Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Marine Corps Quotes

David Cenciotti on Italian Call 2011.

I've got a soft spot for Southern Europe.  They're getting screwed by the North (Germany) yet still stay in the fight and are working their way through the drama.  Luv you guys...stay strong.  But I digress.  These photo's from David's blog are worth a look and there are plenty more.  Take a look.







Pic of the day. June 22, 2011.

Two US Marine Corps MH-53E Super Stallion helicopter crews perform an aerial refueling training exercise with a KC-130J Super Hercules tanker crew above the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5) in Mediterranean Sea on 10 June 2011. The helicopters are assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (Reinforced), attached to the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group, which is conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the US 6th Fleet area of responsibility. The deployed KC-130J crew is assigned to Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252 (VMGR-252) at MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina.

Wonder Woman to the rescue

Wonder Woman No. 601 by *AlexGarner


Ya know.  I don't know the guy that's in charge over at Aviation Week but the guy must be about ready to punch walls.


I mean seriously.


His star reporter has a hard-on for the F-35....and he can't get the boy  under control.

So what does an editor in chief do?

Do you sack the guy?

No.

A couple of other publications would be all over him.

Do you suspend him?

Naw...tried that, it didn't work.

So what do you do?

You have other reporters on your staff write corrections.

Let me introduce you to Amy Butler aka Wonder Woman.

JSF partners and customers will be able to have the same stealth characteristics as the U.S., according to Joe Dellavedova, the F-35 program office spokesman. 

There is a caveat: "each partner will have the option to add 'unique' capabilities that may have minor LO characteristics," he tells Aviation Week. One example, he says, is the addition of a drag chute, an item Norway has eyed. 

Such "capabilities may have minor implications on LO characteristics," Dellavedova says. Dellavedova made his comments in response to follow up questions during the F-35 briefing at this week's Paris Air Show. During the briefing, deputy program manager USAF Maj. Gen. CD Moore and Lockheed Martin executive vice president Tom Burbage seemed flatfooted at a question posed by a journalist asking whether a report in the Australian media that the radar cross section capability would be degraded for the partners. 

Moore said, "All I can tell you is we have every intent on meeting the KPPs on the aircraft as designated by our partners," adding that the report was "speculative." 

After the briefing, a program source also said the discussion about RCS is largely classified.
Totally different from Sweetman's earlier post huh?

Aviation Week must be in turmoil!

I wish I could be a fly on those walls.  Watch your back Amy!  The Dark Lord might be after you!

Sweetman bashes the F-35 in 3...2...1...

I'd say that I was surprised but I'm not.

I'd say that I'm disappointed but that's not strong enough.

I guess the best description is...Par for the course.

Read it here but check out this turn of phrase.
The two program leaders broke left and right and demonstrated evasive maneuvers that would have done credit to an Su-35 formation tackling a salvo of AMRAAMs. The report was speculative with no access to program information. The partners have been fully involved in defining requirements. The F-35 will meet all its requirements. And so on and so forth. Following it was enough to cause a G-LOC episode.

Sweetman is spoiling for a fight on the JSF.  He walked into that briefing room ready to confront the program officials, not gather information.

Who was it that asked the question I wonder?  Was it one of Sweetman's sycophants?  Probably.

He wants a fight so badly that he's seeing boogey men where none exist.

Damn bro.  You're better than this.


F-35 expected to enter service in 2015 (my bet would be mid 2014)!

Via...Aviation Week????!!!!

