Sunday, April 17, 2011

Could the UK retake the Falklands?






Patrick made this statement...
Speaking of Argentina, if they tried to retake the Falklands today I seriously doubt the British would be able to defend their territory without seeking outside help. Without a carrier force, the U.K's only hope would be to throw the Argentinians back into the sea. Should they succesfully occupy the islands, it would be nearly impossible for the British to dislodge them on their own. I think if conflict returns to that region expect the British to ask the French, and maybe even the Italians or Spanish, to join the war and commit their carriers to the fight.
I agree.  Under the exact same circumstances the UK would not be able to retake the Falklands.  Mike at New Wars once lauded the Brits and there small carriers as being outstanding examples of what the US should follow.

Too bad they threw it all away.  Also notice that interoperability with the US Marines has been sacrificed in order to gain limited cross training with the US Navy.  In doctrine, and approach the Marines/Royal Navy are closer in philosophy than the Royal Navy, French Navy and US Navy are.

The French in Afghanistan.

Bryaxis sent me this vid (Thanks guy!  I guess I would label this counter point to my "bashing" of the EU..well done Bryaxis!)  One question though. 

Saturday, April 16, 2011

The UK fought alone more effectively than NATO is against a more capable foe!

Grand Logistics came by and added this to the discussion on Libya...
Hello Solomon,

you hit the nail on the head there.

To understand what is going on you would need to read the Lisbon Treaty,Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Anglo French defence agreement.

That is a lot of dull reading but it can be summed up as follows:

Eliminate individual European nations' ability to conduct independent military operations by cutting force sizes and eliminating capabilities to enforce military integration.

Hence eliminating British aircraft carriers, there is a European agreement on creating a Pan European carrier group,and maritime patrol aircraft and probably the heavy tank fleet in future.

The idea being that all European countries will work together to project European power overseas.

Sarkozy and arch Europeanist Cameron appear to have seen Libya as a demonstration of European military power.

Hence U.S.S.Enterprise staying in the Arabian Sea and U.S.Air Force operations now drawing down as Obama lets them get on with it.

Good call Mr.President.

Cameron and Sarkozy have been rudely reminded of their military impotence.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy has been shown to be a sham.

Europe is looking a bit silly.

The United States has reinforced it's global dominance.


GrandLogistics.
What has me going from amused at the situation to being shocked is this simple fact.

The UK went up against a more powerful foe, at a greater distance from home, with a more challenging set of mission objectives than NATO is facing right now.

The UK beat the Argentinians.

This current conflict is in doubt.

Whether its because of politics.  Because of the UN mandate (essentially politics).  Or a lack of military capability (I would guess this is the main reason).  One thing is readily apparent.

If the current conflict is stressing resources then those resources need to be increased.

NATO is useless. The UK has shed its military power. The EU is nothing.

Let be clear on a couple of facts.

1.  This war in Libya shouldn't be a major lift for NATO.

2.  The UK faced more serious opposition alone in the fight against Argentina.

3.  The UK shed present day capability for the POSSIBILITY of future savings.

4.  The Germans practice an almost isolationist foreign policy and an aggressive trade policy.

5.  The smaller EU nations are punching above their weight but can't be expected to shoulder burdens in two war zones.

6.  French military power has been greatly over estimated.

7.  NATO is useless if not dead.
This from Reuters...

By Erik Kirschbaum and David Brunnstrom
BERLIN, April 15 (Reuters) - NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Britain voiced optimism on Friday that NATO allies would supply more combat planes for the Libyan mission, but Italy ruled out ordering its planes to open fire.
Britain and France are urging other NATO allies to provide more planes capable of hitting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's ground forces after Washington cut back its role in the operation and passed command onto NATO on March 31. I GUESS TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE ISN'T SO USELESS AFTER ALL...ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS A WAR THAT EUROPE WAS BEGGING TO GET INTO.  MEANWHILE IN THE US, EVERYONE EXCEPT NEO-CONS AND NO THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE US MILITARY, WANTED TO SIT THIS ONE OUT.  THIS IS AN ALLIANCE OF LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS THAT I THOUGHT I WOULD NEVER SEE.  A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.

