Until recently I never understood why some people hated the MV-22 Osprey so much. Well several people who do not like it have informed me as to why. One dislikes it because he thinks it is a half baked concept that is simply a deathtrap. Granted he has a point more Ospreys have crashed due to malfunctions than there has been UH-60s shot down. Its true the MV-22 has had 14 crashes due to malfunctions that has resulted in 72 deaths since 1991. There have only been 4 UH-60s shot down since it entered service in 1979 2 in desert storm and 2 at the battle of Mogadishu.
Another a (blogger Solomon check out is blog SNAFU!) when asked why he didn't like it he said: because they're not delivering
what was promised. we thought we would be getting an airplane that is
in every phase of flight superior to the CH-46 but that isn't the case.
additionally the thing puts out so much heat on deck that its changing
the way we operate, its ungainly and takes up more room, its slow in the
landing phase and its just not as versatile as the helicopter it
replaces. Additionally all this branding is starting to piss me
off. a tilt rotor enabled ground force? really? its a fucking
modified helicopter that flies to fast for escort, can't sling load to
save its fucking life and is more vulnerable than the old birds. i hate
it and i hate the fact that USMC leadership is acting like its the
second coming.
My personal opinion on the MV-22 is that it is a colossal waste of potential. Where they could have made a family of tiltrotor aircraft to support the MV-22 like a Gunship variant for escorting it in and a heavy lift variant for carrying the heavier loads such as vehicles they just made the MV-22 and did a hash of the job neglecting to give it anything to defend itself. No flares, armor, nose gun, missiles or rockets just a ramp gun. Also it apparently gives off a hell of a heat signature. It is a huge glowing target in the sky that carries 24 troops and has nothing to defend itself but its speed.
Also the Marines are not the service that should be using it. The Marines need an aircraft that can be easily stored on their amphibious warfare ships. The MV-22 is really not that. It is too big. The Marines were probably better off with the CH-46 or maybe a variant of the UH-60. The Service that should be using tiltrotors and specifically a family of tiltrotors in utility, attack, transport and heavy lift roles its the Army.
The Army would be able to make such better use of the MV-22 for air assault. If the Army's main air assault unit the 101st airborne division operated it they could send almost twice as many men into the combat zone that they can now operating the UH-60.
So far the only thing the marines are doing right with the MV-22 right now is they want to put a nose gun on it and give it the capability to use air to surface weapons anything from hellfire missiles to 250lbs bombs. they want to turn it into a troop transport with teeth. I think they should possibly even slap some armor on that bitch to make it a little more resilient to ground fire.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
The Problem with the Modern US Military
Currently the military is having many problems with research, development and procurement. I think I know why they are having all these problems. Other than the ever shrinking budget. They are trying too hard to get all in one weapons systems. These programs are proving to be too ambitious, are having budget overruns, are taking longer than expected to complete and are producing sub par systems.
Example 1: The F-35
Named the Joint Strike Fighter it is meant to do all things air superiority, close air support and strike missions while also being supposed to be able to to carrier take off and landing, STOVL and to work off of conventional airfields. It was supposed to do all of this while at the same time being stealthy.
However the program is now being predicted to cost over a trillion dollars in total. The cost per plane that was originally supposed to be around 60 million dollars per plane is closer to 185 million dollars per plane. The F-35 was supposed to be in full operation by 2012 it is still not supposed to be in full operation until July of this year for the Marines and the Navy aren't going to put theirs in service until 2019. Also lets look at the fact that studies have proved that it's stealth isn't that great. Also that it will be less effective than any of the aircraft its replacing in any of the roles it is supposed to be able to do.
Example 2: The Littoral Combat Ship(LCS)
The LCS is replacing the Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates. However in an effort to make it an all in one vessel the Navy decided to only give it a bare bones weapons compliment of a few guns and surface to air missiles saying that they can add other weapons if the need arises for a specific mission. Also the LCS has been discovered to have decreased survivability from the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates. Also as its name suggests it is meant to conduct operations in littoral areas so it will not be effective as say a carrier or MEU escort as the frigates they are replacing have done in the past. In summary the LCS is an under equipped vessel with decreased survivability and cannot do any of the jobs it is supposed to do really well.
