JSF STOVL Flies But Cuts Loom

JSF STOVL Flies But Cuts Loom

The Joint Strike Fighter program has had a newsworthy week. Top of the list on the positive side was the 14-minute low speed flight of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the plane at Patuxent River.

The plane flew with the fan engaged. It’s roughly a month late — they were supposed to fly the first week of December. But they did fly.

The program overall continues to suffer death from a thousand cuts — OK –maybe just one big one. As my colleague Tony Capaccio reported at Bloomberg earlier this week


Gates’ directive would cut planned purchases by 10 jets in fiscal 2011 and a total of 122 planes through 2015, according to a budget document. The cuts amount to 25 percent of the 483 planes originally scheduled in those years.

More than $2.8 billion that was previously budgeted to begin equipping the military with F-35s would instead be used to continue development of the next-generation combat jet.

The budget document Tony got said the reductions will be: 10 planes in 2011, to 42; by 17 in 2012, to 45; by 52 in 2013, to 77; by 20 in 2014, to 90; and 23 in 2015, to 107.

Of course, just because this document was signed by Gates doesn’t mean it is the last word, but it may be. Given the size of the program it is difficult to move that much money around at the last minute.

Gates very publicly committed to the JSF program when he visited Fort Worth at the end of August. I imagine there have been some pretty tight-lipped discussions in his office about the plane’s continuing problems with cost and schedule.

Join the Conversation

The plane flew! Slightly troubling that we can consider this a success for the Joint Strike Fighter program.

So, Gates and crew suppressed results of the JET1 ad JET2 reports so they could get the F-22 cancelled.

Now that this is done, Gates and crew can act all surprised that the F-35 program is way behind and over budget. Interesting as 25 percent of FY2010 is now done. In FY2010 there were supposed to be over 1200 flight tests (plus the make up work missing from FY2009 around over 250 or so missing).

Time for a Congressional investigation into why the service chiefs earlier in 2009 sat in front of our elected officials and said nothing but great things about the F-35 program. Possible UCMJ action here. (misleading Congress) Next would be to see if there is enough of a paper trail to decide if the U.S. government has been defrauded over all of the spin of positive talk over the program in the past years. (misleading Congress) Next it is time to see if shareholders have been mislead in investment calls by LM on the topic of the F-35. If all that bears fruit, JSF partner nations, can then decide if they have been mislead by their defense officials who used glossy PowerPoint slides instead of hard analysis when telling the risks of the program to political leaders.

We’re pretty much left with no alternate to the F-35 now, and we are going to need a large number of them.

Perhaps the F-35 aimed for too much commonality between the variants, either way every program encounters some problems and delays. We can’t give up at the first signs of trouble.

There Is No Alternative — TINA!

Isn’t there Congressional legislation by the same name — Truth In Negotiations Act?

There are always alternatives if and when people have the honesty and integrity to admit when mistakes have been made … and, moreover, are prepared to learn from them.

While I’m happy for a successful test flight, I am appalled at how far the JSF program is behind. Sec. Gates ignored the 2008 JET report in an effort to create the perfect political climate for terminating F-22 production. The 2009 JET report forecast that the the JSF program will be the most expensive fighter in history, with a total combined program cost of over 1 trillion dollars. Is this the lower cost alternative to the Raptor that Mr. Gates was so happy to push?

It is always going to be the reaction of political figures to delay purchase of today’s known, expensive system in favor of tomorrow’s system (which can assumed to be cheaper, right?).

No bucks no buck rogers. Having said that i must tell the tail i was bait and switched by LM for a navy ship gun console. HA old times.… tried to fight it but a contractor was in charge… we need more checks and balances.. oh by the way did LM cure the f-35 landing gear twist and drag link torque issue when the bird is making a vertical takeoff?
No? well better get ready to pay.

Mr.Gates used the JSF to kill the F-22 , and now he is trying to get the numbers of the JSF down to around .… say 183 and then the rest of the Airforce can be made up of insurgent killing turboprops and UAVs. Until camels can fly, Mr.Gates thinks there will be no need for an Airforce.

