David's after a stealth Chinook now!

Interesting read....

Since the officials confirmed that 3 Chinooks were involved and given that a mixed formation of stealth and non-stealth helos would have rendered the entire formation clearly visible on radars and audible from distance, I believe that there must be also a modified MH-47 flying with the 160 SOAR. Unlike the Black Hawk, we have no photographic evidences of it, but I think that their existence is somehow confirmed by the fact that the officers admitted their presence on the scene. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that the sources are trying to deceive the public opinion when they say to the AP journalist that:

Read it all here.  I don't quite buy it but ...

CSI's Mountain Lion.

Thanks Jonathan for sending me this!  Much appreciated.  

Looks like CSI is trying to step up there game.  A few month ago when I wrote asking for specifications on the "Mountain Lion" they were quite closed lipped.  Polite, but politely refusing to give me any info.  Now they have out front for the whole world to see.  Refreshing if a little late.

NOTE:

Looks like this product has undergone a few design changes since the last time I saw pics of it.  Probably just cosmetic but changes never the less.  I'll try and find the pics.

ML

Special Forces Descend on Camp Atterbury

All photos by Staff Sgt D. Bruce.

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descend to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descends to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation.

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provide security along likely avenues of approach the rest of their team can cross a trail during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The 2nd-19th SFG were recently at Camp Atterbury for a week-long drill period.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group covers the rearguard as his team moves out after a break during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained Soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provides security for his team during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible.

The US Navy has lost its freaking mind.

From the USNI Blog...

“The last of the 14 Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that General Dynamics NASSCO is building in San Diego will be named after Cesar Chavez, the late civil rights and labor leader. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will visit NASSCO on Tuesday afternoon to make the formal announcement. Some members of the Chavez family are expected to be in attendance, says NASSCO, which recently laid the keel of the ship.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/16/navy-ship-be-named-after-cesar-chavez/


My opposition to this is definitely not racial.  Its not about not wanting to honor a person that some consider a civil rights leader and a union activist.

Its about not naming a naval vessel after a controversial figure.  What if an extremely conservative President is elected and he wants to name a ship after David Duke?

Sounds extreme but we're opening up the door with nonsense like this.  Time to set some kind of limit on this.  Unless the person was killed in combat then he must be dead for at least 100 years before he can be honored this way.

Something has to give on this stupidity!

But whats worse is that this smacks of using the Navy in an overtly political way.

How can I say that you ask?  Because the President's support among Hispanics is ebbing.  He's delivered a speech to them and received no bounce in his support.  Am I off the mark when I suspect that this is a bone tossed to a valued constituency?

Pic of the day. May 17, 2011.

F-35B 100th Vertical Landing

The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing variant test program achieved its 100th vertical landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on May 12, 2011. All four F-35B aircraft at NAS Patuxent River have contributed to the milestone.

Thompson muscles in on the F-35 cost debate...

Loren Thompson, never one to miss a good fight, adds his two cents to the current debate on F-35 costs.  Read it below...

Pentagon Planning To Spend $25 Billion On Music Bands

Actually, this posting is about the F-35 fighter. But the headline is correct -- the nation's military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years. In fact, if you add inflation and indirect costs like retirement benefits, the "then-year" cost of military bands is more like $50 billion. But here's the catch: I'm talking about the cumulative cost for military bands between now and the year 2065.
Ridiculous, right? By the time we get to 2065, the bands will probably be unmanned (robotic) anyway. But that hasn't stopped various news organizations from reporting that the after-inflation "life-cycle cost" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter through 2065 has risen above a trillion dollars. The story generated a lot of buzz, mainly because few of the reporters who cover the Pentagon know anything about economics. If they did, they'd realize that in the 1970s you could buy a new Mustang convertible for less than $5,000 and half a century is a very long time in economic terms.
I imagine a few grizzled editors actually did know this, but they just couldn't resist attaching a trillion-dollar pricetag to the F-35 because it was a sure-fire way of attracting readers. So how come they never apply the same bogus methodology to other government expenditures -- like music bands? Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post on September 6, 2010 that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines were spending around $500 million annually on bands. Multiply that number by 50 years and then add in a modest inflation factor -- say 2.5 percent per year, compounded -- and half a century later you're talking real money, as the late Senator Everett Dirkson might have put it. Many tens of billions of dollars, it turns out.
It's hard to measure the benefit of spending so much money on music, but the stakes in the F-35 debate are a bit clearer. If the joint force doesn't field a more survivable fighter sometime soon, we can forget about operating our aircraft over places like Iran and North Korea in the future. And the fact that no U.S. soldier has been killed by an enemy aircraft since the Korean War will be a thing of the past. Air superiority is one of those things that is hard to fully appreciate until you've lost it, and then you really, really miss it. So maybe we should set aside all the imaginative ways that pundits dream up to try to discredit a plane that actually won't cost much more to own than current fighters, and just do what we need to do to stay on top.
Incidentally, did I mention that the "then-year" cost of illegal drugs in the U.S. through 2065 is likely to be around $20 trillion?
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