Example 3 ACV 1.1
This program comes from the Marines. The USMC was going to replace their aging AAVs with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle(EFV). However the EFV was cancelled due to costs. The USMC was going to replace their LAV-25s with the Marine Personnel Carrier(MPC). That program was cancelled due to costs. So the HQMC decided lets combine the two projects and call it the ACV 1.1. The idea behind it being an amphibious wheeled armored personnel carrier. So now we have gone from two programs that were originally supposed to have already replaced the AAV and LAV-25 and gone to one program where all of the proposed designs are sub par and it isn't supposed to even start replacing AAVs until 2019 and even then it won't replace the whole AAV fleet. Another all in one project that is proving to be too difficult and is failing.
These three examples should give you guys good examples of how the US military s screwing itself over. I want to hear what the people who read this blog think so please comment. This blog is called defense discussion and so far it has been pretty one sided.
Example 1: The F-35
Named the Joint Strike Fighter it is meant to do all things air superiority, close air support and strike missions while also being supposed to be able to to carrier take off and landing, STOVL and to work off of conventional airfields. It was supposed to do all of this while at the same time being stealthy.
However the program is now being predicted to cost over a trillion dollars in total. The cost per plane that was originally supposed to be around 60 million dollars per plane is closer to 185 million dollars per plane. The F-35 was supposed to be in full operation by 2012 it is still not supposed to be in full operation until July of this year for the Marines and the Navy aren't going to put theirs in service until 2019. Also lets look at the fact that studies have proved that it's stealth isn't that great. Also that it will be less effective than any of the aircraft its replacing in any of the roles it is supposed to be able to do.
Example 2: The Littoral Combat Ship(LCS)
The LCS is replacing the Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates. However in an effort to make it an all in one vessel the Navy decided to only give it a bare bones weapons compliment of a few guns and surface to air missiles saying that they can add other weapons if the need arises for a specific mission. Also the LCS has been discovered to have decreased survivability from the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates. Also as its name suggests it is meant to conduct operations in littoral areas so it will not be effective as say a carrier or MEU escort as the frigates they are replacing have done in the past. In summary the LCS is an under equipped vessel with decreased survivability and cannot do any of the jobs it is supposed to do really well.
Example 3 ACV 1.1
This program comes from the Marines. The USMC was going to replace their aging AAVs with the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle(EFV). However the EFV was cancelled due to costs. The USMC was going to replace their LAV-25s with the Marine Personnel Carrier(MPC). That program was cancelled due to costs. So the HQMC decided lets combine the two projects and call it the ACV 1.1. The idea behind it being an amphibious wheeled armored personnel carrier. So now we have gone from two programs that were originally supposed to have already replaced the AAV and LAV-25 and gone to one program where all of the proposed designs are sub par and it isn't supposed to even start replacing AAVs until 2019 and even then it won't replace the whole AAV fleet. Another all in one project that is proving to be too difficult and is failing.
These three examples should give you guys good examples of how the US military s screwing itself over. I want to hear what the people who read this blog think so please comment. This blog is called defense discussion and so far it has been pretty one sided.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
ISIS is Threatening to Execute Two Japanese Citizens
All the information that I have on this right now is that ISIS has captured 2 Japanese citizens and in a video starring the same Jihadist who famously executed US citizens in the past demanded a ransom of 100 million dollars per hostage from the Japanese Government.
At the same time the Japanese Prime Minister is visiting Israel.
Update: ISIS has given the Japanese Government 72 hours.
At the same time the Japanese Prime Minister is visiting Israel.
Update: ISIS has given the Japanese Government 72 hours.
Should the US Military Ressurect an Old Concept?
 |
| F-14 Fires a Phoenix Missile |
What the US should do is instead of depending on stealth to win the BVR fight is to go back to the concept behind the F-14 and the Phoenix missile. That is to have a not stealthy capable dogfighter for if things do go bad you can engage in a within visual range fight but also to have a long range air to air missile that can accurately hit the enemy while the plane firing the missile is still out of radar detection range of the enemy fighter.
It is this that has me convinced that in their time the F-14/Phoenix Missile combo were the best in class for BVR combat. Hell even for today the phoenix has longer range than the meteor by 90 Kilometers, it out ranges the AMRAAM by 120 Kilometers, it out ranges the Vympel R-77M by 30 Kilometers and it has a longer range than the PL-12 by 90 Kilometers. It also travels at a much quicker speed than any of those missiles by nearly 1200mph.
By the way the specs on the AIM-54 Phoenix is it has a range of 190 Kilometers and flys at a speed of Mach 5 or 3308 mph.
Also let us not forget that the AIM-120 and meteor the main BVR missiles fro the west are classified as medium range missiles. Simply based off of that using them as the main BVR weapons is unwise.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
F-35 alternatives
Now what any aviation freak has been waiting for a F-35 opinion piece.
I personally hold the opinion that the F-35 is a overpriced missile magnet. It is no longer even recognized as a stealth aircraft. It is being called semi-stealth. not to mention the projected over all program cost is 1.5 Trillion dollars!
That is unbelievable! This isn't even going into the fact that it can't maneuver is too slow with a top speed of only MACH 1.6 which makes it substantially slower than any other fighter currently used by the US. Also there is its tiny payload at maximum it can only hold about 4 air to air missiles in its "stealth" layout. If it wants to carry anymore weapons it has to sacrifice what little stealth it has. I say this program needs to be killed.
But hey if this program is killed there are no better options. Actually no there are several aircraft that have the same capabilities as the F-35 for substantially less.
So lets lay this out with the specs, starting with those of the F-35 then the alternatives
F-35 Lightning II
Top Speed: Mach 1.6
Combat Radius: 613 Nautical Miles
Weapons: 4 missiles, or 2 missiles and 2 bombs internally. Other weapons can be carried on the wings
Other Notable equipment: AESA radar
Stealth ability: Semi-Stealthy
Cost: A variant: 114 million dollars per plane, B variant: 142 million dollars per plane,C variant: 132 million dollars per plane
F-18 Advanced Super Hornet
Top Speed: Mach 1.8
Combat Radius:650 Nautical Miles
Weapons: 4 missiles, or 2 missiles and 2 bombs in center line weapons pod. Other weapons can be carried on the wings.
Other Notable equipment: AESA radar
Stealth ability: Semi-Stealth
Cost: 55 million dollars per plane
F-15SE Stealth Eagle
Top Speed: Mach 2.5
Combat Radius: 800 Nautical Miles
Weapons: 4 internally carried missiles. other than that same load out as the F-15E Strike Eagle
Other Notable equipment: AESA radar
Stealth Ability: Semi-Stealth
Cost: 100 million dollars per plane
(Note: Although the F-15SE is almost as expensive as the F-35 it is based on a a proven jet with the best air to air record in History during the 1st Gulf War 34 enemy kills with no losses.)
Don't agree with me? Great! Tell me in the comments.
I personally hold the opinion that the F-35 is a overpriced missile magnet. It is no longer even recognized as a stealth aircraft. It is being called semi-stealth. not to mention the projected over all program cost is 1.5 Trillion dollars!
That is unbelievable! This isn't even going into the fact that it can't maneuver is too slow with a top speed of only MACH 1.6 which makes it substantially slower than any other fighter currently used by the US. Also there is its tiny payload at maximum it can only hold about 4 air to air missiles in its "stealth" layout. If it wants to carry anymore weapons it has to sacrifice what little stealth it has. I say this program needs to be killed.
But hey if this program is killed there are no better options. Actually no there are several aircraft that have the same capabilities as the F-35 for substantially less.
So lets lay this out with the specs, starting with those of the F-35 then the alternatives
F-35 Lightning II
Top Speed: Mach 1.6
Combat Radius: 613 Nautical Miles
Weapons: 4 missiles, or 2 missiles and 2 bombs internally. Other weapons can be carried on the wings
Other Notable equipment: AESA radar
Stealth ability: Semi-Stealthy
Cost: A variant: 114 million dollars per plane, B variant: 142 million dollars per plane,C variant: 132 million dollars per plane
Top Speed: Mach 1.8
Combat Radius:650 Nautical Miles
Weapons: 4 missiles, or 2 missiles and 2 bombs in center line weapons pod. Other weapons can be carried on the wings.
Other Notable equipment: AESA radar
Stealth ability: Semi-Stealth
F-15SE Stealth Eagle
Top Speed: Mach 2.5
Combat Radius: 800 Nautical Miles
Weapons: 4 internally carried missiles. other than that same load out as the F-15E Strike Eagle
Other Notable equipment: AESA radar
Stealth Ability: Semi-Stealth
Cost: 100 million dollars per plane
(Note: Although the F-15SE is almost as expensive as the F-35 it is based on a a proven jet with the best air to air record in History during the 1st Gulf War 34 enemy kills with no losses.)
Don't agree with me? Great! Tell me in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)