"We have got indications that nations will deliver what is needed ... I'm hopeful that we will get the necessary assets in the very near future," Rasmussen told a news conference at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin.
The leaders of France, Britain and the United States published a jointly-written newspaper article on Friday vowing to keep up their military campaign until Gaddafi leaves power. Some countries, such as Russia, say that goes beyond the terms of a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising the campaign.
Libyan rebels have pleaded for more air strikes, saying they face a massacre from government artillery barrages in the besieged city of Misrata.
The United States and European NATO allies have so far rebuffed French and British calls to contribute more actively.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who has been lobbying other NATO allies to provide more strike aircraft, also said after talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that he was hopeful more strike assets would be made available. Asked if Britain might be prepared to contribute more combat aircraft if other allies did not step forward, Hague said: "We'll always keep that under review but ... as of today this question doesn't arise."WTF!!!!! THEY'RE PUSHING THE US TO CONTRIBUTE MORE AIRCRAFT BUT ITS UNDER REVIEW?  THE QUESTION DIDN'T ARISE???
How do you best describe the operation in Libya?

One word.

Clusterfuck.

How did he arrive at this?


Galrahn over at Information Dissemination has some 'interesting' thoughts on the second engine fire/explosion to occur to US Navy/Marine F/A-18C's within a month.  Read his whole article at his place but these are the statements that caught my attention.

My second thought is how the Joint Strike Fighter would have been FUBAR once the engine goes out. It is hard to believe the US Navy is still going down the one engine path.
My final thought is what a good job the pilot did getting the Hornet back on deck. There really is lots of good stuff here. Well done to the Navy for releasing the video, even in what is ultimately bad news (an engine blows up on a flight deck) there is a lot of great stuff in this simple video.
Wow.

An old airplane has suffered two engine mishaps in less than a month and we get into a debate on which is better...single or twin engines?

Galrahn knows better and has access to NAVAIR studies on the issue.  As Derek stated on his blog...
Two engines are not any better than one. It is a myth that all twin jets can survive on one engine. Not all systems are redundantly powered by both engines. Also if the failure is catastrophic it could kill the other engine too.

If you understand probability if you have two engines with the same rate of failure then you are doubling the chance of an engine failure over a single engined aircraft.

The F-8, A-4, and A-7 had similar safety records as all the other twin engine aircraft of their generation......
As far as the part about the pilot doing a good job...I agree.

As far as there being alot of good stuff on the video...totally disagree.  He lauds the crash crew for getting quickly to the crash but to be honest (unless he's never been up close to flight ops)...crash crews are on alert for all landings at military sites.  Additionally even if they weren't they'd be alerted after a pilot aborted his landing (especially during night ops)...but lastly...the main focus should be on a second engine going tits up.  I'm really surprised we aren't seeing a safety stand down so that these engines can be inspected.  Could ops tempo be interfering with fleet safety?

Comment of the Week. April 16, 2011.

I get tons of great comments during the weeks and I've decided to start doing a comment of the week post.  This week SMSgtMac wins the prize.  Here he's commenting on my post "JSF making progress"...

I'm not worried about the B at all. Among other things, I've been reviewing the history (not just the popular myths) about the LWF competition and subsequent acquisition of the F-16 and F-18, including what was called 'The Great Engine War'. Fascinatiing how history repeats itself with only minor differences. The Marines NEED the B model first and want it only because they need it. Their aviation track record for the last decade makes them look pretty smart, and like the other programs, everything with the B seems to be playing out as they have forseen. The B model is only the fourth Marine Air program in a row that I can think of that the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' have dumped on. So far the nabobs are proven to be 0 for 2 (V-22 and UH-1Y) about to go 0 for 3 (AH-1Z), and they can't point to anything concrete to hang a claim on they'll win the next one. The F-35 program overall can accrue development costs up to $1 under the equivalent of three separate development programs that would have occurred by developing these planes separately and the program is a bargain. The question was executability: could it be done? Guess what? the really 'hard' stuff IS done and now the SDD program is on the downhill slope. Are there challenges ahead? Sure- that's why you don't have every 'dotcom' shop or second/turd-world design house building latest-gen military aircraft. The second thing you'll never hear out of the weak sisters on the sidelines, is that even at 'Block 1' maturity, the F-35 is MORE effective and deadly than the LATEST F-16. BTW: The APA's biggest contribution is in the entertainment value derived from observing a spark chaser and a mechanical engineer trying to sound cogent on Computational Electromagnetics.

Friday, April 15, 2011

F-35B purchase reduced to 3...lies, damn lies and APA lies.





"Without going all Hearst" on ya, I've got to tell you how "Perplexed" I am at the decisions that our Congressional leaders have made when it comes to the F-35 program.

They have taken lies, damn lies and APA lies and used it to justify a slow down in the development of the B model.

The model that has the potential to be the glue of the international effort to get our allies to purchase this airplane.