Wow.

The issue of the F-35's costs is getting pounded harder than a thief caught trying to break into a police station.

F-35 critics...you want answers?  You've been given the answer-- something tells me you can't handle the truth.

BlackFive responds to the chart.

Below you'll see the update that BlackFive posted on there website today...

Update May 15:  I have received a few emails about the chart being incorrect.   Here is one good post about the perceived error.  I don't believe it is an error.  I could be wrong, but here is why I think some folks are misunderstanding it.
In my opinion, APUC and PAUC both contain exactly what they should.
What some people reading the chart don't seem to understand is if you take you finger and run it along the line of a particular cost - where the line stops is above the column that particular cost adds to what's already to its left.
In other words, if you look a PUAC, it adds RTD&E plus MILCON to the APUC, weapons system cost, total fly away cost and URF costs to its left.   The cost structure builds as you go to the right.  TOC then adds the things in the final column to everything (cost) to its left.
PAUC is defined as:
PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost) = RDT&E $ + Procurement $ + unique MILCON $ (in program base year dollars)/Total procurement quantity + RDT&E prototypes that are production reps used for IOT&E (if any)
Run your finger over the PAUC line and it stops right above the column that says "RTD&E" and "MILCON".
I hope that helps.  It's a difficult issue and I am trying to explain costs as clearly as I can.
I know that doesn't matter to some who are against the F35 for various efficacy reasons, but let's all be clear about the cost.

Awesome.

Finally, answers to this vexing cost question.

Oh and Bill, I'm still waiting for your response.  Heck, to be honest Sean, Bill, Ares Team...we're all waiting for your response.  Love you guys but this is getting much too big to ignore.

So my friends where does that leave Bill right now?  I imagine he's having a Bill Paxton moment in Aliens.  See the video below.

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.
Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.
Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said.
Stealth will allow the F-35 to go into the teeth of enemy air defenses, which are becoming increasingly lethal, Thomas said. The Marines intend to operate the F-35 for 30 to 40 years, when stealth may be required even for close-air support.
"Stealth is going to be a requirement," Thomas said, echoing a point one normally hears mostly from U.S. Air Force officials.
Alongside stealth, the sensors and networking are crucial to the F-35 program.
To that end, Kelly said that mission systems testing for the jet's radar and infrared sensors have been going well. He offered unqualified praise for the F-35's APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar.

F-35 Production Ramps Up Nicely.

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 16, 2011 – The second F-35A Lightning II production aircraft flies above the compass rose of Rogers Dry Lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., May 13. The aircraft, designated AF-6, ferried to Edwards AFB from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base following the Air Force formally accepting the fighter into its inventory May 12. The first production jet, AF-7, was delivered to Edwards AFB May 6.

Notice how quickly the delivery dates are between the first and second F-35A!  Learning curve gentlemen.  Learning curve!

A video feast.

XF-104...Fast Blast From The Past.

Col Sanborn heads to Europe and a uniform question.

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan-Col. Russell A.C. Sanborn, the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) assistant wing commander, is slated to leave Afghanistan in mid-May for Stuttgart, Germany, to become the U.S European Command’s deputy operations officer. Sanborn has accumulated more than 2,400 flight hours in the Harrier, and deployed multiple times, including to the first Gulf War. On Feb. 9, 1991, while serving as a pilot in the Gulf War, Sanborn’s aircraft was shot down over southern Kuwait by a surface-to-air missile during a combat mission. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war until his release on March 6, 1991.His personal decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Strike Flight Award with Combat V, and the Combat Action Ribbon.,Staff Sgt. James R. Richardson, 3/5/2011 6:49 AM

Congrats goes to Col Sanborn.  Fair winds and following seas---as they say.  But his picture leaves me with a uniform question.  Is subdued rank allowed for wear?  And if it is then why isn't qualification badges allowed to also be subdued?

