Happy 2013!

Hope Springs Eternal...

The Mysterious LM 'CUDA' Missile"...

May not be that mysterious after all.

readers will remember a couple of days ago when I put up my first post speculating about features seen on representations of a, I assume, proposed Lockheed Martin initiative: the  'CUDA' missile. I showed a 'rough estimate' of it's proportions and component locations IF the missile were truly "SDB-size".

It didn't take much research to come up with what I think is a highly-probable explanation for those 'mysterious' spots.  I assume someone else has probably already figured out a likely explanation somewhere as well, and since I work long hours, they probably have already spilled the beans, but here comes  my analysis anyway, with some weight and performance analysis thrown in to boot :

Kudos to Scott Lowther Who Was, at the Very Least, MOSTLY Right...

In his original post at the Unwanted Blog, Scott Lowther had speculated:

"My guess would be that this might be a large number of small solid rocket divert motors designed to help pitch the missile hard over in order to nail incoming jinking missiles head-on".

While I wouldn't rule out the capability to pitch the missile hard over to get 'incoming', I'm convinced the 'divert motors' idea is 'spot on' for the missile concept as shown. I believe that if the details are ever revealed, in retrospect, this feature is easy to explain.

Ockham's Razor

The spots are almost certainly Attitude Control Motors (ACMs). The design and placement are most suggestive of Lockheed Martin's PAC 3 Missile design:

I couldn't find a technical description of the PAC 3's ACMs, but did find a paper (source) that discussed the ERINT-1 missile's (from which the PAC 3 evolved) ACM installation:

The ACS contains 180 solid propellant Attitude Control Motors (ACMs) that thrust perpendicular to the centerline of the missile to provide pitch and yaw control during the homing phase. The ACMs are spaced evenly around the centerline of the missile in rings containing 18 motors. There are 10 rings in the ACS in the longitudinal direction for a total of 180 motors. The ACMs are commanded by the Motor Fire Circuit (MFC).

I did manage to find a closeup of the PAC 3 ACM module being manufactured in a Lockheed Martin PAC-3 product brochure. It appears to be just as the one described in the ERINT-1 paper. :



I submit that the ACMs are what puts the 'Hit' in "Hit to Kill" for the CUDA design.

Estimating CUDA Component Weights and Performance

[And remember, we're basing all this 'estimating' on a convention display model, vague comments, and a computer graphic!]

The discovery of what the magic spots were all about greatly simplified some assumptions that needed to be made as to CUDA missile weights, which in turn can give us clues in estimating performance.

Rather than 'absolute' performance, I will be discussing the possible CUDA numbers in terms of relevance to AMRAAM performance. I'm doing this for a couple of reasons. First, there is an EXCELLENT discussion of air-launched missile performance in general and likely AMRAAM performance available as 'backgrounder' on a thread here.  Second, the AMRAAM makes an excellent 'baseline' for comparative analysis.

Sizing the CUDA
If the CUDA is as it appears to be, it is just under half the length of the AMRAAM.

AMRAAM Profile Layed Over CUDA Graphic to Estimated Scale. (AMRAAM is white space INSIDE border shown)

But the relative fractional composition of the CUDA and the AMRAAM are significantly different. The following shows the CUDA's estimated relative proportion to the AMRAAM.(Notes: 1. Length is in Inches, 2. Rocket Motor (RM) Length is without blast tubes that run through the rear control section. 3. RM% comparison indicates that percentage of length of the CUDA that is RM is 26% greater a proportion of overall length than the AMRAAMs % and 4. Estimated total volume is not including radome which is assumed to be mostly 'empty'.)

The CUDA estimate indicates a larger rocket Motor as a Percentage of total Length and Volume than the AMRAAM

From comparing the two missiles, I find that the CUDA could weigh as little as 153 Lbs. Knowing more about the 'mystery spots' makes me think the weight would be slightly higher. If I include the ACMs as part of the Warhead module weight, I think the breakdown of weight by Rocket Motor, Warhead and Guidance and Control in comparison to the AMRAAM should look very much like:

 

With most trade off variability in the CUDA WH and G&C weights. the fraction most important to get right is the RM propellant weight as a percentage (I used 85% as they did in the linked thread) of total RM weight.

If we refer to the 'Delta V' formula at the thread I linked to above, and assume the CUDA uses the same rocket propellant mix that the AMRAAM does, we will find that the CUDA can weigh as much as 181 lbs, providing ~71.15 of the CUDA's 83.7 lb RM is propellant, to have an EQUAL top speed potential of the AMRAAM. As the discussion thread also notes, the AMRAAM isn't advertised to go as fast as the RM could carry it, because a percentage of propellant is reserved for a reduced 'sustainer boost'. This could also be true for the CUDA.

Depending upon how fast the CUDA decelerates due to drag after the RM burns out will determine what the actual range of the CUDA would be compared to the AMRAAM. Again, from the thread linked to above, we find:

Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A

P = Density of Air (kg/m^3)
V = Velocity (m/s)
Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; ~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage,
nose and tail profile
A = Sectional Area (m^2)

We've reduced the variables for our comparison to Cd and A

Since,
1. we've already established the fineness ratio for the CUDA concept shown is closer to the optimum '14' than the AMRAAM is in my earlier post, and
2. it appears the finnage and tail profile may be slightly higher drag  features than the AMRAAM's (hard to tell, perhaps insignificantly so, or little better or worse either way), in all likelihood the Cd of the CUDA is approximately equal to the AMRAAM.
3. In any case, the 'A' of the CUDA is about 27% lower than the AMRAAM's which is definitely an advantage to the CUDA

We can reasonably conclude that the CUDA is a Medium Range Missile design, and approximate to the AMRAAM in range.

I like the idea of an F-35 carrying 8-12 of these suckers and I'd like to see this kind of  missile come to fruition.

I'm MOST certain that if I missed anything on this late night exercise, SOMEONE will let me know. Did I mention we're basing all this 'estimating' on a convention display model, vague comments, and a computer graphic?

Oh Noes! Bill Sweetman Keeps Bringing back the 80's

Looks like another generation gets to deal with the problem child that won't grow up. 

CUDA vs. SHOULDA (NOT)

I'm still working on 'guesstimates' of the performance and design nuances of the LM in-house CUDA missile project. It's not a 'secret program' and from what I can tell, not even a government program. (Though there is almost certainly some classified technology involved about which I won't hazard to even guess about in private). From all indications so far, based upon the verbiage I've seen, the 'difficulty' the LM marketeers are having in releasing info is related to 'Proprietary' concerns. If I find out otherwise, I'll probably drop it and STFU.

Contrast talking about a company-funded concept slow-leaked by the marketing department, with Bill Sweetman's latest offal.

A few observations ought to sufficiently express my... distaste shall we say, with anyone actively trying to delve into national secrets as if it is either some noble public service or even a respectable endeavor.

"Sources"

The 'sources'  who can't be  named should be tried and shot if they're 'credible' at all. If they are 'credible' they are probably Congressional Staffers, or people who have a habit of stroking Staffer egos they should be shot twice.

Texas Sharpshooter Approach 

Sweetman covers a lot of speculative ground concerning what might be black budget activities. he throws enough up against the wall and he MIGHT get something close to right that he can point to later. He's probably hoping he does better than he did in the 80's and 90's. I'm hoping he keeps repeating the Aurora and Stealth Aircraft debacles.

Love/Hate

I usually LOVE Sweetman's retrospectives on historical aircraft or aircraft already in the public eye. That which I don't like is whenever he substitutes 'narrative' for actual 'history'.  It's his speculative stuff that serves no purpose other than to perhaps reveal or point to secrets that those responsible for the defense of the nation have deemed necessary to keep secret, that drove us up the wall in the 80s-00's.

The Cognitive Dissonance of  Lamenting High Defense Budgets While Subverting Defense Program Objectives

Has Bill Sweetman EVER pondered how much of the utility of the U-2 and  SR-71 and their relatively long service lives were due to the secrecy that surrounded them? Has he ever postulated how many weapons programs didn't NEED to be developed, so long as the SR-71 was effective?

The Next Generation Warrior's Burden: It's 'CRAPTASTIC'!

Looks like an entirely new generation of weapon system developers and secret squirrels gets to deal with Sweetman's overwrought hand-wringing ( Is There Too Much Secrecy? Answer: NO.), perennial heavy-handed fishing expeditions, and fanboy fellow-travellers propagating his mythology across the world wide web.

BTW: I winder if ole' Bill even noticed the irony of sharing the byline on this piece with a guy... in China?  Who needs Wikileaks when we've still got AvLeak?

"The Mysterious LM 'CUDA' Missile" Or....

I Get to Play 'the Capability Speculator' For a Change

Hat tip: The Aviationist via The Unwanted Blog

I freely admit most of it will be guessing (even though most of that is "Educated Guessing")

From the articles at the links, we find a little more info concerning a Lockheed Martin Air-to-Air Missile concept that 'someone' would like to be developed into a viable weapon system. Read it all at the sources, I'm not going to repeat verbatim what was revealed here, we'll just use the info as required.

There's not much hard info to go on yet, and I would hesitate to speculate about it, like I'm going to, if it were an actual DoD program. I'm also going to play off comments, if there are any, that may come up on this topic.

So for this initial post, I'm just going to note that at 'The Aviationist', the article has a source saying the CUDA is about Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) size. IF the CUDA concept shown IS the same 'size' as the SDB then the component breakdown of the missile would be as shown in the graphic below:

CUDA Missile Component Dimensions If same size as SDB, Original Photo found at The Aviationist

Notice I've placed "question marks" for the ~12 inch long section behind the guidance section. As Scott Lowther observed at his place, that is the most mysterious aspect of the design. The section could involve something really new and different in missile design, but at least part of it is (as shown) a warhead, as the yellow band indicates a High Explosive present. Since the missile is 'Hit to Kill', the explosive weight of the warhead should be much smaller than the warhead in a 'Proximity Fuzed' weapon.

That leaves ~8 inches of mysterious 'spots' to be explained. I can think of a lot of functions that these 'spots' could be related to, and in the absence of additional information, none leap out as 'most likely'. If we begin making assumptions, then.....maybe some do. If we assume capabilities planned for the  F-35 affected the design, then perhaps some sort of data link antenna array? If we assume it is related to the warhead (or as I mentioned at Lowther's place in the comments, the trademarked CUDA name) are there 'teeth' in there to shred airplane structure and systems after it has impacted?

The concept as presented (size of an SDB) would have pretty decent supersonic drag, as it's 'fineness ratio' is close to the optimum ~14 (Raymer) which is a good thing (but no guarantee) for getting longer 'range'. It is about equidistant on the short side from the optimum as the AIM-7F/M Sparrow is on the high side. See table below.

Data Source: AF.mil

 Because the proportion of mass that is rocket motor in this concept is much higher than typical missiles, I would expect it accelerates to max speed over launch speed much faster than anything we currently use. The upper limit of the speed reached may be higher than other missiles as well, in multiples of speed of sound. But from the ogive shape of the nose, which is a shape that balances aerodynamic and RF transmissivity requirement, not as fast as it might otherwise be (not a bad thing, maneuverability is still needed (are we back to those 'spots' again?).

Almost Forgot: One Potential F-35 Loadout:

One CUDA Missile Carriage Concept:  12 CUDAs in F-35 Weapon Bays, 6 to a side.

P.S. Dave Majumdar at Flight Global has a short note up about the CUDA with some good points but some pretty boilerplate-lousy unattributed quotes. One in particular:

Another source adds: "Let's just say if they can turn a missile into a 'hittile' that is a big deal."

If you weren't around when British Aerospace was using that turn of the phrase as a marketing hook for their point-defense Rapier missile system, you might think the 'another source' above was being pretty clever.

F-35 and the "Crackpots of Doom" (Redux)

(Updated and Bumped for comparison.)

Gee, has it been a year already?
In the original post below, among other things I demonstrated/showed:
1) That the official F-35 cost projections at the time had been  complete 'fails' and that production costs were tracking closer to LM's projections than anything else and much lower than the CAIG's.  
2) That there was a disconnect between what the Government was 'budgeting' and what they expected the costs to be.
3) The scary Mod dollars that will be needed to retrofit LRIP 1-4, when added to the initial costs appeared to STILL be within reasonable estimation of LM's production numbers.
  
The USG has negotiated the LRIP 5 production numbers and it looks like the trend continues. Here's the relevant part of the official news release (Bold italics mine):

Principle Agreement Reached on Fifth production lot of Lockheed Martin F-35s WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 30, 2012 – The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement in principle to manufacture 32 F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters as part of Low-Rate Initial Production 5 (LRIP-5). The contract will also fund manufacturing-support equipment, flight test instrumentation and ancillary mission equipment.
“It’s been a long journey, but I’m pleased we’ve achieved an agreement that is beneficial to the government and Lockheed Martin,” said Vice Admiral Dave Venlet, F-35 Program Executive Officer. “Production costs are decreasing, and I appreciate everyone’s commitment to this important negotiation process. The LRIP-5 agreement will end the year on a positive note and sets the table for the program to move forward with improving business timelines for the greater good of all the nations partnered with us.”