USMC Expect First F-35B In Service Early 2015

Jun 19, 2011 
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

The U.S. Marine Corps expects to get its version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into service in late 2014 or early 2015, a two-to-three-year slip, says Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, the commandant for aviation.
He is confident the short-takeoff vertical-landing (Stovl) F-35B will be ready for use by then if the fixes in place for technical issues proceed as planned, he tells Aviation Week during a June 19 interview in advance of the Paris air show.
As a contingency plan, the general showed no interest in procurement of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, which are being bought by the Navy. “Plan B is to try harder” at JSF, he says.
In the meantime, Robling says that the current AV-8B Harriers and F-18 Hornets can continue to handle the attack mission. These can undergo service-life-extension programs only “to a degree,” he says. In the middle of the next decade, it is “not viable” to continue extending the lives of these aircraft.
“SLEPs are not easy and they are expensive,” Robling says. Taking the existing Marine Corps Hornets to about 10,000 hr. of service extends the life by two to four years depending on how the aircraft are used. He notes that a Stovl capability is needed for the Marine operational concept.
Recently, Harriers were used for strikes in Libya owing to the lack of availability of a refueling tanker for other aircraft suitable for the mission, he adds. The Harriers, though, aren’t without their problems. Extra water is needed for takeoff in Stovl mode for these missions, he said.
The two-to-three-year slip was brought on by outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision this year to put the Stovl JSF on
“probation.”
“That is a poor choice of words,” Robling says. “This is a time for us to get these fixes done.”
The general reports that the testing of the B continues faster than expected this year, after a lackluster showing last year. As a result, the Marines have opted to remove two Bs from the test schedule earlier than planned to undergo modification in preparation for shipboard testing on the Wasp amphibious assault ship this fall. Robling says this accelerated modification plan “takes out risk” from the program.
Boy talk about a buried story!

But I won't complain too much.  At least Amy reported the news.

The Marine Corps is planning on an initial operational capability by 2015.

In Marine land that means that it better be ready by mid 2014 or you'll see an adverse fitness report inserted into your SRB.

I wonder what the haters, spinners and bullshitters have to say now?

The Navy picked the wrong V/STOL UAV.


Yesterday I ran a post on the FireScout UAV that got downed in Libya.  In response to that post BB1984 made this statement to my question ... are rotary winged UAVs an evolutionary dead end?
To get back to your original questions:

Ref 1: Sure rotary wing UAVs are more vulnerable. The trade off is a lot of neat things come along with VTOL. Helicopters are more vulnerable than jets, it doesn't mean you replace all your helicopters with fast movers.

Ref 3: Given the choice of operating fixed wing vs. rotary wing for maritime patrol and ASW, everyone picks fixed wing. This line of thinking is why I think the Osprey is criminally under-used in future navy planning, but I digress . . On anything smaller than a through deck cruiser, fixed wing isn't really an option so VTOL vehicles have a place for everything smaller. Also VTOL drones (usually but not always rotary wing) allow aviation capability on even smaller ships than helicopters both because of physical size and because losing one is not as big a deal as it is with a manned helo. The reasons there is a future for maritime VTOL UAVs are the same as the reason there is a future for maritime helicopters.

Ref 4: It's not a one to one comparison. Firescout is about 1/7th the size of a Navy Helo by weight. Having several drones instead of one helo lets you cover more water and gives resilience against mechanical failure and combat losses. this combines with the unmanned nature of the beast to let commanders use drones much more aggressively. If you look at how much capability you can get out of a fixed amount of deck space, support crew, and fuel, smaller UABs will look better in many applications by weight of numbers, not individual platform capability.

The theory is moot however. The LCS is a disaster and the targeting capabilities that UAVs bring are only significant to a Navy that arms surface ships to kill other surface ships and attack shore targets, things the US Navy has no requirement for nor interest in
After reading that I reconsidered and arrived at this conclusion.

Rotary winged UAVs do have a place.

The Navy just picked the wrong one to develop.  They should have picked the Eagle Eye.  Specs from Wikipedia.

Specifications

General characteristics
  • Crew: 0
  • Length: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m)
  • Wingspan: 24 ft 2 in (7.37 m)
  • Main rotor diameter: 2× 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)
  • Height: 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)
  • Main rotor area: 157 ft² (14.6 m²)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW207D turboshaft, 641 hp (478 kW) each
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 225 mph (360 km/h)
  • Endurance: 6 hours
  • Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,096 m)
Armament
  • 200 lb (91 kg) payload
.
First thing that stands out in my mind is the lack of weapons carriage and the relatively short endurance.
The revolution in munitions toward smaller more effective weapons makes weapons carriage moot and proper engineering can solve the endurance problem.  

The Navy played it safe when it came to equipping its surface ships with UAVs.  Because it did, it missed the opportunity to team with the US Coast Guard on the development of this revolutionary machine.  Instead of being bold, they entered the field of UAVs in a half hearted way and we're seeing half hearted results.

Its not too late.

Fly Eagle Eye!