The Marine Corps is going to hate it.  Heck I'm not sure I like it but it does appear to be the most practical of all possible solutions.

Its time boys.

Time to allow uniform and qualification badges to be sewn on---God Forgive Me---in the fashion that the US Army does it.

Either that or move rank to the shoulder pocket flaps and eliminate the wear of qualification badges with cammies.


UPDATE:


I have my answer guys.  It appears that this was approved back in 2002 (Much thanks to the person who set me straight!).  Funny though, I never saw men I worked with in this particular wear of uniform (meaning insignia at all).  In my battalion, when in the field, we all knew who was who on sight and in garrison it was all shiny all the time.  In the field, they left it behind.  Without knowing the background on this particular photo, any further comment is unwarranted.

Why isn't the sky over Afghanistan filled with A-10's?

Let's have a real talk about the USAF in Afghanistan.


1.  The logistics effort that they're pumping forward is second to none.  I highly doubt that any other air force in the world could come close to even matching half the effort.
2.  The high tech medical evacuation effort is second to none.  Again, I doubt that any other air force could match it.
3.  The USAF Security Forces, EOD teams and Medical Staffs are doing outstanding work.

That's the good.  But where are the A-10's?  Why isn't the USAF filling the skies with these airplanes?  This question is asked with acknowledgement of the desires of the ground forces...they want persistence.  They want accuracy. They want long loiter periods.

That would seem to be covered with the A-10C.  If Wikipedia is to believed then the USAF has 13 squadrons of these magnificent airplanes with about half of those in the Guard and Reserve.

But numbers and squadrons aren't the real question.  The real question is this.  If the A-10 isn't useful for the war in Afghanistan then it will never be useful.

Just like 1st Tanks in the US Marines, its time to get these squadrons FULLY into the fight.

USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)

Slan the Fighting Irishman sent me a tip on something I didn't know about but should have.

The US NAVY is going to dedicate the DDG-1001 to Master at Arms Michael Monsoor, US Navy SEAL.

Outstanding.

Follow the link to read the story by Boston Maggie.  The video dedication is beyond awesome and I shamelessly post it here.  Another hero is remembered by the services.  Well done.

Homeland Security and the C-32 Flights.

Homeland Security is dropping the ball.

Again.

David Cenciotti has caught them flat footed again. He has posted two stories covering the movement of this airplane to and from certain locations that I bet they'd prefer to keep secret.

You can read his posts here and here.

If this is something that was planned and they don't care about the publicity then GREAT JOB!  If they flubbed up (which I suspect) then get it together boys!

A new player enters the "F-35" cost fray...

SMSgt Mac enters the F-35 cost fray via his blog "Elements of Power"...Read it all at his spot but this is a primer on his thinking...

When it comes to F-35 ‘costs’ Sweetman is still playing it like he does when frequent commenter 'jackjack' calls him out on the Ares' abuse of F-35 cost numbers. In other words, he talks past the point being made to keep beating the "B.S. Anti-JSF Drum" (patent pending) and holding the JSF costs he does note as 'high' while carefully avoiding equivalent costs (if the info even exists) for other systems. While this Sweetman tactic has at times driven poor 'jackjack' around the bend in frustration, I doubt if it will be little more than mocked at BF for the fey strawman tactic it is. The part of Sweetman's Ares response that directly referred to and linked back to BF's post demonstrates either:
1. The Ragin' Hedge Baby from the Shires didn't really read Blackfive's post or
2. He's assuming a $ cost number used by BlackFive was directed only at Sweetman's use of it.
3. He read the BlackFive post, but thinks his interpretive dance schtick will keep foolin' the rubes.

Sweetman Channels Groucho: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?"

I said this was gonna get good...and it is.  I'm running to the store for more popcorn and beer.  This is a good sub for Sunday Football!

Elements Of Power: BlackFive Clears Up F-35 Cost 'Confusion'

USAF Light Attack and Armed Recon?

The USAF is doing a Light Attack and Armed Recon comp.  To be honest both aircraft in this are appealing but to be honest, if I had my druthers the USAF would buy American (not assembled in the US...US built).

My opinion and the USAF will do what it wants.  Info on both planes follows.

