Here is some good stuff from new wars.
The cost each is, get this, $369 million USD, or about 10% of the USN latest amphib, the LHA-6 class America. In other words, you can deploy 8-9 Italian type 20,000 ton vessels for the cost of a single LHA-6. Any wonder the Navy continues to shrink?
F-35 AF-3 taxi test.
Always a fun read, Code-One Magazine has changed their website.
Code-One btw was where one of the early DOD Joint Strike Fighter program managers stated that the price of the JSF (now today the F-35) –in the business plan–doesn’t flatten out until you get to around 1500-1600 aircraft made. Something to think about.
F-35 drop tests.
Defence announces the end of their rebarrel effort for a handful of classic F-18s.
Don’t mind the numbers in the press release. It is about $A29 Mil each for the rebarrel effort, but go ahead and make a big deal of it.
Just a different kind of confused like times in the past.
And what will Defence do when 2020 rolls around? And, btw, a rebarrel job on a Hornet doesn’t address other types of fatigue and corrosion.
Boeing is patiently waiting.
An “independent” … “study” (pdf) that looks at all the cute lovable things about the F-35 in U.K. colors.
I wonder how many in the MOD know that the drive shaft for their STOVL jet will need a redesign?
It is good to see Galrahn back in the game. And again he leads the discussion with very important topics. With the U.S. in ever more debt trouble, the discussion of the direction of the Marine Corps has even more significance.
Ashton Carter states that he wants to do more with less or whatever he said earlier. I kind of forget sometimes because most of what he says doesn’t count for much. And with his new job of finding more budget efficiencies, the results will be much like Elmer Fudd trying to bag Buggs Bunny.
His job of looking for extra pennies won’t get too far with the Marines because they have some serious political clout on the Hill. Carter can almost hear the Korean War-like cat calls from the enemy if he is trying to reduce the USMC.
For example, you probably think the following graphic is a North Korean propaganda poster.
You would be wrong. It is actually the lobbying power of the USMC faithful showing how dangerous Gates and Carter will be to the future of the Corps if this-defense-budget-itis gets out of control. That is Gates on the right. Or maybe it is Carter. I forget.
But should the Marine Corps be untouchable when you have fantasy advertisements for the Corps like this that make good viewing right when the in-debt U.S. federal budget is going to rip down defense big time? No they shouldn’t and here is why.
The Marines should only be used for work that they do best. That is anything near the water. For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have Marines doing non-amphib, non-littoral jobs that could be done by the Army. If Gates is so in love with this-waritis, he should be able to see that real easy. It is the Army and not Marines, Sailors pushed in to ground roles and USAF pushed in to ground roles, that should get most of the defense pie.
So if you have Marines running around doing Army-like duties, you probably don’t need all those USMC slots and instead need more Army slots.
As for amphibious warfare; how soon we forget Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. With today’s weapons, an amphibious landing will be even more deadly. The U.S. Navy seriously under-invests in anti-mine warfare. And today, there are all kinds of cheap mines to seed littoral access to beaches. Not only that but there are all kinds of ways where a variety of easy to get gear from the Chicom Sears catalog, can make the U.S. look really bad on CNN and diverge quite a bit from wild assumptions made on pretty PowerPoint slides that say “anti-access” or “joint forcible entry”
And then you have simple inconveniences like this.
Don’t worry though, we will always need Marines. For exactly what and when though is the question many are afraid to ask. While the USMC is going out and buying useless gold-plated hardware that makes one afraid to deploy it least it gets lost in any real combat because it costs so much, it is the Navy that is really dropping the ball.
Today, with so many battleships in the fleet, any other “combat ship” needs more realistic skill-sets. That is, something that can move personnel around, carry supplies, recover or launch an occasional helicopter and also be affordable. Idiotic moves like the DDX, Littoral Combat Gyp and the F-35, take money away from other resources that are a heck of a lot more useful.
Again, don’t worry. Carter or no, right or wrong, the Marines will get their fief. And the Navy is going to have to be a lot more serious about trying looking relevant. When you see pirates being hunted down by a cruiser, something is seriously wrong. Just don’t expect Elmer Fudd to bring in the big win for the American taxpayer.
Now everybody stand up right now and sing the Halls of Montezuma. I said sing it you bastards.
