.

The model that has the potential to be the glue of the international effort to get our allies to purchase this airplane.

I'm not talking about those that are already in the program...I'm talking about those that have or are making purchases that would make the F-35B the ideal airframe to operate from them.

Japan...it'll be looking to rebuild its industrial base...it had an entire F-2 squadron wiped out...Typhoon lovers are smoking crack if they really believe that it can win an order here.  Its twin engined but comparatively short legged and lacks capabilities.  Its barely ground attack capable.  Anti-shipping is definitely beyond its abilities.  Japan should be a no brainer for the F-35.

S. Korea...same as above without the industrial damage of the tsunami.

Singapore...with the proliferation of big deck LHD's in the Pacific, this island kingdom will not remain on the sidelines.  Its a natural.

Australia...talk about capability without ability!  Buy two LHD's without a fast jet to operate from them?  I don't see that lasting.  Besides, with the Air Force buying additional F/A-18's, it'll allow them to be more flexible in their purchasing decisions.

US...the big deck carriers are already on the accountants chopping blocks.  The need for 10 carriers is about to vanish.  This isn't exactly a bad thing.  What it will mean is that aircraft carriers will get back to 80+ aircraft on their decks again.  This might allow Marine Air to focus on the neck down strategy ....

Long story short...the whispering campaign by the APA, Sweetman and the rest of this cabal has obviously caught the ear of Congressional Staffers.

Conventional wisdom is wrong...but in this case its fashionable.  I can't wait until they're all crushed like grapes.