AT-6

AT-29

f.r3_at6_brochure_flipbook

Note: Embraer does not have a brochure for the AT-29

BlackFive launches a full frontal assault on Sweetman/ARES!

Told ya this was gonna get good!  BlackFive launches a full frontal assault on Sweetman/Ares and it appears that no prisoners will be taken....read it and weep critics!

Posted By Blackfive • [May 14, 2011] 

RE:  So How Much Does an F35 Actually Cost?

One thing a blogger enjoys about as much anything is when someone else unwittingly ends up making the point he blogged about.  Such is the case with the F-35 cost post I put up this week.  And who made the case for me?  Bill Sweetman – a blogger for the ARES blog at Aviation Week.
Sweetman is a critic of the F-35 program.  And, it is clear who he is writing about when he opens with this, in a post entitled “F-35 cost: A Bit of Reality”, a day after the F-35 post appeared here.

There is an unusual amount of utter bilge being talked about Joint Strike Fighter costs …

Hmmm, wonder who he’s talking about?  A couple of paragraphs later, it becomes clear:

(Blogger BlackFive, for some reason, thinks that APUC includes lifetime O&S costs, and goes off to draw some predictably inaccurate conclusions.)

I do?  I challenge Mr. Sweetman to back up that claim.  Nowhere in the post do I even mention O&S costs.  In fact the only place you’ll find O&S is on the chart included in the post to clarify what Mr. Sweetman would seeminly prefer remained murky. 
One can only conclude that Mr. Sweetman doesn’t know how to read the chart, but O&S is clearly listed under “Life Cycle Costs” there.
Sweetman then proceeds to do exactly what I talked about in the post.  He throws all sorts of numbers around with no context.  For instance:

The average procurement unit cost for the USAF F-35A, over the planned 1,763-aircraft run, is about $125 million (page 29).

What does the “average procurement unit cost” include? He doesn’t bother to tell you.  Without the chart, or unless you’re intimately familiar with the procurement process and what it entails, you won’t the foggiest idea, will you.  But he’s now established a cost which has no comparative relevance in the discussion of 4^th and 5^th generation fighters.
By that I mean the critics will use that cost to trot out the old “we could buy two 4^th generation aircraft for that price” argument.   Of course they’re using the unit recurring flyaway cost (URC) for the 4^th gen fighter (they have no idea what the APUC is for those aircraft and if they do, they don’t use it) and a completely different cost for the F-35 (in this case APUC).
Something like, “Well Bill Sweetman at ARES says the F-35 costs $125 million (APUC) a copy and a F/A 18 only costs $55 million (URF) so we could buy two of them for every one F-35”.  Apples and pomegranates. 
And of course, that was the entire point of my post.
My thanks to Mr. Sweetman and the ARES blog for helping me make the point about as well as it could be made.  I'm no accountant and was just trying to be extremely clear about costs.
Much appreciated.

So how does this all shake out?  See the video below...

F-35A AF-9 First Flight

The fourth production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-9, completed its inaugural flight on 13 May 2011 from NAS Fort Worth JRB with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls.

F-35 Range and the reporting on it.

The DewLine broke the story (at least as far as I can tell)...

Everyone else is jumping on it as another fail for the F-35...

But what's the truth?  The below chart is from the DL...

The facts as I see them...

1.  The F-35B...supposedly the weakest of the bunch is meeting KPP requirements already.  That fact is getting lost in this story.  The "B" will be a winner.  Expect it to sell extremely well, especially with so many Navies acquiring LHD type ships.
2.  The F-35A misses its KPP by only 6 miles.  This will be an extremely easy fix.  That's getting lost in this story.
3.  The F-35C is (like the "B") meeting requirements.

In short, although I'm a fan of Trimble (like I am of Bill---I just think he's waaaaaay off the reservation when it comes to the F-35 program) but he made a non-story into a story.

One thing is for sure.  News of the F-35 drives web traffic.  Even here.

UPDATE:

Something about Trimble's post sparked a memory of this debate before...especially the fact that the F-35B is performing so well range wise.  Then it hit me...This post by Sweetman!  The US and its allies will be gaining Stealth, Speed, Superior Avionics and Extended Range with the F-35.  The parties that choose to replace AV-8B Harriers with F-35B's will see Amphibious Ships finally able to perform not only legacy missions but everything from Fleet Defense to Sea Control Missions.  The F-35 in general and the F-35B in particular are poised to be game changers.