Because a flightsuit is so important when you “fly” drones.
Hey everybody. Savings in defense is as simple as comparing the idea that you get a better computer cheaper every year.
Gates has put the other guy—DOD’s top acquisition guy Ashton Carter–that has performed big fibs about the program health of the F-35 in a Nunn-McCurdy recertification letter to the Hill–in charge of finding big savings in defense.
What is the new slogan? “Doing more without more”. Good luck with that when you can’t even find out what became of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that were handed out to contractors in Operation: USELESS DIRT 1 (Afghanistan) and Operation: USELESS DIRT 2 (Iraq). Along with that, the “why can’t daddy program manage?” syndrome that is hovering over all the big weapons programs.
Years ago we saw the famous, “do more with less”. That ended up being, “do less with less”.
Killing the F-35, DDX, Littoral Combat Gyp, EFV, retiring a bunch of flag-ranks and a few other things along with a full pullout from OSD 1 and 2 would save billions per year. Then we could concentrate on having a DOD that actually provided real and useful defense and deterrence for the nation.
Finding savings in the DOD IS a good idea. I don’t have a problem with the concept. What I have a problem with are the empty suits that will be in charge of this mess
.
I have no confidence in Gates and Carter. I do think that with ever increasing federal debt, massive cuts will come with or without this crew. If we had some smart service leaders they could make sure that the pain for finding the right fleet, the right army, the right air force, will be well managed. If only we had some smart service leaders.
I’m glad Carter and Gates figured out the computer thing. That’s a start I guess.
P.R. over substance. And timely with all of the bad budget talk; like today where the top DOD procurement guy Mr. Carter has put forward (according to Inside Defense) “his blueprint for eliminating inefficiencies in the $400 billion that DOD spends annually on contracts for weapons, products and services.”
Some spin-doctors are smarter than others.
This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning future business opportunities and operational engine performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to changes in funding related to the F-35 aircraft and F135 engines, changes in government procurement priorities and practices or in the number of aircraft to be built; challenges in the design, development, production and support of advanced technologies; as well as other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those detailed from time to time in United Technologies Corp.’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
And add to that, things like drive-shaft redesign for the STOVL. What are risks and uncertainties? Mostly, poor program management. Spin that.
Here is another way that groupthink kills.
The quote below along with the whole story, shows that anyone thinking of victory in Afghanistan will have a long wait.
Inside the Oval Office, Obama asked Petraeus, “David, tell me now. I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?”
“Sir, I’m confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame,” Petraeus replied.
“Good. No problem,” the president said. “If you can’t do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?”
“Yes, sir, in agreement,” Petraeus said.
“Yes, sir,” Mullen said.
The president was crisp but informal. “Bob, you have any problems?” he asked Gates, who said he was fine with it.
The president then encapsulated the new policy: in quickly, out quickly, focus on Al Qaeda, and build the Afghan Army. “I’m not asking you to change what you believe, but if you don’t agree with me that we can execute this, say so now,” he said. No one said anything.
“Tell me now,” Obama repeated.
“Fully support, sir,” Mullen said.
“Ditto,” Petraeus said.
And then you have the rules of engagement which produce this.
When NCOs begin to give these kinds of reports, we know that there is something badly wrong with the campaign on a much deeper level than mere sniping between civilian and military authorities. We are losing the campaign in Afghanistan, and recalling General McChrystal won’t change that. Much deeper changes need to be made, and a much deeper commitment should become evident by the administration, or men will die for a failing cause. The time to make these changes has almost run out.
H/T-War News Update
Funny how this was stated. Given current-events, it is good for a snort-guffaw or two.
Currently, all of the armed services are hatching plans to send more of their high-performing young officers to graduate school. Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, for example, has posited that more pilots with PhDs will increase his service’s “intellectual throw-weight.” But the military remains deeply uncomfortable with idea of targeting a subset of officers for an elite education, with the aim of installing them in senior command slots decades later.
Intellectual throw-weight is only good if you intend to let air power advocates engage in free thinking. The Gates, Schwartz, Donley crew seem only interested in opinions that agree with their own. Therefore, all you get is tremendous groupthink throw-weight. The throw-weight DOD really needs is the kind that throws out all the empty suits that don’t bring anything to the fight and only weaken the defense posture of the nation.
