Aviation Week Blog ARES
How typical; how common; the bravery of battlefield medics.
“I promised my friends and comrades I’d be their medic, I promised I’d be there if they ever needed me. They needed me that day – so when the call came, that’s just what I did.”
.
These guys are always good for a laugh.
Expect the Russian Navy to get much smaller.
That is what the chairman of the committee on national maritime policies in the upper house of parliament has stated.
Because of a large amount of decomminssioning activity and very little shipbuilding activity, by 2015, the Russian Navy will look a lot different.
-“The allocated funds are insufficient to carry out large-scale construction of ocean-going ships and simultaneously maintain the existing fleet in combat-ready condition.” -
Which begs so many questions such as, where are the regional naval hot spots in the coming years?
The Fort Worth Star Telegram has more about the meeting last weekend with the DOD top acquisition person Ashton Carter, Lockheed Martin and the DOD F-35 program office to find a way ahead with the over-cost and delayed F-35 program. Here are some of the points covered.
*DOD and LM will work out an agreement to share risks of cost increase to the program.
*Subcontractors would probably also have to agree to some cost-sharing liability.
*An experienced weapons acquisition and testing person has stated that he doesn’t remember an instance where the DOD has tried to rewrite terms of a development contract in midstream. The same person also stated that traditionally, costs for programs like this exceed even the most pessimistic cost estimates.
*The F-35 program has been restructured and the development budget boosted twice already to hold down costs.
*Flight testing is nearly two years behind schedule.
*While Australia has approved plans to begin buying the F-35, a formal contract could be a year or more away. Other allies may not decide to buy until more flight testing has been done along with firm assurances on production costs.
Not especially exciting but informative; this shows the ease of loading and unloading a C-17. This from a Canadian aid effort to Jamaica in 2007.
There are some interesting statements from the U.S. Army back in September about what is needed for the next ground combat vehicle. While informative, there are some totally false statements in it.
The truth this this; an old platform or old platform design can be made network friendly. One only has to look at the B-52, M-113, F-16, F-18, M-1 Abrams tank and so on.
What we have here is the Army wanting something new and gold plated. And until the Army takes the fact on-board that they completely goofed up the development of the Stryker, any new ground combat vehicle will suffer the same fate.
John Boyd’s “Team” is actually a group of people from military, industry, private and public entities who weren’t afraid that challenge the status quo, conducted impeccable research and insisted on building fighter jets in the “right” way. Of course, Body was the head of the group for having the audacity to call a group of PhDs and high-ranking military brass: STUPID! (He was subsequently fired, but rehired a few weeks later.)
* Thomas Christie, Pierre Sprey, Dr. Raymond Leopold, Franklin Spinney, James Burton and Col Mike Wyly
The exact wording of Boyd’s exchange with the PhDs were pretty, well, graphic. Recommend the book.
Yeah there are always lots of events where a top commander helps chop up a turkey. This visit to the USS Nimitz by General Petraeus puts all those other visits to the troops during the holidays (by anyone) to shame.
This is a great and most sincere visit to thank his joint brothers and sisters in arms.
–Shortly before midday, he took his first-ever ride in an F/A-18 fighter jet. Someone had written a message for him on the plane’s left-side window: “Gen. Petraeus, Things to Do Before Lunch – run 12 miles, do 500 push-ups, win a war or two.”–
.
Wow. Dubai is in a bad way. Tens of billions of debt. Maybe “40 Years in the Desert” can feature this on Friday.
The first two-seat trainer variant of India’s home grown Tejas light combat fighter has made it’s first flight.
Can’t help but to cheer this little Program on. Surely, if you were an F-20 fan you are a Tejas sucker today?? 
Seriously though, in your opinion what would be the pros and cons and feasibility of this offering an ANG solution? Power by F414 (possibly upgraded) and SABR radar? Maybe potential for a MMRCA quid pro, upping the ante… you buy ours, we’ll buy yours??
Perhaps one thing going against such a scheme though, would be the schedule timeframe… E.g., maybe a first training squadron IOC by 2015? ANG needs recap starting sooner than this? Anyway, just trying to think economical, new-acquisition era metrics… 
I seem to recall that the Eurojet EJ200 and the GE-414 are in competition to supply 100 engines for the Tejas due to the existing GE-404 not producing enough thrust. The Eurojet offer includes thrust vectoring for their engine. That would make for an interesting fighter!
Yes it would – I was thinking the same thing! And so would a HARV variant of the F414 yet with even more kick (especially so w/ an upgraded 414)! But considering such a radical ANG-applicable proposal, perhaps the F414 powered concept wouldn’t even require the TVC? A new jet is better than
no jet at all – KIS? The key thought however, being that if US could land a domestically produced, F414 powered/SABR (equiv) equipped Tejas
for ANG role, just maybe it would not only influence/bolster industry interests for Indian produced Tejas (will all respect to outstanding EJ2000),
but also potentially bolster broader, strategic Indian decision making regarding their MRCA selection? I know that’s totally over simplifying the way
these decisions are made (not to mention my uninformed opinion making process), but regardless, as you said, the Tejas should be a very interesting jet!
It would be nice to see an American influenced or produced Tejas flying with the US Air National Guard which could use a light/medium fighter with good range and speed. The Tejas could be equipped with the AN/APG-80 AESA now being used for the Super Viper F-16I, which would allow for a nice technology exchange, and perhaps production of this radar in both nations. Unfortunately this would entail a huge shift in the present US military thought process (only purchasing US developed/made fighters).
On a side note, the Tejas program as a whole has some interesting similarities with a fighter that it may be facing across the India-Pakistan border, the Chinese JF-17 Thunder. Both are very similar in speed, range, and payload. Hopefully the two never have to fight, but it would be an interesting contest since they are so close in performance and technology.
Marcase is discussing. 
Anonymous, and 
Robert are discussing. 
RSF, and 
geogen are discussing. 
Marcase 11:55 am on November 28, 2009 Permalink |
Well, Stryker was intended to be an interim vehicle, to be replaced by FCS-wheeled, so certain drawbacks were taken for granted.
About networking old ‘tracks’, two things must be possible – enough room for the black boxes without impeding on troop space, and enough electrical power must be available (even when the engine is not running) to power-up all the gizmos.
I’m a fan of the EFV, but the forest of antennas on the roof is a bit much.
Then there are the armor issues. Fighter jets don’t have to worry (much) about RPGs and IEDs, and uparmoring ‘legacy’ vehicles with ERA has (weight and placement) limitations.