Under the contract, Lockheed Martin will produce 22 F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variants for the U.S. Air Force, three F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variants for the U.S. Marine Corps and seven F-35C carrier variants (CV) for the U.S. Navy. Aircraft production was started in December 2011 under a previously authorized undefinitized contract action.

There's already the usual crowd trying to do 'math' beyond their ken, simply dividing the total by the number of jets, and not realizing that not all in the $ amount is accountable against the unit cost. You've also got the usual mixing of cost numbers in the usual quarters.

But lets play the 'stupid' game for a moment and just divide the total by the number of jets like a Rube, thus averaging the cost of the variants in the process shall we? Using a 'popular' source we get a total cost of $3.8B for the buy, which translates into a $118.75M 'estimate' for the LRIP 5 jets. Now trace down to the graphic below from last year (I'll post an updated version with the latest actuals later) showing an official Canadian government chart with cost projections and actuals for just F-35A (the least expensive) aircraft.

That's right. Even using the inflated simpleton-math estimation method above, the F-35 is STILL tracking to slightly below LM's lower cost predictions and nowhere near the 'feared by some and hoped-for by others' "official" numbers.    

Oh dear. What WILL the 'haters' do by LRIP 9 or 10? Accuse the F-35 program of hiding costs?

**********************Original Post Begins Here***************
12/2/11 8:08 PM CST

Skip the breathlessly headlined Bill Sweetman "Article of Doom" for now (it will make it just that more entertaining if you go back to it) and go to slightly less 'vapourous' article he linked to as the source at AOL  (I know! Whooda' guessed AOL was still around?).
There are many parts of the original article that I find most interesting, given the responses to it in the blog comments I've seen so far.
In no particular order:

But slowing production would help reduce the cost of replacing parts in jets that are being built before testing is complete, Venlet said. Although fatigue testing has barely begun -- along with "refined analysis" -- it's already turned up enough parts that need to be redesigned and replaced in jets already built that the changes may add $3 million to $5 million to each plane's cost.
The price of the F-35, being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in three variants, has averaged roughly $111 million under the most recent Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 4 contract.

So now the unit retrofit mod costs estimates are 50-70% lower than the previously "feared" $10M/unit costs that were 'estimated' only three months ago? Hey! That's 'Crack-ing' GOOD news! And since the LRIP contract costs to-date have BEAT predictions, that means that even with the retrofit costs, it looks like the the total unit costs are coming in at or near program predictions and are still nowhere near the widely circulated B.S. CAPE estimates.
But doesn't this 'Cracks of Doom' thing kind of' support the assertion that the F-35 is the (to quote a Sweetie*) "most incompetent and wasteful fighter program in history"? Umm - no.

*A member of the 'Sweetman' Tribe

Nor are the weaknesses surprising in the world of fighter jets, he added. The discoveries are "not a quote 'problem with the airplane,'" Venlet said. "It's a fighter made out of metal and composites. You always find some hot spots and cracks and you have to go make fixes. That's normal.

Gee. I wish I had known that. Oh yeah. I do. The article doesn't go into the 'why' this is so, but it is simple enough. For performance reasons you have to make the plane's structure as light as possible and it is always easier to put weight in where it is needed than take it out. Structural tweaks are usually a mix of both in the end, with the emphasis on adding structure for durability.
When Vice Adm Venlet is claimed to be calling for 'slowing down' F-35 production. In what "way" is it meant? 

Venlet declined to say how much he thinks production should be slowed. Earlier plans called for the Pentagon to order 42 F-35s in fiscal 2011, but that was cut to 35 and more recently it was dropped to 30. Previous plans, which Venlet's comments and the unprecedented pressure to cut the defense budget make clear will change, had been to ramp up orders to 32 in fiscal 2012, 42 in fiscal 2013, 62 in fiscal 2014, 81 in fiscal 2015 and 108 in fiscal 2016 before jumping to more than 200 a year after fundamental fatigue and flight testing is done

.The Admiral is concerned about the steeper ramp up that exists as a result from Congress cutting the buys on the front end? Surprise! (Not.) (Think of trying to climb a flight of stairs where the first 5-6 steps have been lowered but the rest still lead to the top floor). This approach has risk advantages and it has risk disadvantages (as from time to time I've had to expand upon for the some of the more obtuse among us), and must say that I disagree with the idea from a 'risk' and 'total cost' POV. I disagree because I believe it is better to aim high and possibly fall a little short 'sooner' than to aim lower and only possibly hit your target 'later'. The reason being is that the near term risks are always better known than those that might transpire in the future. Vice Admiral Venlet knows this as well, so what would REALLY drive him to consider it?
This next bit is the most bothersome part for me.

Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary. 

"Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us." But he added: "I have the duty to navigate this program through concurrency. I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it. My duty is to help us navigate through it."

I find it hard to accept this passage as written. The second paragraph containing the quote is harmless (though kind of emotional for a PEO of a major weapon system program) as it stands, but the first paragraph that prefaces it smells of willful misdirection. Most people would read the passage as Venlet is asserting 'concurrency' was a miscalculation. But more likely the passage should be read as estimates of the amount of change that would be needed as the program progressed was a miscalculation. Why do I believe this? Because 'concurrency' itself has been analyzed and studied to death (Though Congress uses it as an effective bogeyman). I'm certain Venlet wanted to deliver the first jets in final configurations, but certainly he has the training and background to be aware of the realities in the job. I wonder what, if anything, the author of the original article is leaving out?
The AOL article closer has the bottom line:

"The question for me is not: 'F-35 or not?'" Venlet said. "The question is, how many and how fast? I'm not questioning the ultimate inventory numbers, I'm questioning the pace that we ramp up production for us and the partners, and can we afford it?"

"Can we afford it?" Ah! There's the rub. It strikes me that from earlier in the article there's a kernel of what might be the 'real' cost problem.

"We negotiated the LRIP 4 contract with a certain amount of resources considered to pay for concurrent changes," Venlet said. "We were probably off on the low side by a factor of four. Maybe five. And we've discovered that in this calendar year, '11, and it's basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden."

That is most interesting in the sense that the comment relates to what was 'budgeted' and not what was 'estimated'. Remember this chart? (It's in some of the linked material above as well.)