–This ad was paid for by AAPS (American Airforce preservation society) JK :-(

I am sure the GWOT can do without the latest VTOL supersonic fighter/bomber. Unless of course it can find and destroy IEDs. Apparently it was claimed the F-22 could, in fact it was propose it be called the A/F-22. At least with the F-35, the pilot can land right alongside of an IED and deal with it with using a $180,000 M-432 Shovel after detecting it while travelling at Mach 2.1 and at 73,000 feet. Sun Tzu sated that you should build weapons to fight the wars you are in.

Again barry is destroying our adavanced aerospace capability because that is what provides our strategic advantage.

USofKKA jerimiah wright would be proud.

Good Morning Folks,

Interesting to see that those who support that peculiar institution of 21st. Century Conservative though have nothing of any substance to say about this.

The fun thing will be to watch the water boarding that President Obama and Sec. Gates is applying to all of you. I’m rather enjoying it.

It appears that none of you, including the AF Lt. Col. can not give a single supportable by reason why we need these flying relics of the 20th. Century. I guess the AF will become flying truck driver, maybe they could joint the Teamsters Union, think so?. The Navy who doesn’t need land bases will have be picking up the slack of ariel combat.

To add insult to injury a recent editorial in the WSJ, (not by any means a liberal publication) noted that it is the liberals who are wanting to spending money on legacy weapons and not support the UAV’s and investing in platforms and systems of the 21st. Century, you know the weapons that are turning the corners on wars in Iran and Afghanistan.

You gotta just love it, Peace be with you brothers and sisters.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

When I first started noticing your posts, they were generally well-thought out and contributed to the debate.

But lately I see more and more frivolous and deriding comments such as this one. This is why I despise bipartisan politics… all too often it ends up with one side pointing a finger at the other making ignorant, baseless, and stereotypical remarks.

I’m not defending posts such as the one put up by Dow. You may wrap up and package your posts with more articulation and breadth, but at it’s core you’re simply doing the same thing.

As for the remarks of why we should continue to fly manned aircraft: In the near future, or maybe the threat already exists, our communications ability will be targeted. What will we do if we bet everything on the UAS and end up with a highly disrupted communications environment? All the while the enemy is operating manned aircraft (3rd gen, 4th gen or the like) dropping dumb iron (unguided bombs) on our troops? Will that be acceptable to the American public? UAS still relies heavily on remote human control, because there simply is no confidence in AI technology to allow a UAV to prosecute a war autonomously. Hence the term Unmanned Aerial System… because it’s not just the vehicle, it’s also the all the aerial, satellite and ground-based communications systems as well as aerial and ground control systems that form the very core of the entire operation.

How would the Navy be able to pick up the slack of aerial combat when there’s intense debate about a possible/realized fighter gap? Or when the number of carrier battle groups is under attack by Congress? All the while they’re relying on manned fighters, just like the Air Force.

Running UAVs in a clear WX, permissive air environ with no network jamming isn’t all that hard. An environment we can’t guarantee in war. Even with that, a UAV went wack a few weeks back and had to be shot down by one of our own F-15s. The “last manned fighter” rhetoric is as stupid as it sounds.

Unless we immediately resume F-22 production, put a new fighter program on the fast-track (and can get it rolling off the production line by 2015), there is no realistic alternative. Although some think letting the USAF rust is a good choice.

It seem that is takes a relic to recognize a relic, right (wink, wink)?

Until little issues like radio frequency jamming, cyber hacking of control facilities, destruction of communications satellites, and EMP weapons are not an issue, UAV’s will continue to be of little use against technological opponents.

Manned fighter platforms will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future, and yes that includes the F-22 folks.

Before the snipers pick apart this statement: “UAV’s will continue to be of little use against technological opponents”

It’s not just technological opponents, in due time anti-communications weaponry will be readily and easily proliferated just as anti-access SAM weaponry or man-portable ATGM’s have.

Good Evening Trophy,

You last question really get the jest of the issue. The most likely next major crisis areas in the world appears to be SE Asia and the Indian sub-continent.

China has already said that in the current decade that it feels that there is better then a 50% chance of some form of military conflict between themselves and India and/or Vietnam.

Russia not wanting to be left out of the party has been selling arms recently to India and Vietnam and will sell to China when China wants to agree with terms on currency valuation.

The problem for the US is that we have bases in Diago Garcia (subject to conditions with the UK) and Guam. The air base at Okinawa is problematic right now. The people of Okinawa wants us to leave, the government of Japan doesn’t, if the US left Okinawa the JSDAF would have to take over the expense of manning the base. With Japan’s national debt running 180% of GDP the government is in a bad position.

This of course presents a huge problem for the USAF and that is bases. Other then long range strikes with the B-1 or B-52, no way would anyone even think of a B-2 here because if one went down in China or Vietnam it would be an intelligence disaster. So that leaves the USN.

An action in the South China sea the USN could intervene if it chose. The action would be at sea where the US would has absolute sea control or on the China? Vietnam/China border would b strikeable for carrier aircraft. If it’s between India and China the US would most likely not be involved. The three places that fighting could occur would be out of the range of carrier aircraft and our relationship with Pakistan would make things a little messy.

I doubt that either China or Taiwan would consider this the time for a problem. If so the US has a defense agreement with Taiwan, China knows it, even with that most analysis think that Taiwan alone could stop any attempt by China to invade, and hold it’s own in the Formosa Straight and in the air.

The possibilities here are, the US with two carrier battle groups could control the South China Sea and the straights of Formosa. The two wild cards are Japan and South Korea. Japan has claims on Taiwan and in the South China that both China and Vietnam dispute, and it has some old historical issues with China, that it wouldn’t mind settling. South Korea also has historical issues with China and might decide to invade North Korea.

Military analysis say that the USN, Japan, India and South Korea could and would defeat the Chinese in the air on and under the sea.

Vietnam is considered to weak at this time, but when the platforms and systems recently bought from Russia and ones that are yet to be ordered come in at mid century they would present a real challenge to China both on their mutual border and in the South China Sea. South Korea could at least hold their own at sea with China and dominate the air.

So the USAF would play only a supporting role in any action in Asia. Without any bases and all the countries that could be involved in conflicts her (China, India and Vietnam) are not likely to let the US build some quick air bases on their soil. Any manned US fighters or ground attack planes have to short of range, even with in air refueling, it would be 14–18 hour missions, to long for a manned mission. The use of carpet bombing is fast leaving the US order of battle.

The only real interests here for the US would be to keep any conflict from spreading, and to keep sea/air corridors in international waters and air space open, we are more then able to do that with the weapon platforms and systems that we currently have.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Bring on the snipers! Here’s a nasty scenario to think about: Sometime in the near future, a brilliant computer hacker working for terrorists finds a back door into a secure US military UAV control node, and plants a smart hacking program. A few hours later, a Reaper UAV takes off for a mission with a full load of Hell Fire missiles. At that precise moment, a high ranking US official is making a schedule tour of a US base. The Hacker takes control of the Reaper, and before one of the nearby USAF fighters (20th century relics) is able to take off, the Hell Fire missiles are used on the visiting US official and escort team, and much death and misery follows.

Kadena Air Base in Okinawa is not under as much of a threat as you’d think. The JSDF and the Japanese government knows how crucial that base is to the Asia-Pacific area. It’s referred to as the very tip of the spear for a good reason: we have E-3 Sentry (AWACS) and RC-135 intelligence/air control assets, Air Force Special Operations Command with HH-53’s and C-130’s, an Army PAC-3 battalion, KC-135 aerial refueling assets, tenant Marine Corps AV-8 Harriers and F/A-18C/D Hornets, tenant Navy F/A-18C/D Hornets, P-3 Orions, E-2 Hawkeyes and EA-6B Prowlers, as well as two squadrons of F-15C’s equipped with JHMCS and the AN/APG-63(V)2 radar, making them the deadliest F-15 squadrons for air-to-air combat. All that centered on one single base. That base is not going away any time soon, as it delivers too much tactical and strategic combat capabilities that would be difficult to be dispersed effectively anywhere else. Any reports that says otherwise is merely political propaganda.

Much of the local ire with the servicemen on Okinawa lies with the Marine Corps (though a good portion of the locals don’t differentiate between Marines and Airmen), which has ten camps there. Which is why there’s been talk of real plans to move a good portion of those Marines to Guam, many of the residents do not want them either. To be fair, the Airmen at Kadena Air Base do cause their own fair share of grief, however there are far more Marines than there are Airmen so of course the Marines get greater representation as far as disciplinary issues. Though there’s still strong support among the locals for the US presence, mainly for the amount of capital the 40,000+ Americans bring to the island. When a Marine was accused of raping a 14-year old Japanese girl in early 2008, the Commander of the Joint Services on Okinawa put all American bases on Okinawa were put on lockdown for a full month. Local businesses definitely felt the hurt and welcomed back the patronage after the long month.

And you either forget or don’t know that we have two airbases in South Korea, Osan and Kunsan Air Bases, which would provide a better hub for USAF air-to-ground operations over Vietnam and China. Kunsan has the 8th Fighter Wing, with two F-16 squadrons. Osan has the 51st Fighter Wing, with a squadron of A-10’s and another squadron of F-16’s, and the HQ of the 7th Air Force. Misawa Air Base on the mainland of Japan also offers the 35th Fighter Wing with two F-16 squadrons ready to fight.

Though the reality is, a conflict with China is next to nil for a good while. Our economies are far too intertwined. They provide us with cheap goods and services, as well as a market for our own services, while we provide them with a market for their goods and services. Few countries are prepared to fill in the vacuum should all trade be cutoff. If one side wins, he is still defeated.

I forgot to mention on the mainland of Japan there’s Atsugi Naval Air Station, which hosts Carrier Air Wing 5 comprised of nine squadrons of F/A-18E/F, SH-60, HH-60, E-2C, EA-6B and transport aircraft. There’s also the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station, and on Okinawa Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, not completely sure what they have but I do know they have F/A-18’s and rotary-wing assets.

F-22’s have also been on rotation at Kadena AFB along with the aforementioned fighters that Trophy mentioned.

Two Carrier Battle Groups could control the South China Sea, if they were not being targeted by Chinese Sizzler supersonic anti-ship missiles for which we will not have a defense for until at least 2014.

And then there is that little “incident” with the Chinese Song submarine that surfaced within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk Carrier Battle group in 2007.

As far as China not going to war with the US due to our close economic ties, that really does not seem to explain the need to develop carrier killing offensive weapons as they have been doing for some time.

China has been closing the gap in military capabilities to leverage it’s political clout, and make American policy makers take them more seriously. Many in Congress would just as soon forget our mutual economic dependence and would press for more bully-ish policies towards China had it not been for the more attention-grabbing military developments within China. That’s the whole point of their military developments and their provoking actions, such as the 2007 submarine incident.

Russia’s been doing the same thing: we routinely intercept their warbirds near Alaska. As have the British, Danish, Swedish, et al over in Europe. They know the pairs of fighters or bombers they send over wouldn’t be able to conduct any sort of successful or meaningful attack, which isn’t the intention anyways. It’s merely a reminder of “Hey, we still pose a military threat. Keep that in mind when deciding your policies regarding us.”

Trophy you clearly haven’t been reading enough of his posts if you haven’t realized that they are nothing but leftist political babble and personal attacks att this point and time.

For example lets take his example of “that peculiar institutions of 21st Century Conservatives”. What the hell is he talking about? The USAF, the United States Military, Lockheed Martin, the Heritage Foundation (who has nothing to do with this topic BTW)?

Of course Byron enjoys the decline of the US Military which makes little sense if he is as much a patriot as he claims to be.

Now here Byron can’t even remember what topic he is on. He is asking why we need these flying relics of the 20th century? Yet what is he offering to? The F-15, F-16, and so forth? Well besides for the obvious fact that we can’t get enough replacements for many of these birds, we need them to…

- obtain air superiority and protect ground forces from hostile airpower
– perform strikes on ground targets and provide close air support
– escort for tankers, AWACs, dedicated strike aircraft, you name it
– suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)
– electronic warfare and reconnaissance
– be on call for any of these missions at a moments notice

and surely I am forgetting other tasks. But I guess we don’t need any of that stuff right?

Now are we supposed to imagine that the WSJ is somehow an expert on military procurement and national defense?

Skinner what do you do eat and sleep the DOD Anyway you are not the skinner that was in veitman in 69

The Jamestown Foundation recently posted a very good update on the Chinese missile systems that are now threatening Asia. This really gives a feel on how serious the situation has become, and again I ask the question, why are these offensive weapons systems being developed?

http://​www​.jamestown​.org/​s​i​n​g​l​e​/​?​n​o​_​c​a​c​h​e​=​1​&​a​m​p;t…

Good Morning RSF.

I’m very familiar with the Jamestown article you are referring to and in fact did a review on it last week.

The article says that China has about 1,000 SR, IR,MR and LRBM and are producing about 100 more a year. Also the article mentioned that China was working on building it’s version of the US Pershing II Tactical Missile, this of course was intended to both impress and to cause concern to the readers.

How about some fact first about China. They have no BM’s pointed at anybody. All of China’s ballistic missiles come under the control of the 2nd. Artillery Corp, which has a rather unusual chain of command it that it reports directly to the CCP’s CMC but when made operational it is under the line authority of the PLA. It’s only ties to the Governmental CMC are through the PLA and when made operational the 2nd. Artillery Units are interjected into the COC at the provincial level. there are seven province level commands in China that report to the PLA’s COC.

All ballistic missile air frames are stored in widely disbursed depots in central China, to protect them form nuclear for the then Soviet Union, this was instituted after the split with the Soviet Union in the 1970’s, none are on mobile launchers are pointed at any body. Conventional warheads as well as missile assembly, fueling, arming and loading on to mobile launchers facilities are in separate facilities in the same area.

China has somewhere between 300–500 nuclear weapons that are stored in Beijing province at various Institutes. They are broken down into four sections, Housing, Nuclear Material, Electronics and Fuses.

All are stored in separated places and final assembly will take place in another place. This appears to be a far more secure superior system to that of the US. Needless to say all of the places are under heavy guard.

Now on to Chinese technology. From what this report indicates and the is no reason to doubt this part of it, the Chinese are striving to reach the level of the Pershing (II). Lets look at the Pershing.

It was an Eisenhower era system. R&D started in 1954 Production begun in 1958 and the first operational US Army unit was 2/44 Field Artillery at Ft. Sill Ok. in June of 1960.

The Pershing and Pershing II remained operational with the US Army in Europe (NATO) till 1985, about 748 Pershings of all kinds were build. They were a nuclear only weapon that used the old W-50 warhead in 40–200-400 Kt.

The Pershings had a range of about 400Km or 780 nmi. It accuracy was a circle of 400 meters or 1312 ft. For a nuclear weapon that would be detonated at about 5000 ft. to cover that area it was no big deal.

For a conventionally armed Short range ballistic missile it is, shall we say not very good. In contrast the current generation of US tactical missile has an accuracy of a circle less then .5 meter.

By the way the US abandoned SR, IMR,MR and LR theater level ballistic missile in the 1970’s. The US correctly determined that if they were needed in Europe that we would destroy Europe or the Soviets would. It was decided to let the Soviets destroy Europe.

In short the Chinese are striving to be only about 50 years behind the Us in ballistic missile technology. The long held position by the tanks and others that China was at least up with the US on ballistic missile technology was just another myth of those peddling needless defense ideas and the kick in the six is that one of their own unintentionally busted them.

A look at the historical data on Chinese ballistic missile tests over the past thirty years indicated that China has many problems, or to put it short on a good day at 100Km from the coast Chinese ballistic missiles can hit the Pacific Ocean.

Another China myth bites the dust.

Irony is oh so sweet.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Good Evening Folks,

Talking to myself since there is not even response, I will continue on.

Suppose, just suppose for the he** of it that China does have a thousand ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan, naw lets go really crazy and say the have ten thousand ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan, even some some on the Amur river, some at India and what the heck even some at Vietnam. Lets just go crazy here.

No one would love this more then Premier Hu. But, he knows something that all of the right wingers in the US doesn’t, somebody in the 2nd. Artillery would turn some of these missiles 180 degrees. Unlike American “Experts” Premier Hu has read the “Thoughts of Chairman Mao” and Chou en Lai’s “The People War”, the two basic text of the CCP.

The threat of Counter Revolution is always just below the surface in China’s politics, especially with the lost generation coming up who expect to inherit the CCP.

The generation of 40 to 65 who is due came to power lived through the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution of the late 1950’s and the 1960’s.

If none of this make sense to you, just got back to watching the Simpsons, there is no way you can grasp Premier Hu or China’s problems. I will stop the internal politics of China here because I doubt if anyone can fallow the argument and I’m not here to educate. I will go on to something easier to grasp and that is so what if China did have the missiles and fired them.

A lot is know about Chinese ballistic missiles by those who have an interest in such matters. First off there is the Iranian/Iraqi War of the 1980’s where China’s ballistic and cruise missiles were used by both sides, some even with chemical agents in there warheads. There over all effect on the war was marginal to none at all.

ASCM’s were fired at ships in the Gulf, I’m sure there were some hits but I can’t remember any. There was more damage done by just plain old sea mines then cruise missiles to ships. The land war was fought to a bloody stalemate, but Iraq claimed victory in 1988. By far the most memorable moment of the war was when on July 3, 1988 by the U.S.S.Vincennes CG-64s when it shot down an Air Bus A-300 with 290 people (60 Children) aboard, an Iranian passenger plane. Not good.

The showcaseing of China’s ballistic missiles for Americans of course was Gulf War I in 1991. A lot of holes in the desert but no damage. When Saddam turned his missiles on Israel it was a non event. The most dangerous part of the Chinese missiles during the 1991 Gulf War was the falling debris of the missile airframes when the Patriots proximity fused warhead went off near a missile and broke it up and the pieces fell.

In the 2003 the US solved the problem of locating mobile launchers, and ballistic missiles became a non events for Saddam. The only missile event of note was a Chinese cruise missile (Silkworm?) that was fired into Kuwait and hit a shopping center at 3:00 AM. Ballistics suggest this missile was fired from Iran but it did so little damage that nobody bothered to look into the matter. The impact may have woke up a night watchman, the center was open for business in a few hours after the “attack”.

Combined with China’s traditional maintenance problems that at best gives a 50% readiness it is unlikely any Chinese made ballistic missiles fired from China would be any more effective then they were in the Gulf.

In short any ballistic missile strike on Taiwan from China would be unlikely to cause any major damage to industry, defense facilities or to the infrastructure on Taiwan. Their ballistic missiles are to unreliable, inaccurate and carry to small of a warhead to do much damage.

Sadly the only damage that might be done is purely unintended collateral deaths.

The whole issue in the Jamestown is pure fiction, as is most of what we are fed by our media regarding China, and the events of South East and South Asia. If facts and evidence don’t support a predetermined conclusion, well we can just make up something that fits, our customers are dumb enough to buy it, if we say it.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron:

As usual, your review of the report highlights your typically prejudiced view point, while ignoring the other facts which are inconvenient.

Let’s start with the whole comparison of the D-21 with the Pershing missile. The report compares the “warheads” synthetic aperture radar guided ground penetrator with the Pershing missile. The D-21A has a range of 2,500 km vs. the Pershing range of 1,170 km. It is more accurate then the Pershing with the capability of getting guidance from both the GPS and GLONASS systems, and it is a completely different missile then the now retired US Pershing. But the most interesting variant is the D-21 ASBM with a range of 3,000 km, which was created specifically to destroy US carriers. With the launch of two geosynchronous surveillance satellites designed to monitor US navy movements with SAR and visual imaging, the stage has been set for attacks on US carriers in the region.

Also, I notice that you omitted the discussion of the CJ-10/DF-10 cruise missiles (which are now operational and deployed), and the long range anti-ship cruise missile C-602 which uses combined guidance from the GPS and GLOSNASS systems, and a frequency agile monopulse radar seeker in the last 40 km of flight. This missile is also deployed on the new Type 052C Destroyer which is the Chinese equivalent to the US AEGIS vessels (indigenous active phased array radar).

If I can clear up any further confusion on your part about the true capabilities of Chinese military systems, please let me know.

Cheers.

For those looking at the procurement cuts & thinking it is the end of the world…Remember that these cuts are from an accelerated schedule. Gates basically took the money the USAF had allotted for additional F-22s & used it to accelerate F-35 procurement.

The F-35 procurement schedule prior to ‘acceleration’.
2011: 043 (24 A + 13 B + 06 C)
2012: 082 (42 A + 25 B + 15 C)
2013: 090 (48 A + 25 B + 17 C)
2014: 110 (60 A + 30 B + 20 C)
2015: 130 (80 A + 31 B + 19 C)

The ‘new cut’ schedule
2011: 042 (-01 from pre-acceleration)
2012: 045 (-37 from pre-acceleration)
2013: 077 (-13 from pre-acceleration)
2014: 090 (-20 from pre-acceleration)
2015: 107 (-23 from pre-acceleration)

Unfortunately with the 1 trillion dollar price tag for the F-35 program, we are getting a plane that is basically 50% as effective as the Raptor that is already in production (for now). As some on this blog have already questioned, why was a lower cost Raptor variant not explored when the F-35 program began having the many problems that continue till this day? The F-35 in its present form is NOT a replacement for the F-22.

I always thought the F-35 was being acquired because the Navy wanted their own stealthy platform and the F-22 isn’t amenable to alteration for carrier operations? Then the idea of acquiring a multi-role/multi-service aircraft kicks in and you get an aircraft not well suited to any particular role or service?

FWIW.

Good Morning RSF,

My intent was not to do a technical paper on Chinese ballistic missiles/cruse missiles but to respond to the Jamestown article. Although you make and interesting point about the modernization of China’s missiles and it Type 052C Luda II-Class Destroyer of which I think they have put two of in the water, both are serving in the North Sea Fleet. On the issue of Destroyers the two most capable in the Chinese Navy are old Soviet Era Sovremenny Class of which China has two and have two more on their wish list of thing to buy from Russia.

The notation that China has a radar that is comparable to even first generation Ages is not verifiable by US intelligence, its existence is considered at this time very unlikely.

China’s weapons especially missiles, remain largely untested and yet to have shown any impressive abilities. China appears to be reluctant to test it’s missiles for two reasons first cost and secondly the fear of failure, which has severe personal consequences in Communists systems. It’s better to live in doubt.

I think the post behind this on arms control might be a better place for that discussion. I guess we could start with the Russians seemingly unable to control GEMS.

As for the Jamestown article I though I made this clear the Pershing was not a conventionally armed ballistic missile. Naturally GPS guidance didn’t exist in 1958, but interestingly GPS is not uses in the guidance of US nuclear weapons today.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Another case of one of the few things the government is constitutionally mandated to do being set aside so members of congress can pass out money for programs shouldn’t be involved in.
We can only hope that 2010 will be the year people demand the return of a more constitutional representation.

“not verifiable by US intelligence, its existence is considered at this time very unlikely.”

US intelligence missed both India and Pakistani nuke programs if I remember right. Also, as we all remember, it was used to build the case for invading Iraq. I am sure US intel produces top quality product most of the time, but I don’t get a warm and fuzzy when I read about what US intel has to say on any matter. It’s like economic reports. Wait three months and they’ll be revised.

Good luck in the New Year to all.

Perhaps the next big thing before expanding is finishing the wars we have in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Irag , then proceed to the next. In this way we can see where the budget was going.

“Another case of one of the few things the government is constitutionally mandated to do being set aside so members of congress can pass out money for programs shouldn’t be involved in.”==== You mean like the constitutionally mandated defense of Israel, S. Korea, Japan and others, right?

Good Evening Stephen,

Contrary to popular belief the US didn’t miss what was happening in Pakistan and India and their respective nuclear programs.

It was the American news media being fed stories by that peculiar institution American Conservative think tanks. If the elite media was doing their jobs and had real reporters on the scene and not just doing rip and read on anything these sources put out they would have had a different story.

For anybody that wants to get this issue clear there is a lot of open source information for the UK, India and Pakistan out there on this story. I didn’t mention the US because most of what is taking place in India/Pakistan for obvious reason is Classified.

Again like all of 1,500 or is it 1,000 ( I can’t ever get the current number straight it’s to elastic) China’s ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan, all we are getting is lies, not even half truths by people and organizations that have monied interest in these issues for over a half century now.

As far as US intelligence goes, and my “fact checker” might get a little pi**ed off at me for saying this. but it is obvious, self criticism is not a bad form of deception.

Documents and hard evidence just now being made public on pre Pearl Harbor WWII, shows that there was a lot of information there, two examples, (the Soviet Intelligence services had a micro dot sent to them via the Japanese Embassy in Moscow requesting that Russian spies in the US find and report certain information on US preparedness for war, the micro dot was handed over to the FBI by the Russians in May of 1941. Short Wave Broadcast from Hawaii and the US West Coast by Japanese nationals legally living in the US and Japanese Americans to Japan that contained coded (the student code) information on US military facilities) this and more was known by decision makers, and they acted the way they did intentionally.

I wouldn’t be surprised that 50–60 years from now that the same wouldn’t hold true for pre 9/11.

In short part of the job of intelligence agencies is to act dumb and take the hit for bad decisions by political and third party interests (translated for you who don’t get it, “think tanks” or other ideological/commercial interest groups who inject themselves into the decision making process) who call the shots.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron:

I also don’t believe the Type 52C is the equal to the AEGIS. However, it is a huge departure from the Types 52A and 52B, which largely used Russian technology.

The four panel phased array radar is obviously a copy of the AEGIS design, how good it is remains to be seen. The indigenous HQ-9 air defense missile system is an interesting mix of Russian S-300/400 technology mixed with the TVM guidance system similar to the Patriot missile. The YJ-62 surface to surface missile is also home grown, with a 250+ km range, and again using a mix of GPS and active radar guidance systems.

Command and control features, and how the various radar and sensor systems are coordinated is a mystery.

All in all a significant change from the past, and possibly a preview of things to come in Chinese naval technology.

Good Afternoon Stephen,

Of course we miss things every intelligence service does. But I think the United States is a whole lot better then the media makes us out to be, in the true form the heavy official criticism of the CIA in fact may be an intended deception itself.

You must remember that both India and Pakistan are sovereign countries and have the right of self defense. India had the Soviets helping them go Nuclear, and Pakistan had China, who helped out more then just a little and most likely even today controls Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

The United States knew this at the time and if you fallow the media stories leading up to Pakistans first test and then the Indian follow up, you will find deep US concerns. The US was quite aware of what was taking place.

After the Soviet Unions break up there were a number of tell all books written by former Soviet Intelligence Agents, I read quite a few and most were just self serving garbage, but one stands out in my mind, I don’t recall the author or the title but the last sentence in the book was. “We were so good, we lost.”

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

@byron
I thought it was relatively quiet after that whole ‘how’d we miss that’ affair. Nothing more than a little lip service. Perhaps, ‘allowing’ a nuke India as a counter to China and ‘allowing’ the Paki’s to have them because India has them was thought to be manageable. After all, neither nation is controlled religious idealogues, right? Still, in spite of all the respect I have for people who serve, even when I don’t agree, I’m sure we miss a thing or two now and then.

The Gates “accelerated” schedule was always feeble minded fantasy anyway. Gates yet again showing what he doesn’t know about airpower. The problem being; what exactly are they producing? Answer; they don’t know because there isn’t enough flight test at this time to back up production methods. We are very far from testing the whole flight envelope. Stick to the original plan as the Gates idea of “accelerating” production had no substance.

Spud puts a better picture on the original-gates-and adjusted plan–

Year = Orig, Gates, New
2011 = 43,52,42
2012 = 82,62,45
2013 = 90,129,77
2014 = 110,110,90
2015 = 130,130,107

That folks is an affect on the worldwide supply chain.

hello,why don’t we build one raptur and one f35 to see how usefull are in practice,theory is different than real practicality .

Remember Gates is McNamara 2. His simplistic thinking has already damanged aspects of our armed forces to a point where repair/rebuild will never happen. The F22 decision is just one example. He killed the program not because the F22 was the right aircraft at the right time, but to insure the survival of Naval and USMC aviation continues. He believes 3 air forces doesn’t duplicate and waste increadable resources.

Remember, the F22 with little modifications can land and take off from a carrier without all of the equipment needed by the Navy and Marines. So the answer is another wasted effort at a joint strike fighter.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement