Sunday, March 27, 2011

The UK has a carrier problem...The USS America was the solution.


Think Defence has an article up which documents the current woes that the UK is operating under when it comes to placing their new class of carriers into service in the near future.

The perfect solution is being built right here in the US.  The America class Amphibious Assault Ship.  Think about it (how do you like that play on "Think Defence"!)

A medium power like the Royal Navy/Marine Corps could quite effectively deploy these ships almost independently to certain actions.  As a matter of fact anything short of war would allow independent deployment.

War time contingencies would allow a tailored airwing to operate for expected circumstances.
- a show of force and air strikes over Libya?  Simply go with a sea control type manning...20 F-35B's with a mix of utility and attack helicopters...
-peace keeping operations in North or Central Africa?  Go with a standard air compliment.

A better solution was to be found.  The UK simply didn't reach for it.  Heck, even the LPD-17 could have provided almost as much aviation capability as they'll have on their new Queen Elizabeth class carriers! I'm being dramatic but you get the point.


Think Defence wades into the debate from a UK perspective.

Think Defence wades into the JSF debate via the UK's carrier conundrum.  He arrives at this proposal...

A Proposal

I actually think CVF does has a lot of potential, I know you lot might be surprised by this but my objections have always been on cost grounds. This proposal is one possible method of squeezing maximum value for the investment in the most likely missions it will be required to fulfil.
  • Switch back to the F35B
  • Obtain enough to maintain 6 on board plus 6 on an enduring land based operation (rotating with Typhoon) to support the deployed multi role brigade. This allows for continuous cover for an enduring operation whilst still maintaining enough capacity for the rapid reaction force. Total aircraft and crew numbers would be determined once maintenance and force generation factors become known
  • The RAF should stop dreaming about hordes of F35’s and get on with the job of deriving maximum benefit from the eye watering and defence budget distorting entity that is Typhoon
  • The Fleet Air Arm and Royal Navy should stop dreaming about having a mini me CVN. The FAA would cease operating fast jets and the aboard aircraft would be RAF operated. We can’t afford two air forces and the largest one, the one that can achieve some economy of scale and is focussed on managing fast jets.
  • Complete both CVF with one maintained as an in service spare to cover refit periods.
  • Do not replace Ocean, the role to be covered by CVF
  • If funds allow, the in service spare could be bought into full service
  • Redesign CVF to have an enlarged hangar, at least big enough for Chinook, CH53K and V22 across the full width and length. Also improved command and control and embarked force accommodation facilities. These should be relatively easy changes, even at this stage of the build.
  • Invest in a Merlin based ASaC
To be honest, he floored me when I read it.  Check out the whole thing to see how he got here.  I definitely don't agree with all of his conclusions...most especially the idea of doing away with fast jets in the Royal Navy.

Naval Aviation has a flavor all its own.  One that can't be duplicated by an Air Force.  I digress...head to his site.

RAF Tornado gun camera footage from the Libya conflict.

Looks like the Brits aren't as shy as we are about sharing gun camera footage from the conflict in Libya.  I don't know what type of munition is being used but I'd guess its a Brimstone Missile...finally note the hit on the last APC in the footage.  It didn't look like a clean hit to me...the crew might be KIA/WIA but the vehicle should be recoverable.

Man in the arena...

The Man in the Arena .02

Pic of the day. March27, 2011.

A CH-46E Sea Knight helicopter prepares to land onto the deck of USS San Antonio (LPD-17). This was the first 4-Sea Knight landing on the deck of the San Antonio. Marines from HMM-264, Aviation Combat Element of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, piloted the aircraft. Portions of the 26th MEU Command Element, the MEU's Combat Logistics Element, CLB-26, and Battalion Landing Team 3/8 are aboard the San Antonio to support the ship's Operational Evaluation. (Official U.S. Navy photo by MC1 Erik Hoffman) (Released), 3/12/2008 1:17 AM

The above photo was taken in 2008 and since then the helo detachment aboard the LPD-17 class ships have demonstrated a capability to handle many more aircraft than the photo illustrates.

Pay real close attention when the JSF is being debated.




I don't know quite how to approach this one.  So when in doubt run full speed ahead.

ARES ran a story about the F-35's being grounded and GAVE in my opinion, the impression that the generators/back up generators failed on the airplane...Ole Bill likes to dance on the head of a pin when making some of his statements so pay close attention.

Luckily a commenter on the blog gave me food for thought...


Atomic Walrus wrote:
Hang on a second, here - many of the comments on this article seem to be assuming that the dual generator is intended to be a redundant design. Is that accurate? A closer reading on some of the news reports from the program suggest that it's more like 2 generators ganged up to provide the desired electrical output, with the integrated power pack providing the back-up system. This doesn't mitigate the fact that there was a generator failure due to a simple maintenance issue, but it's a far cry from asserting that LockMart is so foolish as to allow primary and backup of a critical system to be taken out by a single event.
3/26/2011 11:48 PM CDT
Atomic Walrus is exactly right.

This is one of Sweetmans statements found on line 3...
Bill Sweetman wrote:
I think that what is interesting about this thread is how pro-JSF people can't accept a very straightforward observation: that if you have two widgets that are there to provide redundancy in a flight-critical function, and one failure (technical or human+technical) takes both of them out, you have an issue that bears further investigation.
Now when I say pay attention...thats what I mean!

Bill DID NOT say that the generators involved were there to provide backup emergency power.  Quite honestly when I first read Atomic Walrus's statement I was high and to the right ... when I finally caught on to the wordsmithing going on... I was still high and to the right.

This one neat, tidy, simple---heck even elegant statement was constructed in such a way as to have a casual reader believe that the primary and backup generators had failed and that the airplane was mere seconds away from falling out of the sky.

That wasn't the case and the issue was quickly solved and resolved.

The entire point is this--  PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO ANY DEBATE INVOLVING THE JSF.  FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE ANTI-JSF CAMP THIS IS A WIN AT ANY COST ENDEAVOUR!

Even the neutral (at least I think he is...he hasn't exactly stated a position and I have yet to detect one in his writing) Graham Warwick made a curious statement in the comments section...
If I can be permitted to comment on my own post...this will not be news to ardent JSF watchers who caught the story by Steve Trimble of Flightglobal which appeared - briefly - earlier this week.

When it did, my colleague Bill Sweetman made the very valid point that a single maintenance action resulting in the failure of both engine-driven generators must call into question the redundancy of the system, which mounts both generators on a single line-replaceable unit.
But the redundancy of the system isn't in the dual generators...its in the back up to those generators....

Want a balanced reporting of this story?  Lets check out our friends at F-16.net...
The grounding appears to have occurred because of the potential for loss of control posed by such a combination.

Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35's flight control surfaces are controlled by electro-hydrostatic actuators. If they don't have power then the pilot can lose control. In this case, the back-up power system — the Integrated Power Package which also serves as the starter and air conditioner — kicked in as designed, allowing the pilot to return to base.
Again...pay careful attention when reading news on the F-35.
UPDATE:
Commenter BowlWeavel said it best...
All I can say is wow

listen to some of you people

Do you have any idea how many different ways there are to wreck an aircraft and/or kill someone with a maintenance error or by failing to follow proper procedures?

give it a rest already

this wasn't the problem you hoped it was

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Canadian F-35 Website.


Definitely worth checking out gents...especially in light of all the disinformation being put out.  See it here.  Oh and for the curious, below you'll see some of the fast facts that the Canadian Minister of National Defense is going over...

Update:
Since the Canadian election is the latest card that the anti-JSF people are hanging there hats on, here's a site that has current election polling.  Sorry anti crowd...the conservatives are winning.
F-35-Fast-Facts-Feb-15-2011