I suspect the budget shortfall has as much to do with how the costs have been amortized across fiscal years as it has to do with the fact that the contracts were negotiated for amounts less than even the JSF projected cost curve. Notice when this chart was made, the LRIP 4 jets were to cost approximately $128M in the end. Use the dollar figures provided in the AOL article: $110M plus $3-$5M for the retrofits. What is 'missing' from this equation?  The LRIP 4 share of the weight reduction effort? [I cannot let an opportunity pass to also remind readers, once again, that even WITH all the "costs" being thrown about so carelessly, the totals to date STILL more closely track the lower internal program estimates than any other estimate and the B.S. CAPE estimates are still the outlier by far.]

This whole 'slow the ramp up' story IMHO is a narrative constructed to explain constraining the program more for reasons of immediate budgetary convenience than anything else. The program's successes this year may have brought about the need for the narrative.

"Cracks of Doom"?  Heh. The 'beat' goes on......

DoD Buzz Promotes the Anti-F-35 Agenda

Unintentionally or Not

I seem to run into this problem every time I really seek to 'engage' over at Military.com

DODBuzz had their "Friday Red Meat" post up for the usual F-35 wailers and gnashers. One wailer,(really more of a gnasher) with the handle 'Torquewrench' spun an extremely poor analogy between buying a car and buying an airplane that I couldn't pass up. So I took the opportunity to tell a story myself, only a non-fictional one about how combat aircraft are REALLY bought and why.

The response was as expected, with 'T-wrench' and another taking the challenge.

So just a moment ago, I sat down to dismiss the arguments presented. For SOME reason, my first comment wouldn't take. I tried posting the various forms of the following as my first response:

RE: Costs and "That's the way we've done it, but that doesn't mean we've been doing it the best way"  

If we don't want to build a system that is obsolete tomorrow,that is the ONLY way it can be done. What has affected the F-35 the most by far has nothing to do with any F-35 unique experience (there's been a remarkable lack of ‘requirements creep’ due to the pay-to-be-different rule among customers). What's driven cost projections most is Congress/DoD appointees stretching development and lowering the early buy numbers using the 'Concurrency' scam as a political expedient. Problematic for these projections: the actual costs-to-date correlate more closely to LMs projections than the CAIG’s.

the first time I received notice that the 'administrator' had instantly deleted my comment.

I tried again, first looking for any words like 'cockpit' that their filters (on a DoD topic site, really??) don't approve of. Nothing, but I rephrased things a bit and tried again: 

And I got the same result. I tried again, carefully trimming, reviewing and organizing. Same result.  So wanting to try something different I posted:

Either the 'administrator' finds counter-arguments to the F-35 doom patrol unacceptable, or his filtering system is too tight.

Of course, That gets through. So I try a 'good faith' fourth time:

Which of course gets me the 'administrator delete' response again.

All the while, F-35 critics seem to be getting Cart Blanche in posting content. Unintentionally or not, and because my short comment got past the filters I'm leaning towards 'unintentionally', DoD Buzz is aiding and abetting the propagation of falsehoods and hysteria with their current comment system.

Questions for Aerospace/Defense “Journalists”

A few questions for the Aerospace/Defense “Journalists” out there.

What are the odds that two different ‘news’ sources (one, two -- and two is worse) would come up with--shall we say, “twisted” articles concerning the standup of the first USMC F-35 squadron in Yuma within a day of each other without pre-coordination or as a reflex to information coming from a common pro-active source?

4:10 (F-35) to Yuma

What are the odds that the articles would also have the same basic twist (emphasis on the work ahead and not goals achieved, consistent repetition of old problems minimizing or ignoring progress made on known issues, and using the same sort of breathless reporting to make relatively minor technical problems appear as if they were of grave consequence) ? Again, without pre-coordination, or in reflex to information from a common, pro-active source?

What are the odds of these same articles being issued at essentially the same time after months of nothing but a long string of good news and successes coming out of the F-35 program?

What are the odds this ‘coincidence’ occurred after the election by design? It seems the closer we got to the election, the quieter the anti-JSF crowd became.

I don’t smell conspiracy coming from the usual circle of defense writers.

I smell sloth, smug ignorance, gullibility and possibly the spoor left behind by the usual suspects in the rabid Anti-Defense Establishment.

Fess up boys. Who’s writing your first draft these days?

Did your 'sources' get wind of this version of the story ahead of time and exhort you to perform damage control?   

Barry Graff's "Why the F-35" Added to My Blogroll

A Force Multiplier for Truth

I've been meaning to reciprocate a link to Barry Graff's Why the F-35? blog for some time now. He's doing yeoman's work making sure the good news about the F-35 doesn't get drowned out by the anti-JSF drumbeat.
If you haven't visited, please do so frequently from now on. There you will find all the news that should be getting out in the usual venues, but 'somehow' never seems to reach their 'front pages' (at least without a trip through the spin machine). Barry's keeping abreast of the news cycle let's me spend time on other topics and activities just as near to my heart. So... Thanks! 

Note: I'm also keeping a couple of links in my blogroll that some may wonder why, as they don't get updated very often. It's just that when they do, I don't want to miss it!  

GO VOTE!



Election 'After Battle' Report: 

It 'Aint Over'-The job just got a whole lot tougher.

 

With the exception of the usual brain dead zones (including Moscow on the Brazos), and the usual NAACP illegalities in Houston, Texas pretty much did what it could against the Rise of the "Loser Nationtm" . Too bad about much of the rest of the country. Expect more polarization at the state level as the sentient beings who can cut their strings with the 'Blue' states move to where Makers outnumber the Takers. Welcome! -- just leave any silly ideas at the state line. Concealed Carry permit applications are first door on the right.

 



Image Courtesey of the Chicago Boyz

"Barack Obama Told the Nation"



This was sent to me by a friend who is also in the 'Defense Industry'. Given the latest news on the Defense Sequestration found here, and here  for examples– I thought it apropos.

Barack Obama told the nation:
Have no fear of sequestration!
From EVERYONE, a Corp-o-ration ROBS!
Though I cannot say ‘twas really smart
RIF hundred thousands? - Just a start!
To ‘save’ Americans from... their jobs?

Now a homeless shelter resident
I oft’ wonder ‘bout the President,
Yeah I know Barack, he ‘loves’ me so.
Yet how sadly I remember
Way back yonder in November,
When he said my job would “never go”

Barack Obama told the nation
Have no fear of sequestration!
From EVERYONE, a Corp-o-ration ROBS!
Though I cannot say ‘twas really smart
RIF hundred thousands? - Just a start!
To ‘save’ Americans from... their jobs!!!!!?
 
C'mon and SING it!

NO apologies to JUST another aging Hippie that I’m waiting for to die off and who wrote the original "Lyndon Johnson told the Nation"

And then-- the 'idjiit' updated it with this:

Dooooooosh.

