Fuel Efficient Demonstrator Bravo.

via CarBuzz.com

I think I liked the Alpha version better.

If this is an example of cloud design or whatever the buzz word is that the Pentagon is latching onto then they need to drop the trendy stuff and get back to business.  This thing looks like a half baked SUV.

Light Air Support Mission. Why not the A-10?

We're all seeing the furball between the A-29 and the AT-6.

Its nasty, has implications that will affect US manufacturing (if the Brazilian plane is chosen) and has put the USAF in the uncomfortable position of having a contest that will be questioned no matter which airplane is chosen.

Why not simply pull A-10's out of mothballs, refurbish them and have them perform this mission?  In its most basic form its not that much more sophisticated than the two contentders, is more robust, faster, can carry a heavier weapons load and if properly configured can have a similar time on station.

Additionally its designed for rough field use, its combat proven and should be more survivable than either of the other planes.

This is really a no brainer and would save money, help industry by tossing a bone to the refurb work (or if kept in house by the USAF, save money) and is an effective solution.

Quite honestly the A-10 is the airplane that the US Navy should have chosen for Imminent Fury.  I can only wonder if the reason why it wasn't was due to a bit of interservice politics and perhaps a desire by SOCOM for a unique airplane?

Whatever the reason the plane to pick for the Light Air Support Mission is a plane the USAF already has---in abundance.  The A-10.  And if SOCOM decides that they need some in house attack planes and perhaps escorts for their helicopters then the A-10 should top that list too.  Use what we have.  That's the beginning of defense reform.

Harriers almost came back for Libya

via the Scotsman.com

By David Maddox
Published on Tuesday 1 May 2012 02:34

THE government yesterday admitted that it had considered bringing back one of its aircraft carriers and the Harrier jump jets for the Libya operations.

In a response to the defence select committee’s report on the Libya conflict, the government suggested it thought about reversing its decision to mothball the carriers and Harriers in the strategic defence and spending review (SDSR). The reponse also said that the National Transitional Council, which led the anti-Gaddafi forces, could be subject to war crimes prosecutions if evidence emerged. The report said the conflict is expected to have cost £199 million, just £1m under the promised maximum total.

Labour defence committee member Thomas Docherty said: “This admission on the carrier is yet another example of the SDSR unravelling.”

Amazing.

Simply amazing.

I don't know whats more stunning.  The decision to sell the Harriers...The admission that they were going to put the Harriers back in operation...The switch to the F-35C or the possibility of switching back to the F-35B.

This whole thing smacks of politics of the worse sort.

Has anyone noticed that not one of the British Army's programs are caught up in the mess that is the furball between the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force?

I wonder why that is?  Are they just too big to be fucked with?  Or are they considered not to be players in this grudge match?

One thing is certain.  THIS LOOKS BAD.  REAL BAD.

F-35 News. Japan buys 4 with 38 (or more) to follow...

via Alert 5.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Japan_12-15.pdf

So Japan is buying 4 F-35's and 38 (or more) later.  More stuff you won't hear in the mainstream defense media.

Military Artwork.

Go to English Russia to see the rest.  Pretty nice work...vehicle identification needs work but the art is pretty good.

Stealth BlackHawk by the Aviationist.com

The Aviationist and friends have updated their view of the Stealth BlackHawk.  Check out his article for the full details.

RAF vs. FAA

The battle between the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm is becoming a bit clearer.

The latest from Sharkey Ward is helping me to flesh out the argument.  I'm not sure I can pick sides on this one but at least I'm starting to get where the battle lines are drawn.

Its all about money...funding...and procurement.  Check this out, an open letter....

Dear Chancellor,

 

You will wish to be aware of the figures that the Permanent Undersecretary to the Ministry of Defence failed to provide to the Public Accounts Committee last week during its deliberations on Carrier Strike. These are now provided for your information in the attached document. The savings available to the taxpayer are indeed considerable if the right choice of aircraft is made for the Queen Elizabeth class carrier (varying from nearly £5 billion to over £13 billion).

 

I would suggest that earlier figures presented to you by CDM may have been less than forthright.

 

The suggestion of a return to the F-35B STOVL aircraft was initiated by DE&S and CDM who would appear to have an alliance with MoD/RAF. I am now informed that The RAF are due to announce a tender/consultation on the Future Air Defence Aircraft.  It is no surprise that they are looking at F-35C with its deep strike capability rather than the F 35B STOVL (or alternative with equivalent or better spec).  One must question therefore why they are trying to push the F-35B STOVL aircraft for our new carriers. Presumably they think that if the carriers only have the STOVL aircraft with its comparatively limited capability, they will be able to seek justification for any new aircraft that has a reasonable DPOC capability.

 

I understand that they are due to announce a requirement for UP TO 180 fighter jets! This figure would appear absurd when we as a nation are seeking to project our Foreign Policy and defend our energy supplies, trade routes and overseas interests with just 60 carrier borne, fast jet combat aircraft.  It is for consideration that our disembarked, shore-based naval fighter aircraft could also provide a robust fighter air defence of the United Kingdom (against which there is no perceived threat).

 

With very recent analysis showing that the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm is 40% more efficient than the Royal Air Force in the Administration and operation of its aircraft, this provides a financial and a logical argument for having larger carrier air groups that can conduct strategic operations overseas and, at the same time, provide for the air defence of the United Kingdom.  There would then be no need at all for any specialised "Future Air Defence Aircraft".

 

Inter service politics.  This will get nasty before its all done.

Canadian Air Force still want the F-35

Interesting news...

OTTAWA – Canada’s military is determined to purchase the F-35 fighter jet rather than a cheaper or more reliable alternative despite a recent flood of criticism and controversy surrounding the U.S. aircraft.
That was the word from the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps, who was testifying Tuesday at a House of Commons committee along with a panel of defiant senior government officials who have come under fire for their handling of the program to replace the current fleet of CF-18 jets.
“Currently from an air force perspective we are focused on delivering the transition to the F-35,” Deschamps said.

So what do we have here?

We have another air arm that is solidly behind the F-35.

We have journalist that are attempting to frame the debate in such a way as to make the public believe that this world beating fighter is a lemon.

We have the sad fact that people with agendas...from Sharkey wanting to ensure two carriers and to stick it to the Royal Air Force, to Sweetman wanting to protect EADS, to finally Winslow Wheeler believing that fighters should only have two heat seeking missiles and a gun---and others with views all over the map...conspiring to sink a program.

If it wasn't fact, it wouldn't sell as fiction.

Luckily, people with real visibility on the program know better.  And like the old G.I. Joe cartoon used to say...Knowing is half the battle!