Huge give-aways in the Israeli F-35 deal. Some officials still need to be convinced #military

Maybe when the “seller”, or in this case the “giver” is trying this hard; what they are trying to give you isn’t really worth it.

The U.S. weekly Defense News says Lockheed Martin was prepared to give Israeli defense companies up to 180 percent of the cost of the deal, way above the 40-100 percent usually handed out when foreign states buy U.S. weapons systems.

Lockheed Martin has also said that if Israel does buy 20 F-35s it would give Israeli companies production contracts worth $4 billion for production of the aircraft, Israel National News.com. said.

Not everyone is up for the give-away.

Israel’s army and navy have expressed opposition to the air force using so much of the defense budget on the new Lightning II jets rather than on other military projects.

Thank goodness we killed of all of those evil F-22 jobs #military

My friend in blogging David Axe, brings up the idea that military industry, along with all of its scaremongering of job loss if a program gets cancelled was alive and well in the F-22 program a year ago. This is true.

We are supposed to believe that work-skills in the F-22 will slide over into the F-35. This has happened and will continue; to a point. But lets take a closer look.

Who did the majority of complex avionics fusion for the worlds most advanced fighter; the Lockheed Martin F-22? Well, that would be Boeing. How about large portions of the F-22 wing? That would be Boeing also. When these skills become less in number—as they certainly will—America will have less of a military aviation industry. This has been happening since the end of the Cold War.

Congressional graft aside; Boeing, which doesn’t make almost all of its money off of the U.S. government like Lockheed Martin, will let people go because they know how to run commercial operations. These skills, along with some skills from the following list of major sub-contractors will melt away.

Major Subcontractors (partial list): Northrop Grumman, Texas Instruments, Kidde-Graviner Ltd., Allied-Signal Aerospace, Hughes Radar Systems, Harris, Fairchild Defense, GEC Avionics, Lockheed Sanders, Kaiser Electronics, Digital Equipment Corp., Rosemount Aerospace, Curtiss-Wright Flight Systems, Dowty Decoto, EDO Corp., Lear Astronics Corp., Parker-Hannifin Corp., Simmonds Precision, Sterer Engineering, TRW, XAR, Motorola, Hamilton Sundstrand, Sanders/GE Joint Venture, Menasco Aerospace.

While the above list also do some F-35 work, the F-35 has yet to prove it can spool up and take up capacity from lost jobs. 3000 F-35s? Where are the 750 F-22s? Or the X number of Y military program when they were all front-loaded-lies to Congress?

The U.S. can only downsize its military industrial complex so many times. While in many ways this could be a good thing, it turns into a bad thing when you need new advanced designs in the coming years to keep America safe and there aren’t enough engineers left to take projects to completion. “Why can’t daddy program manage?”, will become even more common.

While Bush and Rumsfield are incredible idiots for not realising overwhelming air power makes all other operations possible via direct action or deterence, the stupidity of the current administration and Gates fare no better.

As we do our best to field a fighter aircraft known as the F-35 that won’t be able to stand up to advanced threats in the coming years; thereby making it a very expensive second-tier bomb truck (hint that was always the plan—that there would be enough F-22s around to take out the big threats…750 of them) we can only end up realising this too late when certain air-campaigns can’t happen because we don’t have the right stuff.

So be it. Stupidity gets punished right away or a long way off. But hey, those that aren’t all that smart on big air power thinking have had their way. That seems to be the only thing that is important.

U.K. F-35B STOVLs clipped in favour of F-35C U.S. Navy variants? Here we go again with rumours? #military

The kind of F-35 that the U.K. purchases as a Joint Strike Fighter partner nation might not be the one most think it will be.

While we have heard tales of woe over the last few years of the U.K. running into money problems with the 2 aircraft carriers being built and the aircraft that go on them, the following could indicate a serious change in course.

In a move that could put hundreds of British manufacturing jobs at risk, defence chiefs are ready to abandon plans to buy a vertical-landing fighter jet for the Royal Navy.
Instead, a cheaper conventional-landing warplane will replace the Navy’s Harriers when they retire.

Or is it just more uncertain posturing and leaking? Interesting too is this (with an MOD caution on the quality of the information).

A source said: “Labour chose the wrong type of aircraft and the wrong configuration of carrier, and they wasted a lot of money doing it. What’s going on now is about trying to fix that mess.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the Autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

H/T- DesScorp

What the “experts” try to avoid #military

“And for that reason, we can be certain of one thing — that the America of 2030 will still need the men and women of a strong and powerful Air Force to ensure her security.”

The above from this article which does its best to avoid bringing up the truth that we have a dysfunctional USAF leadership which isn’t what we need to take us to 2030.

And some thoughts about Afganistan

Some good questions. Here are a few thoughts.

Do any of the forces involved in this effort truly understand 4th generation warfare; to include the kind of flavour of 4G that Afghanistan is famous for? That being that the enemy can wait us out and we expend a lot of resources for nothing. Is Afghanistan worth it? When looking at all of the factors involved, the answer could be “no”. A tribal culture that does not recognise or comprehend the idea of a central government, means that this will go on for years. Afghanistan can’t attack Australia. It doesn’t have an air force, army or navy. And as for the terrorist angle; best consider the reality that there are numerous countries where this threat can come from. Also the Laos/Cambodia angle (Pakistan) means we will be squashing bugs forever.

Finally, the U.S. is not going to stop supporting Australia (for any reason) if we pull out of Afghanistan. That is a fact. Pulling out of Afghanistan just shows we have good sense.

APA technical report–CPMIEC HQ-9 / HHQ-9 / FD-2000 / FT-2000 Self Propelled Air Defence System #military

Update your threat library. APA has published a new technical report on the CPMIEC HQ-9 / HHQ-9 / FD-2000 / FT-2000 Self Propelled Air Defence System.

What it shows is a system that is equal or better than some variants of the SA-20. Give credit where credit is due. The Chinese perform a knock-off, and then add their own flavour of capability.

This system is a big enough threat that should be given respect in any future mission plan where it may show up in a various locations round the globe.

Australia can’t define a sensible mission in Afghanistan #military

Yes. All interesting. But most of Afghanistan is illiterate and has no concept of a central government. Why should Australia have ANY involvement in a no-win war? The arguement that we are there be cause America is there is dumb. America has not abandoned diplomatic relations with European countries that are withdrawing from this quagmire.