 

Introducing Suzie Dershowitz Part 2

Today we will be ‘Provoking Accountability’….Of the ‘Unaccountable’



Smiling Suzie Dershowitz, with an incredibly hybris-ridden slogan. Source: POGO
(and why does this reminded me of a Jonah Goldberg book?)

POGO Major Ploy Du Jour #1: False Non-Political/Partisanship claims. Hint: Libertarian is NOT Conservative.

A Continuation From Part 1

Ms. Dershowitz opened her 'piece' (see part 1) by offering a title and a couple of paragraphs intimating POGO's position on reducing defense spending has broad support:

A recent study by Benjamin Zycher from the libertarian think tank the CATO Institute reaffirms what we've been saying all along: Cutting Pentagon spending will not cause the economic nightmare or job loss catastrophe the defense industry wants us to fear.

In addition to CATO, other right-leaning analysts, advocates, and politicians have also been vocally challenging the narrative that defense spending must not be decreased. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, recently pledged to fight any efforts to divert tax reform revenues toward an increase in Pentagon spending or avoiding across-the-board budget cuts, known as sequestration. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, has called for a national dialogue on sequestration, recognizing that "the average American out there, by big percentages, wants to cut defense by twice the sequester amount."

Got that? The 'spectrum' of support includes:

1. ‘Big L’ Libertarian CATO which thinks of terms of Republic OR Empire, and that if you're not all at home, well then you must be an Empire. 
2. A Cult of Personality ‘small government’ activist of the extreme self-serving more than tax-cut ilk, AKA Grover Norquist, and
3. ONE Republican Congressional dinosaur who just happens to be in a fight to keep his seat: the sole Republican House Seat in a district that has been redrawn to his disadvantage since the last election.

Who in that group would today be likely to place a priority on defense spending compared to their other interests?

Answer: None of them.

 

 About ‘Big L’ CATO and Defense  

‘Big L’ CATO has a Pollyanna view of world affairs that lives under the delusion that the US can afford to downsize the military because THEY don’t see the ‘threat’ which, combined with a somewhat more ‘passive isolationist’ vision of the United States’ role in world affairs versus the current (and faded under Obama) role as the benevolent and last remaining Superpower. This is perfectly acceptable, if CATO would then make statements that were qualified with the caveat “In CATO’s opinion, view, vision, we believe X”. But they don’t qualify. They flatly assert we need to reduce our defense spending and our involvement in the world’s affairs, that there is no ‘threat’ that warrants defense spending levels, etc (see this video which could have been the germ for the POGO regurgitation) . In doing so they look right past the point that if the United States does not ensure its interests are taken care of around the globe, someone else will take care of them for us in the manner of their choosing. The focus on visible ‘threats’ conveniently prevents them having to recognize: 

• The positive economic effects of close defense relationships with our allies, 
• The deterrent effects to those who would seek to cause us indirect as well as direct harm, economic or otherwise, 
• The advantages of having ‘friends’ and forces in place for any emergency (most likely unforeseen) no matter where on the globe that emergency might appear. 

 

As I’ve always said: I would be a Libertarian, if they had a frickin’ clue when it comes to defense, but then if they did, they would be good Conservatives. Here’s a tip for CATO.

If POGO and PDA are on your side—you are on the wrong side.

As it is, your defense ‘work’ just gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Sad.

BTW: Notice between the CATO ‘study’ and the CATO video, there is a conflation of the topics of ‘defense reductions’ in general and ‘defense sequestration’ specifically? This serves to abstract the issue and make it more ‘feely’ than ‘factual’. We’ll work on that later.
 

Part 3
Part 4

Mitchell Was Wrong?

Heh. I've never seen it put quite this way.
(From AFA's short history photo record "The Air Force Century" )

Mitchell Was Wrong 

In 1924, Air Service Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell submitted a report predicting that war in the Pacific would start with a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that would begin at 7:30 a.m., followed by an attack on Clark Field in the Philippines at 10:40 a.m. He later added that this would happen on a Sunday morning.  

Mitchell was wrong, of course. When the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor on Sunday Dec. 7, 1941, it was at 7:55 a.m.—almost half an hour later than Mitchell had predicted—and Clark Field was not attacked until 12:35 p.m. 

Yeah, what would a guy like this know?

  

OPSEC Blackout Over: Back From Vacation

Just got back tonight from a very satisfying, week-long vacation. Am well-rested and looking forward to getting up to speed with what's happening in the rest of the world. For better or worse, blogging will re-commence shortly.
For the most part, we just happily hung out at an undisclosed location, but we did play the 'tourist card ' one day:

Sequestration Cage Match: WSJ Puts a Beat-Down on DoD Buzz

Contrast the following:

1. Phil Ewing’s take on the state of the ‘Defense Sequestration’fiasco at DoD Buzz….

Wednesday’s now-infamous hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, which broke from its standard script of “where’s mine” to an unusually rancorous airing of partisan talking points, showed the depth of frustration in the defense world. A few years ago, defense was a prince of Washington interest groups. With two hot wars underway and a unanimous “support our troops” mentality in the country, the Pentagon, its allies and dependents got whatever they wanted, times two, yesterday. Now that same cohort has become just another victim in today’s politics of hostage-taking.

2. Kimberley Strassel’s observations at the Wall Street Journal on who’s ‘winning’ the ‘sequestration’ war of ideas….   

When Barack Obama has lost even liberal Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the White House has a problem. In Washington, that problem is known as the "sequester." In the rest of the country, it's becoming known as a jobs disaster.

Jobs, and his own re-election, were on Mr. Brown's tortured mind this week, when he publicly called on the president to do something about Defense Department cuts that threaten to shutter his state's Mansfield Lahm Air National Guard Base—and with it, 1,000 jobs. The cuts might be "penny wise," griped the senator, but they were "pound foolish."

And (my favorite part)...

The White House is clearly starting to worry. In a sign of panic, the Obama administration this week moved to hide the coming job losses. The Labor Department directed defense contractors to ignore the law and skip layoff notices, since sequester remains "uncertain." (Companies may well send them out anyway, since Labor can't protect them from lawsuits for failing to give due warning.)

And the president knows his ranks are getting twitchy. Congressional Democrats cracked this week, signing on to Republican legislation that gives the White House 30 days to detail the sequester cuts; they aren't willing to risk looking like White House pawns for secrecy. Republicans are ratcheting up the pressure, with ads targeting vulnerable Democrats in defense-heavy districts, town halls to highlight the sequester threat, and governors calling on Mr. Obama to step up and lead.

Democrats heading home for the August recess will hear an earful from their local defense contractors. And the party is getting equally worried about the other half of the sequester, which will strip hundreds of billions out of their own cherished domestic programs. If this environment gets hot enough, Mr. Obama could find himself alone on the stand-firm-on-sequester ship.