I'm not talking about those that are already in the program...I'm talking about those that have or are making purchases that would make the F-35B the ideal airframe to operate from them.

Japan...it'll be looking to rebuild its industrial base...it had an entire F-2 squadron wiped out...Typhoon lovers are smoking crack if they really believe that it can win an order here.  Its twin engined but comparatively short legged and lacks capabilities.  Its barely ground attack capable.  Anti-shipping is definitely beyond its abilities.  Japan should be a no brainer for the F-35.

S. Korea...same as above without the industrial damage of the tsunami.

Singapore...with the proliferation of big deck LHD's in the Pacific, this island kingdom will not remain on the sidelines.  Its a natural.

Australia...talk about capability without ability!  Buy two LHD's without a fast jet to operate from them?  I don't see that lasting.  Besides, with the Air Force buying additional F/A-18's, it'll allow them to be more flexible in their purchasing decisions.

US...the big deck carriers are already on the accountants chopping blocks.  The need for 10 carriers is about to vanish.  This isn't exactly a bad thing.  What it will mean is that aircraft carriers will get back to 80+ aircraft on their decks again.  This might allow Marine Air to focus on the neck down strategy ....

Long story short...the whispering campaign by the APA, Sweetman and the rest of this cabal has obviously caught the ear of Congressional Staffers.

Conventional wisdom is wrong...but in this case its fashionable.  I can't wait until they're all crushed like grapes.

JSF making progress.


via the Lexington Institute.

As the Pentagon moves towards negotiating for the next lot of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, it is doing so with a sense that things are moving in the right direction. Pentagon acquisition chief, Under Secretary Ashton Carter, publicly stated that he was more confident in the program. There is also said to be an improved working relationship between senior Lockheed Martin officials and the new head of the Joint Program Office, Vice Admiral David Venlet.
The test program for the F-35 is firing on all cylinders. If the current progress is sustained, by mid-year the program will be caught up to its planned test program, eliminating at least one of the probationary items established last year for the STOVL JSF variant, the F-35B. The program will also address another problem area when it begins testing of a redesigned inlet door that has been causing some vibration problems.
In addition to progress on the airframe, avionics and software, the F-35s engine maker, Pratt & Whitney (P&W), is also making progress. Fixes have been implemented for each of the problem areas identified in earlier tests and should be completed before the end of the year. Equally important, P&W has committed to its original cost reduction plan for the next lot of engines, despite the fact that the restructured program is buying fewer F-35s than originally planned. According to reports, P&W has committed to dropping its price by 13 percent through engine 250, a cost savings rate more than double the typical six percent reduction for an engine program at the same stage of development.
The biggest challenge facing the JSF program is not technical; all the problems identified for the aircraft and the engine have fixes in development or actually deployed on test vehicles. The biggest issue is cost. The program is on track to produce the aircraft for the target price of $60 million a copy when it reaches full production. The problem is that the Pentagon and the Congress are continually reducing the annual buys for the aircraft. This makes it very difficult for Lockheed Martin and P&W to move down the learning curve, provide predictability to their subcontractors or manage their labor force correctly. Everyone who shops at Costco or BJ’s knows that when you buy in bulk you save money. Well, the same thing is true for weapons platforms.
While it is right for the Pentagon to make affordability a priority in weapons systems acquisition, it is equally the government’s duty to act like a responsible buyer. If DoD wants a low, stable price than it has to commit to a predictable acquisition rate and to reaching that target as rapidly as possible.
Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
More good news you won't here about...

The program is on track to accomplish all of its goals.  Despite the e-mail campaigns that many bloggers, writers and critics are engaged in, the policy makers and the services are fully behind this airplane.

The naysayers have had their day in the sun...Blogs got readership by being anti-JSF.  Those days are coming to an end.

I couldn't be happier.

You're over the target when you're taking fire.

The UK blog Think Defence has an interesting article on the Eurofighter Typhoon.  In it he covers the costs of bringing the airplane into production and isn't gentle in his critique of the "first air to ground" mission.  To be precise, he calls it a publicity stunt.

I couldn't agree more.

But what's stunning about this revelation is that Think Defence is generally a huge supporter of placing all the UK's aviation assets in the RAF basket.  If he's turning on you then you've got issues.

