"Gigglioti is a the LM equivalent of an aluminum siding salesman, 'selling the brochure on commission'."
---
M&S
'Dedicated' and 'Stake in the game' is the same as saying AGENCY in psycho-social terms.
It means a narrowly informed bias on the operational (fixed wing, uber alles!) perspective of strike warfare in a can't-say-China littoral environment where the threat has all the LANDBASED advantages in terms of capability from a 10,000ft runway. The Pacific Rebalance will not 'fear' the F-35 simply because it has a new-car smell but there is clearly a defensive psychology inherent to advocating an inferior platform from the 'staked' position of what is useful from a personal, careerist, standpoint.
Gigglioti is a the LM equivalent of an aluminum siding salesman, 'selling the brochure on commission'.
The Navy had deep strike in the 1950s with the A2F (A-6) and AD2 (A-4) fl ying nuclear profiles out to well beyond 550nm. Even the F-4 with limited EFT on the carrier and TWO J79s was capable of at least 500nm radii.
The difference being that dropping one or two B43 could actually 'win the war' whereas a pair of GBU-31s has no real purpose which cannot be done, just as well, by a Tomahawk (900nm).
OTOH, these gentlemen did nothing to convince or even comment upon the F-35B/C as a go it alone airframe without support missions and with anything up to 150nm less range than promised by that mythical JORD. Both as a function of direct radius and a simple lack of assets on the L-Class helo cruiser.
Note that the only time Gigglioti disagreed with the 'It can do everything!' Party Line was when the LRAAM capability was on the line and he knew LM had a dog in the fight with CUDA. Corporate Whore.
But one who brings up a valid point: If the F-22 cannot 'make do' with SIX missiles onboard, what chance does an F-35 which, especially i nitially and perhaps (major buy cutbacks) over it's lifetime, instead ends up flying section instead of division tactics as 'no wall of Lightnings' to make up for a 2-shot AMRAAM count?
Six arrestments are obviously not a suitably broad data set to be making ANY comments upon the F-35C's compatibility, not least because it was NEVER about increasing the snubber hold-down tension (bad landing angle = instant spear through the back of the engine) nor was it about 'sharpening the point' (narrowing the hook radius, whatever) on the hook face as this is a great way to cut bloody chunks out of the pendant as you snag only the top half of a not fully rebounded cable at 125+ (were they 'suprised' by this? As short as the MLG/Hook distance is?).
HMD doesn't matter if autoland works, the F-35 is no dogfighter and most of the rest of the mission can be flown with a HUD repeater camera portal on the main display if you need it.
Six jets on the back end of an LHA -does not- a 'do ubling o f carriers' make, (11 X 6 = 66, 11X40 = 440) most especially as oil burners cannot be sortied like nuke kettles can be (slower surge, more oilers, less seaway capacity) while the LHA-6 is still within about 150ft of being the same size as a CVN-78 and has less structural hardening.
If the threat can see you at 2,500nm and shoot you at 1,000nm and you can only LAUNCH at 584nm, something is definitely off with your deployment plan if you think you will run the enemy out of DF-21D by bringing more mazcats than they can sink.
Reaper sucks and is taken already. With that giant wing why not The Condor. Or The Kite.
No comments:
Post a Comment