Read both pieces and form your own opinion.

Any bets as to whether more politicians read the WSJ, and more of their constituents read Instapundit than DoD Buzz?

Pssst: Don’t tell Phil: I’d say it would bum him out, except I think he knows he’s whistling past the graveyard when it comes to how this is going to play out in the end.

Postscript:
My ‘take’ stands. The Evil Party suckered the Stupid Party (again). This time, the Stupid Party believed (surely!) NO ONE would be Evil enough to jeopardize National Defense, even if they deign to play games with it. But the Evil Party was too clever by half (as they are really the Evil Hybris-ridden Party).

Solution?
Banish the Evil Party entirely and fire the Stupid Party Leaders (which would make it the ‘Smart Party’ overnight).

Hat tip for the WSJ Story: Instapundit

F-22: Journalism vs. Punk Journalism

Is David Axe a ‘Punk’?

If only ‘Punks’ practice ‘Punk Journalism’, we would have to say… yes. Otherwise?

Before you answer the question, let us first illustrate some of the key differences between ‘Journalism’ and ‘Punk Journalism’ to perhaps help you make up your mind.

(Note: all bold emphasis and brackets ‘[]’ are mine)

Journalism Title: “IN FOCUS: German Eurofighters impress during Red Flag debut”

Punk Journalism Title: “How to Defeat the Air Force’s Powerful Stealth Fighter”

F-22 Raptor (Source ACC)

Journalism is an attempt to provide a balanced story:

As part of the Distant Frontier exercise, F-22s from the USAF's 525th Fighter Squadron faced off against the German fighters in visual-range basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) combat training... 

While Grune [Luftwaffe] does not directly say that the Eurofighters emerged as the overall victors, he strongly implies it. "I put out some whiskey. If they come back with some good performances, and if you know what the goal is from a BFM setup, and you achieve that, then I will pay you whiskey," he says. "And I paid quite a lot of whiskey."... 

That account, however, is strongly disputed by USAF sources flying the F-22. "It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought," one Raptor pilot says….  

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of he F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says….  

Regardless of their differing accounts, the USAF was grateful for the chance to train with the Luftwaffe. "We optimise the opportunities we get to participate in dissimilar air combat training, as those opportunities are all too rare," says Lt Col Paul Moga, commander of the 525th Fighter Squadron. "Our recent BFM hops with the German air force Typhoons were outstanding….

‘Punk Journalism’ tries to sell you a single POV that supports a predetermined meme:

In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight....  

The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. “We were evenly matched,” Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft’s Jamie Hunter. The key, Gruene said, is to get as close as possible to the F-22 … and stay there. “They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.” ... 

Gruene said the Raptor excels at fighting from beyond visual range with its high speed and altitude, sophisticated radar and long-range AMRAAM missiles. But in a slower, close-range tangle — which pilots call a “merge” — the bigger and heavier F-22 is at a disadvantage. “As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22,” Gruene said. ... 

This is not supposed to be the sort of reaction the F-22 inspires. For years the Air Force has billed the Raptor as an unparalleled aerial combatant. Even former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in 2009 famously cut F-22 production to just 187 copies, called the stealth jet “far and away the best air-to-air fighter ever produced” and predicted “it will ensure U.S. command of the skies for the next generation.”

Eurofighter Typhoon (Source: Wikipedia)

Journalism will present valuable information to help the reader understand the story in the larger context:

While certain uncontrollable factors such as weather and manoeuvring limitations did not allow for full-up engagements, it is suffice to say that there was much learning across the board. The details of each set-up are privy only to the pilots that flew them, as that is the sacred standard among fighter pilots... 

"Its [F-22’s] unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," [Commander of JG74, Colonel] Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."...

The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an "animal". [How ‘slick’ is still a feasible Air-to-Air configuration?]

Punk Journalism will contain known falsehoods when it is believed it will advance the meme:

And it’s [F-22 is] slowly getting taken off the probation it incurred after seemingly suffocating pilots... [Combat Edge Flight Ensemble has been determined to be the problem and (wait for it)….it is NOT part of the F-22]  

Despite the historical facts, there persists in Air Force circles “a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based, air-to-air combat,” to quote air power skeptic Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the brute-simple F-16 and A-10 warplanes. [Sprey is not a co-designer of either the A-10 or F-16. He participated in the development of the initial REQUIREMENTS. BTW: This is called a “fallacious appeal to authority”.]

I now put it to the reader: How ‘Punk’ does the ‘Journalism’ have to be before it can only be written by a punk? Or perhaps David Axe is just phoning in POGO talking points these days?

F22 Oxygen System Hysteria: A Retrospective

Dave Majumdar at FlightGlobal brings news that the AF has nailed down the root cause of the F-22’s oxygen system woes. In one of his posts a short while ago, he indicated where the investigation was heading: right where the grapevine was whispering it was going. Key bits:

The USAF had earlier narrowed down the potential root cause to either contamination or an air quantity problem. "We have eliminated one of the hypotheses that the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board postulated as a potential root cause for the hypoxia-related incidents and that was contamination," says USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz. "We have the data that has confirmed that."…….  

Based on tests conducted inside an altitude chamber and a centrifuge, the USAF has concluded that a combination of hardware defects with the pilot's life support gear contributed to the problem. ……. 

Asked why the problems with the Raptor's life support systems were not caught earlier during the jet's extensive developmental and operational test phases, Schwartz says that human physiology is not well understood at the combination of altitude and g-loadings that F-22 pilots routinely operate at. "This is a unique airplane," Schwartz says. "You can pull 6Gs at 50,000ft. Tell me what other airplane, ever, can do that?" There are aspects of the Raptor's performance at high altitude, which from the standpoint of human physiology, are not well understood. "In some respects, the testing did not reveal the shortcomings we have recently discovered."

I thought it would be interesting to contrast the real findings with some of the DoDBuzz/DefenseTech stories and speculative commentary that has rained down on their boards over the past year. Think about the following the next time you read the woe, doom, and outrage over future stories. Also keep in mind that the Combat Edge ensemble was NOT part of the F-22.

Here are some of my favorites from the past year (the good and the bad).  

F-16 Co-Designer Claims F-22’s Glues Causing Hypoxia
Special Award: Most Erroneous Article Title Evah!
“Best SARC ”  Award:
Pilgrimman • 4 weeks ago
...And in other news, fluoride in our water supply is actually a mind control agent planted by the government (which we all know are puppets of the Illuminati).
 
Audio of an F-22 Pilot Getting Hypoxia
“Something Must Be Done! – Hey! This is Something” Award (Most Disgusted category):
Black Owl • 9 weeks ago
We need to take these jets completely apart till we know what's up. Until then our air superiority will be done with our reliable 4th gen and 4.5 gen fighters. All of our malfunctioning fighters seem to come from Lockheed. They need to get their crap together.

F-22 Ground Crew Suffered Hypoxia-Like Symptoms
First 'Desponder' Award:
Black Owl • 11 weeks ago
I have now lost faith in the F-22. We should not deploy these fighters until we take them completely apart and dissect them till we find the problem.

Most Nicely Worded ‘Shut Up Kid’ Exchange Award:
Lance • 11 weeks ago
Time to fix the oxygen system on the plane get over it brass.
1 reply •  DGR • 11 weeks ago
They know this, they have known this, that is why they are spending millions trying to find out what part needs to be fixed. Nobody is denying its broken, they are trying to fix it and they are being very clear about that. But its plain stupid to just start replacing stuff without knowing what needs replaced. Is it a $5 nut and bolt, or a 5 million dollar system? Without knowing the root cause there is nothing that can be done to fix the issue.


AF: F-22’s Extreme Performance May Be Behind Oxygen Problems
Best Conspiracy Theory out of Left Field Award:
Lance • 11 weeks ago
This is more cover up by USAF brass to save there [sic] own pet fighter. A redesign is needed for the oxygen system and they have to admit it. The F-22 is way better than a crappy F-18. Well the F-15 can fly faster and climb higher and carry more missiles than a Raptor. OOOps the Generals are embarrassed again.


Virginia and Alaska F-22s Back in the Skies
Best Observation on Punk Culture Award:
Jock Williams • 39 weeks ago
The OBOGS system -onboard oyygen [sic] generating system -has been used successfully for over 30 years in the F18 and other types as well. The Air Force will research and eventually solve the problem. Problems crop up from time to time in all new systems -the difference today is the amount of publicity attached now to problems that earlier would have been dealt with quietly and discreetly -and out of the public eye! I am sure the military longs for that more "private" era when such glitches arise. To be honest I fail to see the benefit of public discussion of matters that may give "aid and comfort to our enemies". I am really glad to see "experts" who have never flown a fighter presenting such facile solutions as "The solution is unmanned fighter aircraft". "Absolutely" is equally as effective! I sure wish I had a 10 letter solution to this or many other problems!
Jock Williams
Yogi 13
30 year fighter pilot

F-22s Back in the Air (Updated)
Best Fanboy Use of Fake Crisis to Further an Agenda Award:
Black Owl • 43 weeks ago
Big deal that their back in the air. Super Hornets are out bombing the enemy and actually being used in war, but no one cheers for that as much they do for the Raptor. When the Raptor went on its first deployment to Japan people went ballistic. No where near the same reaction for the Super Hornet when it dropped twice as many bombs as all the Tomcat squadrons with 100% accuracy during the initial stages of the war in Iraq

AF: Alaska F-22 Crash Due to Pilot Error
Most Pointless Snark to Miss Mark Award:
BigRick • 31 weeks ago
The 4 star said to the 3 star, "this F-22 **** is hurting my chances at the CEO job at Lockhead when I retire."
the 3 start said to the 2 star "this F-22 issue is hurting may chances at making joint chiefs"
the 2 start said to the 1 one "damn, I wonder if I'm going to get my 3rd star?"
the 1 start said to the colonel "how I can blame someone else?"
the colonel said said to the LtCol "man, I'm never going to make general at this rate"
the LtCol said to the Col "don't worry colonel, we make sure you get selected, we'll say it's pilot error"
the LtCol said to the major "it's obviously pilot error-get your people trained major or I'll train them for you"
the major replied "yes sir and two bags full"
the major yelled at the captain "you worthless piece of ****, don't you know how to fly without oxygen, I'm writing you up"
the captain said (to himself) "3 months, 2 days and a wake up"

F-22 Raptor Fleet Grounded Indefinitely
Voice of Experience and Reason Award:
iused2fly • 52 weeks ago
As of May 17th, 2011 there are parallel investigations taking place into the OBOGS systems in the A-10, F-16, F-35 and T-6 aircraft." So a wide net is being cast to look for other problems with similar OBOGS installattions. Being around aviation for as long as I have, I expect an aircraft as complex as the F-22 to see some components than are less than fully robust. We all just have to wait until more information is available. Given the financial momentum of this very expensive program I expect the F-22 problem to be solved with a re-design and the F-22s back flying unrestricted some time late this year or early 2012.

Despite whistle-blowing pilots, AF is unmoved on F-22
Worst Extrapolation (AKA Kill them All!) Award:
Cha0stician • 11 weeks ago
There should absolutely be Congressional hearings. Our military culture has deteriorated to the point where we cannot trust anything officers say unless a report is made by independent government investigators with the power to subpoena witnesses who must tell the truth under the threat of jailtime for perjury. Look at what Maj Jeremy Gordon said during the interview about the F-22 when asked what makes the F-22 so special: "The ability to know what's going on all the way around you all the time." Capt Josh Wilson: "It is just a phenomenal, phenomenal machine." When our military members are so brainwashed that they will still repeat the F-22 marketing propaganda over and over again even when refusing to fly the systems we taxpayers have paid millions, billions, and trillions to train them on, then we need to FEAR for our country. Time to clean house. We need a new President every 4 years and a new Congress every 2 years until we get some serious reversal in trend indicators

F-22 Raptor “smoking gun” not found
Best Mocking Takedown Award:
Amicus Curiae • 21 weeks ago
"I can't imagine what they did to screw it up."
Sure you can. Educate us. It's too bad you weren't there when the paper was blank. You'd show 'em. But did it ever occur to you that they didn't screw it up? Everyone is so obsessed with rounding up the usual suspects, they can't find anything wrong. Do something...anything...Does it work? Who knows? Did you measure toxins? Yes/No...Maybe...Possibly...What was the question? Whew, I'm feeling a little light headed. I'm pulling the green ring.

AF: F-22s authorized to fly again
Best Summation on F-22 Woes Award:
This whole exchange (tie)
AmicusCuriae • 44 weeks ago
Well, I guess if it wasn't broke, they didn't fix it.
2 replies
pfcem • 44 weeks ago
After 4 months of TRYING to find a problem with it & not finding any, what is there to fix?
Thinking_ExUSAF 95p • 43 weeks ago
At least they did not fall into the trap of "fixing" an unbroken system for the sake of public relations! Sometimes it takes some serious cojones to just say, "We dont know!", but sometimes it is the only honest action.