More relevant and I think an even more stunning article is found at Sharkey's World Blog.  Here's a sample.
The Typhoon had to fly in company with a Tornado because the £160 million worth of laser targeting pods destined for fitting to the Typhoon were still in their packing crates and the Typhoon pilots were not qualified or trained to use them.  The Tornado was therefore used to acquire the targets for the bombs and the Typhoon pilot dropped his bombs when directed to by the Tornado crew. This can be viewed either as an innovative and sensible way of ‘making good’ serious national front line deficiencies or as a very expensive and inefficient way of doing so. The latter view seems more appropriate when Harriers from carriers remain available with trained aircrew to do a job which presently requires a Typhoon /Tornado combination which, even if either aircraft performed to desired specification, would be at a markedly higher cost.
and then this...

8.         The basic costs of this mission can be broken down as follows:



Typhoon: three hours flying time                                                        £240,000

Tornado: three hours flying time                                                        £105,000

Refuelling tanker: five hours flying time                                             £150,000

Fuel costs: approximately                                                                     £100,000

Total cost of the single mission                                                      £595,000



8.         Harrier aircraft from a carrier could have completed this mission for less than £80,000 and without this cost of deploying Typhoon, Tornado and tanking aircraft and associated ground support to Italy and Cyprus.



9.         Those are the basic mission costs. The support costs are more difficult to estimate but suffice it to say that running RAF Marham for one year is more than four times the cost of running HMS Ark Royal or HMS Illustrious for the same period.
Long story short.

My friend in the UK is able to put facts and figures to thoughts that many of us have.  The retirement of the Harriers was short sighted and not well thought out.

Inter service politics has cost the UK capability and the inability to admit the mistake will see that this capability is not restored.

Read the whole thing.  Sharkey is taking flak...that means he's on target.

101st Airborne, 2/327th, "No Slack" Battalion; fighting on a hill top.

U.S. Army soldiers From the 2/327th No Slack Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, return fire after receiving small-arms fire during combat operation in the valley of Barawala Kalet, Kunar province, Afghanistan, March 29, 2011.

U.S. Army soldiers From the 2/327th No Slack Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, return fire in the valley of Barawala Kalet, Kunar province, Afghanistan March 29, 2011.

U.S. Army soldiers From the 2/327th No Slack Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, return fire from behind cover during combat operations in the valley of Barawala Kalet, Kunar province, Afghanistan March 29, 2011.

A U.S. Army soldier From the 2/327th No Slack Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, relieved after a fire fight with the Taliban opens his mouth up towards the sky to taste the snow as it falls in the valley of Barawala Kalet, Kunar province, Afghanistan March 29, 2011.

A U.S. Army soldier From the 2/327th No Slack Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, returns fire with a M-249 squad automatic weapon during combat operations in the valley of Barawala Kalet, Kunar province, Afghanistan March 29, 2011.


UPDATE:

I sent the guys at BlackFive an e-mail asking why the 101st would establish a base camp on the sideslope of a hill instead of on top of it.  They responded that it was probably mission dependent...they were observing trade routes and established it where they would have the best field of fire.

Makes sense to me.  Mission first...Troop welfare second...

Long story short.  They established the base in an area that would help them accomplish the mission.

US Army is about to shelve the M24 Sniper Rifle.


This is really the end of an era.  I just really have to wonder when an up sized M110 will eventually supplant the XM2010...semi automatic sniper rifles appear to be the wave of the future.

via Military.com.
The Army is moving closer to arming all of its sharpshooters with the XM2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle, a powerful new sniper rifle that can reach more than 50 percent farther than the weapon currently in use.
 
The XM2010 first hit Army ranges late last year, and the service's top gear buyer says it is already targeting bad guys in Afghanistan.
 
The new rifle takes some of the parts of the current Remington-built M24 bolt-action sniper rifle -- which has been in the Army's inventory since the late 1980s -- and marries them with an updated stock, magazine and rail system.
 
But in a major shift brought on by experience in Afghanistan, the XM2010 is being built to fire the .300 Winchester Magnum round, which can hit targets up to 1,200 meters away. The current M24 -- much the same as the civilian Remington Model 700 -- fires a 7.62mm round that can reach targets about 800 meters away.
Read the whole thing but the US Army appears to be setting course toward a two rifle system...the XM2010 for long range shots and the M110 for the shorter/urban stuff.

What remains unsaid is whether the .50 caliber rifles are going away.

I'd almost bet money that they are.  The 300 Win Mag can almost reach as far and as far as I know shoot flatter.

Eurofighter Typhoon teaches hard lessons on modern aircraft procurement.


The Eurofighter might be everything its designers claim it to be.  That doesn't mean that even after years of development and deployment that its quite there yet.

This story from SkyNews sheds some unfortunate light on the plight of the UK's Eurofighter force.