The unofficial cheerleaders of Lockmart-Pentagon continue with the softball pitch.
It seems our DOD strategy, tactics and engineers have been downsized, dumbed-down and group-thinked beyond repair
.
There are some interesting assumptions going on in this piece.
“What the F-35 gives you is a fused picture of all of that, so you don’t have to interpret separate data streams. For example, my Link 16 is telling me something is here, but my radar is saying it’s over there, and this piece is kind of telling me it’s over there, and this one said it’s a bad guy, but that one is showing it as a good guy, and on legacy aircraft you have to filter what the various systems are telling you. Now, the F-35 system is going to do a lot of that processing for you.”
If only that technology was specific to the F-35. Really it is not. The Block II Super Hornet is sensor fused also.Both the Super Hornet Block II and the F-35 are in effect; second tier fighter aircraft.
Then there is pushing the idea that the F-35 can carry the job. Even to the point that long-range bombers don’t need to contribute to the fight.
“I saw the media reports on Libya and those kinds of things, and now, instead of having to fly a B-2 from Whiteman Air Force Base, and get refueled to take out certain targets because we needed a stealth airplane for the mission, we’ll have the potential to have an L-class ship with F-35Bs or a CV with CFs on it, carrier F-35Cs, and be able to execute that mission without having to bring those airplanes from CONUS, air refuel them, fly all the way over and then fly all the way back.”
You mean, a target can be hit from the states in the first 18 hours of a war by flying an amphibious ship there and back? Dumb and dumber…The long range bomber is there to have a long range strike (hence its name) to hit within hours instead of days, until other air power resources show up. Then there is the issue of once we are there, you can launch hundreds of Tomahawks from a submarine in the initial/additional IADS beat down. We can buy those expensive warshots by the bushel compared to the F-35. Some will get through, even with the best defended threat.
“You have a Day 1 capability on US Navy ships that you can float anywhere around the world. And that’s a tremendous capability for the Navy, the Marine Corps, and really, the nation, to have.”
Just as long as that “Day 1” threat isn’t in the Pacific Rim in the coming years where the Brewster Buffalo II will be out-classed.
The F-35 is too limited for big threats and too expensive to run for second tier threats. And as we all know, the debt will settle this conversation once and for all.
Semper Fi.
.
5 comments:
Korea is considering Pak-fa for K-FX III. (The rival is silent eagle, F-35, and typhoon)
It will get very interesting quickly if Korea actually select pak-fa. I think it will be earth shattering in term of geopolitical alignment.
for one, Korea has much more capable electronic industry, more so than india. So they can quickly fill up pak-fa with far more advanced electronic than russia can manufacture.
Just imagine The fadec they are going to put on that russian engine.
If Korea gets 60+ Pak fa, they will have the strongest air force in asia, and second in the world. (I don't think Russia can afford a lot of pak fa, initially.)
.. and then there is the navalized Pak-fa. This is where things will get very interesting IMO. Combined with Japan's ATDX and China's J-20, the shape of pacific power balance will be completely different by 2018.
So let me see if I understand Lockheed's wonder-computer. It will take data from radar, link, EW, etc that completely disagrees, and it will perfectly guess which one is right for the pilot? No thanks, I'd rather make that call myself.
I just read the SLD review piece you provided in the link Eric and I was appalled at it. It was nothing more than a fluff piece filled entirely with inane "Dorothy Dicks" questions. Where were even the most benign of quizzing questions? It was so bland it may very well have been written by LM's media relations branch.
I dont know who these people are exactly or who is paying their bills but I had a quick look at the "about us" tab and a couple of things stuck out like this: "All op eds and content of this website are the product of their authors and solely reflect their views." Really?
Or this, "but also to evolving public-private partnerships among democracies in crafting real military strength.." If this is the best they can do I would hate to see their worst.
Or lastly this, "SLDinfo.com examines key elements of such capability by providing information and analytical tools concerning manufacturing capability to build and sustain military forces, logistics and sustainment evolution.....as well as policy dilemmas affecting the latter". None of which is evident in that entire article.
I would love to know who is paying the bills for this website.
Back on the actual subject of submarines, it is worth noting that the Spanish S-80A class displaces 2,246 tonnes submerged (compared to 1,830 for the German Type 212). In addition, the S-80A's manufacturer, Navantia, claims its sub has a US combat system and is designed to be "Tomahawk ready". It is described as an "ocean capable design" that can also carry 8 special forces troops. The question mark is that the S-80A is Navantia's first sub design and it is not yet proven. On the other hand, four S-80A's are under construction with the first due to be commissioned in 2013. Sources: Jane's Navy International December 2007 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Spanish_Navy_ships
At face value, the S-80A would appear to be a possible MOTS choice to replace the Collins. Does anyone have more info on this class? Incidentally, Navantia's F100 frigate is the basis for the RAN's AWD and they are also building the RAN's Canberra class amphibious ships.
Sorry folks, the above post was meant to go with Eric's submarine piece.
Post a Comment