F-35B Status, Challenges

If you want to acquire some useful information on the current state of the F-35B 'technicals' skip fact-free speculation and simple handwringing and go read Stephen Trimble's piece at Flight Global. It's still got a little gloom in it, but the facts presented make an old engineer feel more upbeat about the F-35B's future.

Ain't nothing in there I can see that can't be fixed with reasonable time and dollars: two years and the announced budget should cover it. Let's just hope there are no show-stoppers yet to be uncovered.

Getting Helos Back in the Fight

'Solomon' at SNAFU! has an interesting post covering the return to service of two HH-60 Seahawks that had a little 'accidental contact' in late 2008. Interesting story and photos.

The Crash of Moccasin 02.
Snafu's post reminds me of a mishap a buddy of mine had on a H-53 Pave Low III after Desert Storm. This bird already had repaired combat damage from the SS Mayaguez rescue operation on it's logs (Most people have no idea how many times the Pave Low III airframes had been 'remanufactured' and had seen action from Vietnam to their retirement).

Initially, this was listed as a Class A mishap. By the final review of the accident and through judicious scrounging in the Boneyard, it had been revised down to a 'Class B'. I checked the records again years later and a miracle had occurred: it was then listed as a 'Class C'. A lot is broken with the Air Force, but the Pilot Protection System is apparently running just fine.

File this under "I got my 1000hrs 'Pave Low'. I got my war. I got my crash. - I'm outta here!"

This little meeting with a sand dune broke the boom off, scattered a lot of piece parts, rolled the FLIR ball backwards into the belly.

This episode provided me with enough material for three term papers on Human Factors, System Safety, and Cockpit Resource Management while pursuing two different college degrees. I probably know more than I should about this crash, not because I know one of the survivors, but because somebody did an awful redaction job in response to a FOIA request.

When I'm certain all the parties are no longer flying anywhere, I'll publish the whole, sad tale.

Long Range Strike Moves Forward.....Finally?

...and is it in the right direction? Tech. Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo / Air Force

I'll reserve judgement until after the details inevitably emerge.

In today's announcement President Obama's Most Useful Idiot (why there seems to always be someone who until asked is NOT-generally-a-tool willing to be the front-man giving cover to Administrations that are malevolent and destructive to the national defense , I'll never understand) had this to say at least:

Finally, a major area of new investment for the Air Force will be a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber. This aircraft, which will have the option of being remotely piloted, will be designed and developed using proven -- using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity.

It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service. The follow-on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities, an area that should be a high priority for future defense investment, given the anti-access challenges our military faces.

Of what was explicitly stated, I would only call the 'optionally-manned' criteria as 'gross stupidity' - and probably a product of an internal AF/DoD political schism . Being of a highly suspicious nature on this topic for some reason, we'll see what the emphasis on 'existing technology' means: could be 'good' but with this crowd one never knows.

The issue as to what kind of long range platform is needed and the open questions surrounding it were covered fairly well in a recent Air Force (Air Force Association) magazine article. The same source has a pretty good backgounder on the status quo here.

I might comment on the remaining gems and turds in this punchbowl of an announcement elsewhere. Alas, there's a few of the former and piles of the latter.

Hope Springs Eternal: 2011 edition

New Year.... New Pic

HAPPY NEW YEAR???

We'll see..... (Still waiting).

I got time.

F-35B: Second Guessing the Marines

...Is this the latest fad?
Well, there seems to be no end of people who are second guessing the Marine Corps over their desire for the F-35B and how they plan to use it.

At Defense Tech (here) I'm having an exchange in the comments with an earnest young man (I’m guessing age mid-20s, probably a ‘gamer’) who is a prime example of what I’m talking about. He seems to really want his questions answered, so I thought I’d oblige him. His ‘questions’ were:

[1] “What scenario do you envision that requires a $100+ million-dollar V/STOL aircraft for air superiority?”
[2] “How do you expect eight of said aircraft to be able to secure that airspace and still deliver meaningful CAS?”
[3] “Why have a CAS aircraft that can't actually operate in a stealth configuration with a real weapons load?

My ‘short’ answer, after asking if he REALLY wanted answer was:

Sorry for the delay (been away having a life).The short answer is: your questions are flawed, irrelevant, simplistic or some combination thereof. The first question hinges on what is, according to data in evidence, a falsifiable assumption (F-35B variant unit cost) that is presented as fact and contains an implication that some previous claim was made for an F-35B in the ‘air superiority’ role . I’ll set aside the inflated cost claim, and the ‘air superiority’ aspect poses no problem. The ‘meaningful’ qualifier is ambiguous and problematic by itself. [RE: “V/STOL”- I assume you made a simple transposition error as there are very obvious differences between a V/STOL and STOVL (F-35B) system]. The second question presumes a scenario whereby eight F-35B’s are the total number of aircraft available. Again, not a problem, but more probable force structures should be discussed. The third question can be construed as containing an attempt to ‘poison the well’ in asserting the F-35B can’t operate in a CAS role in a Day One (stealth) configuration, while using another ambiguous modifier (‘real’) attached to ‘weapons load’ in an attempt to write off the internal capability as inadequate, without also providing quantifiable justification. My answers will be provided as part of a coherent narrative, with specific points tied to the ‘questions’ through the use of brackets “[ ]” with the relevant question number(s) within. When necessary, explicit observations relative to the questions will be provided. Given space limitations here at DT, the response may be posted elsewhere and a link provided here.

Since the ‘short’ answer required two posts, I’m providing a more full response as follows. (I’ll place a link at the thread.)

The Long Answer
The USMC’s philosophical basis for Warfighting is the overarching operational concept ‘Operational Maneuver From the Sea’ (OMFTS), which builds upon the Navy’s littoral warfare concepts. It integrates the USMC’s ideas on future amphibious operations and maneuver warfare. Within OMFTS, the basic building block for all expeditionary operations is the Marine Air to Ground Task Force (MAGTF). MAGTFs are always ‘task organized’: that is to say their composition and scale are dictated by the operational objectives. Since their composition and scale are determined by mission, the only time a MAGT would deploy with a small number of F-35Bs would be if the mission only required a small number of F-35Bs [2] . If a small number of F-35Bs were deployed (ex: 6-8), this would suggest a limited, probably single-facet mission (ex: Air-to-Air OR Air-to- Ground) or sequential allocations of single-facet missions (ex: Air-to-Air THEN Air-to- Ground) as part of an operation that is far below the level of effort that is required to conduct a major assault, perhaps as part of providing security for an humanitarian aid, disaster relief or evacuation operation [1,2] . For large scale military operations, such as that similar to a Desert Storm, a relatively large number of F-35s (20+ per LHA/D as modern versions of “Harrier Carriers) could be provided.
It is important to keep in mind that in whatever role/mission the USMC F-35Bs will perform; they are performing their mission as part of the Air Combat Element (ACE) in an integrated Combined Arms combat action. As such, F-35 operations are intrinsically tied to the MAGTF effort, and will conduct their missions in support of the MAGTF effort as a maneuver element of the MAGTF. The scale of the F-35B operational responsibilities is thus scaled to the MAGTF effort in such a way that all missions and sorties flown (SEAD/DEAD, Interdiction, ISR, Air Superiority and Close Air Support) are conducted on a scale no larger than that needed to perform their mission as part of the overall MAGTF mission. For example, when the Marines talk ‘Air Superiority’ they are talking LOCAL Air Superiority: protecting a three dimensional airspace sufficient to provide protection to the Ground Combat Element (GCE) from air attack (and in concert with MAGTF Air Defense units). This is a distinctly different concept of ‘Air Superiority’ than the Air Force’s concept.
The Air Force plans and executes the mission of providing Air Dominance (Air Superiority to the ‘nth degree’) in any theater it is tasked, and manages its assets to meet that mission best on a theater-wide scale. If needed, the F-35 provides the Marines the capability to move from an Air-Air engagement to Air-Ground mode or vice versa without any reconfiguration: a capability that in itself allows for using fewer aircraft to do the same mission than in the past [1,2,3] . The Marine MAGTF concept of operating from austere fields reduces dependencies on large runways and increases operational flexibility. The Marines have determined that ‘operational flexibility’ is an overarching requirement for their expeditionary forces and have shown a willingness to give up other force attributes for the sake of gaining that flexibility. Note: An excellent example of how the Marines have operated in austere conditions while leveraging the operational flexibility of the far less capable and more logistics intensive AV-8B (than F-35) can be found here . The Marines created and have sustained their Expeditionary Logistics capability as a unique effective asset for supporting such operations. They use the forward positioning and logistics to leverage more sorties out of their aircraft by reducing transit times to the fight. As a result, fewer aircraft can provide more support than larger numbers operating from distant locations [1,2] .
The ability to cycle aircraft on and off station quickly means that smaller payloads have less of an effect on the availability of munitions/firepower in position at any one time for any mission, but for missions such as CAS and Interdiction the reduced size of munitions (like SDB) that provide 500 lb class effects, means that in most circumstances, even in a ‘Day One’(Full Low Observables) configuration, there is still the potential to have same number of aimpoints held at risk per airframe in any one time period as before [3] . As it has been noted that the 95% of aimpoints the MAGTF will encounter are suitable for ‘1000 lb class’ attention or less, the Marines do not find the 1000lb bomb upper size limit an unacceptable limitation.
It should also be mentioned that the F-35 is the first aircraft in history that is not only designed to fight as an individual weapon platform by the pilot, but also as a networked component of a larger virtual weapon system by the ACE commander. Survivability, Proximity, reliability, payload, configurability, network-centricity: all these features will give the F-35B system in the hands of the Marines the ability to project force well out of proportion to an equivalent number of legacy CTOL and STOVL multi-role aircraft.

End Note: I completed the two-year USMC Marine Command and Staff College (Non-Resident) program in 1992. At the time it was the only program of its type available to Air Force Senior NCOs. I am also told that at the time I was one of only a handful of AF SNCOs to complete the program. Since then, I understand more opportunities to attend such schools, even in residence, have been made available of SNCOs. I would heartily recommend any Senior NCO with the inclination and ability to attend such schools if at all possible to add to the breadth and depth of their military knowledge. My coursework in MCSC helped me understand the changes (and how much things haven’t changed) in Marine operational doctrine as they have occurred since that time.

Further reading:

MAGTF Aviation and Operational Maneuver From the Sea

The MAGTF in Sustained Operations Ashore

Marine Aviation and Operational Maneuver From the Sea

Operational Maneuver from the Sea: A Concept for the Projection of Naval Power Ashore

Operational Maneuver from the Sea (Krulak)

Yee-Effin' Haw - THIS is America dammit!

From Bloomberg: EPA-Texas Feud Escalates Over New Carbon Regulations.
This appears to be a still-evolving story, as Bloomberg is still updating it. Latest update added a nice quote from a Sierra Club shill.

This signals the Obama movement to legislate away America is now moving into the 'Regulate- America away' phase.
Bring it, Rubes.

Merry Christmas... and Count Your Blessings!

Merry Chistmas to all. Hope you have time to give thanks for any and all Blessings that you may have in your life today, large AND small. Taking time to think about things when they are good helps keep the head straight when the vagaries of life aren't so pleasant.
I am fortunate. It seems this year at this time I have more large Blessings to be thankful for than small. I'm home for Christmas as more than just a visitor for the first time in three years, D3 is safely back with Son and Granddaughter instead of in Afghanistan, and I'm recovering nicely from surgery, to name a few. I see many many small Blessings and news of Blessings to Come.
Life is Good. Thank God.

Thanks Dad

Here's my Dad in Vietnam, sometime circa 1965,1966, 1967 or 1968. He spent about 36 of those 48 months 'in-country'.(Thanks for the pic Sis!)

Nice (non-typical for him) 'hero' shot.

More about my late Father here.

Krauthammer Nails the 2010 National Election

(H/T Instapundit)

For the 20-30 people in the blogosphere that don'y follow Instapundit, Charles Krauthammer sums things up beautifully on cusp of the 2010 election cycle in his column at the Washington Post(of all places):

In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided Latinos who "sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' " Quite a uniter, urging Hispanics to go to the polls to exact political revenge on their enemies - presumably, for example, the near-60 percent of Americans who support the new Arizona immigration law.

This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America - but the United States of America.

This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution.

Read it all here.

Weatherford Texas City Charter Propositions

NO to ODD Number Propositions Yes to EVEN Number Propositons

The Weatherford Democrat had a rather ‘naive’ summary of the proposed changes to the Weatherford City Charter. The following is a more thorough appraisal and critique of the propositions along with my personal voting recommendations and rationale.

According to the Weatherford Democrat:

Proposition No. 1

[a] Would lengthen terms for city council members from two years to three years. Under the current two-year length, a vacancy is filled at the next general election or by council appointment if there is less than six months remaining for the term. A three-year length would change the process. State law requires a special election be held as soon as practicable to fill the remainder of the term. With two-year terms, the candidate with the most votes wins. In a three-year term setting, a candidate needs 50 percent plus one vote to win. This means if there are more than two candidates and no one candidate receives a majority, the top two vote getters advance to a run-off election.

[b] Additional changes included in Proposition No. 1 bring the candidate qualification language into compliance with state law. Qualifications outlined in Proposition No. 1 are: the candidate must be at least 21, a citizen of the United States, qualified to vote in the city, reside inside the city limits for at least 12 months preceding the election, not file for more than one office per election and an employee of the city cannot continue to work for the city after becoming a candidate for an elective office.

[c] The proposition also clarifies the duties and powers of the city council to prevent the council from exercising the duties of the city manager, holding other public office or voting on matters where a conflict of interest exists. These duties include enacting municipal legislation, the power to appoint and remove appointed persons, setting the compensation of all appointed city officers, establishing an operating policy, establishing the boundaries of the city and establishing the salary structures for each job classification.

I VOTE A BIG NO!!! This should have been three separate proposals, and I would have voted yes for [c]. The 50% provision is a job security ‘Easter egg’ for an incumbent. It allows the other council members to handpick a replacement that then has the advantage of being an incumbent in the next election. Run-off elections will also probably cost more money than the nickel’s worth of difference between almost any two candidates. I view some of the additional provisions as a candy coating for a potentially bitter pill, but there is another big problem with this proposition. The proposition DELETES the following paragraph in its entirety (emphasis mine):

The Mayor and each Councilman Member shall be a resident citizen of the City of Weatherford, and have the qualifications of electors therein. The Mayor, Councilmen Members and other officers and employees shall not be indebted to the city, shall not hold any public office of emolument, and shall not be interested in the profits or emoluments of any contract, job work or service for the municipality, or interested in the sale to the city of any supplies, equipment, material or articles purchased; nor shall any of them be the owner of stock in any public utility providing utility service within the city limits or subject to rate regulation by the City Council. Any officer or employee of the city who shall cease to possess any of the qualifications herein required shall forfeit his office or position, and any contract in which any officer or employee shall or may become interested may be declared void by the Council. No officer or employee of the city shall accept any frank, free ticket, passes or service or anything of value directly or indirectly from any person, firm or corporation, upon terms more favorable than are granted to the public, and any violation, of this section shall be a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, such office or employment shall be forfeited.

I think I'd like to keep the paragraph just as it is, thank you very much.Some of the provisions removed by the previous paragraph are replaced by a weaker provision (again, emphasis mine):

(d) Elected officials of the City having substantial interest in any proposed or existing contract, purchase, work, sale or service to, for or by the City shall not vote or render a decision or use that position, authority, or influence, in any manner that would result in personal betterment, financially or otherwise, to any degree. Elected officials shall publicly disclose any such interest upon assumption of office or prior to consideration of any such matters.

So, let me get this straight. It is OK to have a “little interest” with no definition of what is or is not ‘substantial’, and as long as you recuse yourself and let your buddies… er… ‘fellow members’ vote in your best interest everything will be just fine? I am certain there will be no ‘Quid Propos’ in our future, and disclosures will be made with this paragraph in force. (That last sentence was sarcasm.)

What makes anyone think lowering the standards for our political office holders at any time--much less now--is a good idea?

Proposition No. 2
Again according to the Weatherford Democrat, Proposition 2:

establishes the duties, responsibilities and position of the city manager. The current charter does not have these duties clearly defined. Changes under this proposition would provide language in the charter to implement the city’s council-manager form of government. This proposition would also remove the requirement that the city attorney reside within the Weatherford city limits,but would still require the attorney to have an office inside the city.
Assistant City Manager Robert Hanna said the current requirement is too restrictive. “When the Zellers decide to retire and stop representing the city, we’re going to have to find other legal council,” he said. “We have some really qualified law firms in town, but they may not live in the city limits and would be precluded from representing the city. This is to provide the council the maximum flexibility to have the best and most qualified representation.” The council could mandate that the attorney live inside the city if they choose, he added.

I VOTE YES! OK by me. I’m for any provision that doesn’t necessarily increase the number of attorneys living in Weatherford. This should make it easier to run them out of town if necessary.

Proposition No. 3The Democrat tells us that: Proposition No. 3..

... would take away the requirement to read and vote on an ordinance twice before it become effective. Hanna said the requirement to read and vote on all ordinances twice is an old practice once common in city government. “There may be some controversial ordinances where it is important to do that still and they have the right to [have a second read],” he said. “But where it doesn’t make sense other than adding to bureaucracy, we’re trying to get rid of that. Cities have gotten away from that because the speed of business has increased and government is slow enough as it is.”

I VOTE NO!!! Old Government is Slow Government is Good Government. I enjoy the fact that it is hard to pull a ‘fast one’ if you have to pull it off twice! Conversely, really good ideas ought to breeze through twice without any problem. Now I'm wondering who in city government told the Deputy City Manager to put the 'smiley face' on this pig?

Proposition No. 4The Weatherford Democrat piece says....

Proposition No. 4 cleans up language in the budget and finance area of the charter. Most of this section of the charter does not currently comply with state requirements or is superseded by state regulations. Adoption of this proposition would finalize the city’s current financial practices.

I vote YES (hesitantly). This one seems pretty harmless on the read-through. Which begs the questions over Proposition 1 even more: Why wasn’t the candy coating used in Proposition 1 included with this proposition? I'm hesitant on the YES because how do I know someone isn't successfully trying to pull one over after seeing Prop 1 and 3?

Proposition No. 5On this one the WD tells us:

Proposition No. 5 includes revisions to make the charter language gender neutral, simplify and clarify language, and add paragraph headings and subsection numerical designations without changing the meaning. Revisions would be made throughout the entire charter.

I Vote NO!! Somebody needs to keep their stinking ‘Something-Studies Pseudo-Scientific” fingers of Political Correctness off my City Charter For crying’ out loud! Making changes just so some guy with ‘Low T’ and a ponytail can feel good about himself is pure silliness. It is even more silly if the guy is a ‘she’. Spare the rest of us your 'esteem' issues if you please.

A full description of the amendments and the charter are available on the city’s website at www.weatherfordtx.gov/charter2010.
Or-- if you are in a hurry-- you can jump to the PDF file that is a red lined markup showing actual deletions and additions proposed:
http://weatherfordtx.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1782

Read. Heed. Make Your Vote Count.

BTW: I (sadly) thoroughly expect all these propositions to pass because enough people won't pay enough attention.

Rumsfeld's New Book: Press STILL too Stupid to Understand

In the early days after 9/11/01 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was excorciated in the press for the explaining the difference between types of things we know, the things we do not know, and the things we do not know we know. Now his new book is about to come out and is titled "Known and Unknown" and the clueless AP continues to wallow in its ignorance. From the Washington Examiner's Version:

"Known and Unknown" refers to a widely quoted explanation — praised by some as philosophy, criticized by others as double-talk — Rumsfeld offered in 2002 about the lack of evidence that Iraq was supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know," he said. "There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

Philosophy? Double-talk? How about long-used definitions in Risk, Project, and Program Managment disciplines?
Perhaps the media's cluelessness concerning such concepts is understandable. After all, this way of determining where one has gaps in knowledge and the nature of those gaps is a tool used by people who, y'know, actually do something instead of just talking and writing about it.

Which come to think of it, probably also explains why the Media and the Left tried to hold President Bush accountable for 'mistakes' that were merely outcomes that could not be reliably predicted: they never heard of Thucidides' Imponderables either.

History Revealing Itself?

Updated: 9/15/10
Don't know if a story that is developing out in the wilds is a (complete) hoax or not, but if it is real, it will be really something. I'll talk to friends and family offline in detail but for now, ponder what these things just might have in common:
1. Vichy French
2. FW-200
3. Me-109
4. Kai Do Maru (sp?)
5. Showa/Nakajima L2D
6. Japanese Naval Attache Marines/Paratroopers
NEW:
7. Sorta "Fake" IJN Attache Case: Real but 'Planted'

New Comments are Unmoderated...

Again!
I had to enable comment moderation a while back to ensure I could catch and manually remove spam before it hit the public view. Blogger has finally enabled a spam filter and it appears to be working quite well. So until the spammers get the upper hand again, moderation is OFF.

As a reminder, I do not filter out opposing points of view just because they are 'opposition' (I prefer an honest 'back and forth' , but commenters must be registered with Blogger or have OpenID. This seems like a nice balance of openness and accountability.

The Limits of Policy Analysis Analysis

An open letter to Ms Megan McArdle
Gee whiz, Megan. You provide a fair illustration of Herzberg's Two-Factor (Hygiene and Motivation) Theory, but an abysmal one for tying it to any ‘substitute effect’ economic argument. Using the same example, please expand on the product-output side of the story (productivity gains that allow the higher pay in the first place) and how that ripples out into the macro view of economics and the world. What you describe as the ‘substitution effect’ I think can be more accurately described as recognition of ‘opportunity costs’. The distinction is important, because not only does one decide their leisure is more valuable, but tax considerations progressively reduce the net value of the labor that is performed.

Perhaps the biggest point passed by is the recognition that a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’. If I am making more money because of the demand for my employer’s product, unless all profits (company and personal) are parked in a non-interest bearing location, those monies are added to the amount of money circulating and available for other products, the production and sale of which all generate revenue for many 'someones'.

To summarize, your attempt to find fault with supply side economics in this case is a clear "swing and a miss".

P.S. I would have commented at the source, but I don't need to sign up for any more 'services' or 'feeds'. I would have e-mailed you, but it wasn't readily apparent what your address was at the link.

Howard Zinn FBI Shocka! .. He WAS a Commie!

FBI: Yep, he was a Commie.

No doubt there will be those that will attempt to claim that because there is no video of him admitting it, or a smoking gun consisting of something like his signed party membership form (yet), that the released documents means he wasn't a member of the Communist Party (of any country). But by any reasonable interpretation of the "walks like a duck" test, Zinn was an unapologetic, Marxist, anti-American POS -- the released FBI documents merely drive the truth home.

Yes, Howard Zinn is dead. Unfortunately, he's just not dead enough,....yet. With a fatuous Zinn.org website updated regularly (including proud links to the FBI documents), and seemingly no shortage of Omega-columnists providing carefully selective references to the released files, (including avoiding any mention of the record showing he was filmed teaching Marxism to ACP members, nor of his associating with just about every ACP front group that came along) his legacy will no doubt 'struggle' on for some time, carried by the latest crop of equally despicable fellow travellers.
Update: Some observations on Zinn and his fan base from Ron Radosh.