F-22 pilots try to keep their edge during grounding
Most Unsupported Declarative Statements in a Post Award (extra credit for randomness):
Puken Dog 01 VF-143 • 53 weeks ago
The F-22 Program along with JSF, and NGB should be Cancelled NOW!!! Stealth is Dead and so are these Programs. Google SA-21 and S-400. A total Waste of Funding. Lies by Lockheed Martin and Senior Pentagon Leadership. The F-117, last real Stealth Platform, was retired by the USAF in November 2008. All these platforms do is increase share Price for LMCO and the steer ropers and bush in Texas. Here we go again. Nothing more Than wall street running the entire DOD. The same rational why bush did not go after UBL after 911….. Money…..
 
AF: No word when F-22s could fly again (only one comment?)

AF: No word when F-22s could fly again (Oh. There they are!)
Most Succinct 'And We Could Have Just Stopped There' Award:
AmicusCuriae • 54 weeks ago
Obviously, no one knows what is wrong with the F-22 oxygen system...if anything.

Report: Investigation widens as F-22s stay grounded
J. R. Pierce Award (Old JR once noted: "Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems")
Engineer Economist • 57 weeks ago
"More than six weeks later, the Air Force’s F-22 fleet is still grounded" "We are still working to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem,” the ACC said.. "USAF investigation is also comparing the F-22’s life support system with other strike aircraft in its fleet" SO.. what the heck is going on here... do we have a design/system integration problem and now we have to go back to proven designs to figure out how to do it right? So far the billions in cost overruns and the years behind schedule we end up with defective designs that require ANOTHER unfunded requirement to fix? The acquisition strategy that gives us F-22 & F-35 results has got to go. For the same amount of money, we could have incremental improvements to F-15 & F-16, recapitalized the rest of the fleet, and made better investments with better payoffs. DoD & USAF has got to stop screwing the pooch, and expecting taxpayer bailouts over and over again

The Air Force sings the Raptor blues
Most Prophetic First Post Award:
Lightndattic • 63 weeks ago
Que up the trolls in 3...2...1...

Double-0 POGO and the F-35: Update 2

Mr. Smallwood (Eventually) Responded

Lt. Col. Eric Smith (left) congratulates Lt. Col. Lee Kloos on becoming the latest qualified joint strike fighter pilot and DOD’s first non-developmental test pilot to qualify, May 31 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. After completing his flight, is now a qualified instructor pilot for the F-35 Lightning II. Smith, the director of operations with the 58th FS and the first Air Force qualified pilot, served as Kloos' flight evaluator. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. Karen Roganov)

And the response was pretty much as expected:

“Your comments seem to suggest the F-35 has actually been completely tested and is fully ready for combat. Since it isn’t even halfway there, I’ll take your comments — barely legible as they were — with a healthy dose of skepticism. Further, since you have openly suggested on your website that I’m working for POGO itself I will go ahead and play turnabout: You strike me as nothing more than a front for the defense industry — the kind of guy paid-off to act like an independent and fill the debate with tripe to make people think twice about what is obvious. What is obvious: the plane is an overpriced piece of crap, and will never be a staple of the American Air Force. Your boys at Lockheed are on borrowed time using the Pentagon as a marketer and purchaser all at once because America is broke. Best invest that money elsewhere.” (screen capture to left)

Notice the lack of any real attempt to engage on the validity of the ‘debunking’ itself? I must say I find the notion that I’m a sort of paid secret ‘front’ for the defense industry (I’m a ‘highly-compensated’ engineer/analyst, bucko!) scouring the web for evil-doers on the behalf of the F-35 for bounty….hilariously conspiratorial.  I do the scouring for free! I suspect Mr. Smallwood probably also operates under the delusion that there actually IS a ‘Military-Industrial Complex’.

My comments “seem to suggest the F-35 “has actually been completely tested”? No. I cited an expert operator from outside the acquisition/development program who is now fully qualified to fly and instruct other pilots in the F-35. HE says the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 (or better). HIS  statements are an overmatching counter-weight to the tired old claims made by ignorant activist ‘reformers'.
Alas, I fear Mr. Smallwood’s insufficient language skills may be a barrier to meaningful communication, as he also asserts that I “ have openly suggested on" (my) "website that I’m working for POGO itself”.
No Mr. Smallwood. Perhaps you missed the part in my initial post where I wrote: “I’ve noticed a marked uptick in the foreign blog and online alternative newspapers containing references to POGO’s pet ‘expert’ commentators. POGO ‘special operators/fellow travelers’ seem to be most active in F-35 Partner nations where economic conditions are tightest and in countries that represent existing or emerging markets for F-35 Foreign Military Sales (FMS).” What I openly asserted is that Mr. Smallwood was spoon-fed the drivel he regurgitated, and I also suggested that Mr. Smallwood was furthering POGO’s aims: a 'de facto' agent at the very least. I left open the issue as to whether or not they also further his own interests until now. Hence the “a special operator/fellow traveler” reference.
Mr. Smallwood then uses this mischaracterization to then postulate he could also view me “as nothing more than a front for the defense industry — the kind of guy paid-off to act like an independent and fill the debate with tripe to make people think twice about what is obvious” ?
Assuming Mr. Smallwood is a principled man (why not?), I can only conclude from this statement that he has never been exposed to disciplines that are based upon consequential knowledge and the application thereof. Otherwise, would he not have been able to attach proper value to claims made by competent experts in their field (forget nameless ‘me’, what about Lt Col. Kloos)? And could he then not shrug off the political machinations of agent provocateurs who are paid by an anti-defense Non-State Actor that is funded largely by left-wing foundations and aging hippies--however sympathetic he might be to their flawed ideologies?
Sigh~I suppose for some, it would be far easier to shrug off the fact that the ever-increasingly larger circle of people with ACTUAL F-35 experience typically speak very highly of it than change any preconceived or ill-informed decision. 'They' would rather cling to the shrill prevarications of outside critics with no relevant or insufficient expertise and experience, all in order to preserve some philosophical blind spot.

Kudos to ‘SpudmanWP’,  a visitor who is also a “SNAFU!” regular, for attempting to reach out further to Smallwood in the comment thread...and for engaging on behalf of evidence and logic. I’d take more of an interest myself, if I thought there was any hope. As I see it, Smallwood’s just an outlet for the real troublemakers. I want to keep my 'eyes on the prize'.

In Closing: By "barely legible", should we assume he meant my debunking was ‘barely intelligible’? Aside from an "it's/its" typo that got by me I didn't find anything too egregious. I ask, because I thought ‘dumbed it down’ as far as I dared without doing violence to the meaning within: