Congressional medding goes both ways...

When Congress tried to overrule the Air Force on CSAR-X, it set a bad precedent. In essence, by dragging a lot of politics into the mix, they have delayed that program for a while.

Now, KC-X is facing a similar delay, this time, rather than trying to stick it to Boeing, Congress is going to earmark the contract to Boeing. Now, I will not call this a pork-barrel situation, as CAGW did (CAGW in the past has come out for going back to oil-fueled carriers, killing the V-22,and has called the C-130J pork, so take their national-security recommendations with the appropriate level of salt).

The fact is that there are some people have about the Northrop Grumman entry. They are questions that deserve answers.

Deserving an ass-kicking at the polls, part 342345

Seems a Republican congressman has decided that porn is the biggest crisis facing the military, and he wants to ban it.

Not aging SAR choppers, not tankers bought when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, not the fact that we are in need of troops for a surge in Afghanistan, but the fact that Playboy and Penthouse are available at the local PX.

Talk about stuck on stupid...

When the troops have the gear they need, when we've won the Global War on Terror, when we don't have other problems, then we might be able to talk about whether Playboy should be available.

Until then, while our troops are fighting, let them have the latest Playboy and Penthouse issues.

Barack McGovern Obama...

Does the title sound harsh?

Watch this clip and decide for yourself.

Prima facie evidence that Barack Obama is just another McGovern Democrat. Unilateral disarmament, pacifism, and all that comes with it.

Comparing him to Neville Chamberlain earlier today is probably charitable.

Which is it?

Barack Obama's comments in the Democratic debate last night warrant one question:

Is he stupid, or did he make this up?

Confederate Yankee has a good initial take-down on these comments. More at Strata-Sphere as well.

Why is this important?

Think of it this way: If he gets taken in by a story like this, how likely is it that he will get taken in when he negotiates with Iran?

The need for more planes...

If there is any doubt about the Air Force's need for more planes, this should remove it:

Officials at Air Force Special Operations Command say it will become increasingly hard to keep two key aircraft flying: The MC-130H Combat Talon II, used to drop commandos into hostile territory and then retrieve them, and the AC-130U, a hulking gunship that flies low to deliver firepower, are both in need of substantial overhauls.

"We are literally flying the wings off these two airplanes," said Brig. Gen. Brad Heithold, director of the command's plans, programs, requirements and assessments office at Hurlburt Field, Fla.

There are only 20 Combat Talons and 17 AC-130Us. This small fleet is in heavy demand by special operations forces around the globe. In 2001, the AC-130Us flew just over 5,200 hours. The gunships logged more than 9,000 hours in 2007. It's comparable, Heithold said, to putting 70,000 miles on a car in a single year instead of a more normal 12,000 miles.

In a word: Yikes.

Time to do some earmarking, if necessary. Yes, I know: The trendy thing is to decry earmarks. But those used to buy more planes for the Air Force are going to be useful. It is also crystal clear that they are needed.

This needs to be an issue.

A new destroyer christened...

The USS Dewey was christened at Pascagoula, Mississippi.

This is the 55th Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The good news is that they're pretty good ships. The bad news is that we probably could use a lot more than just the 62 we are building.

We just aren't building enough.

The Air Force's Plea...

The Air Force Magazine editorial for January is something we need to heed, and soon.

The Air Force's planes are getting old. The KC-135s are over 45 years old. Most of their air crews are younger than that. The F-15s are also old. The average age of an Air Force plane is climbing.

Two planes need urgent replacement: The KC-135s, and the C-130Es. The former could have been replaced by KC-767s long ago, but Congressional objections killed that. The latter is being replaced all-too-slowly by the new C-130J.

Congress needs to get to work. Fast. We got sidetracked earlier this decade due to the 9/11 attacks. That stuff happens. But the peace dividend is now going to cost us a lot of money to set things right. It may have already cost our military lives.

Looks like we need more Raptors...

While most F-15s are in good enough shape to keep serving, I think it's time for Congress to write Lockheed a check for at least another 100 Raptors, and probably more.

The R&D costs have already been recouped, and it's also obvious that the F-15s are aging, and arguably not well. The F-22's a good plane, and it's only $116 million per plane on fly-away costs. For a Congress that can spend billions in earmarks each year, certainly an earmark for another 100 F-22s isn't unreasonable, is it? Maybe two runs of 100 would not be a bad idea.

There ain't no such thing as too many Raptors.

I mean, if you're gonna pork, make it useful pork!

Air Force dust-off...

The Air Force is pitching in for the medical evacuation mission over in Afghanistan, and doing a fine job of it. Part of this is due to a lack for the rescue squadron's original mission - saving downed airmen.

The sad thing is, they are relying on aging choppers to carry out the mission. The HH-47 has been tied up in a string of protests and media battles (the KC-X aerial tanker has touched this off, too).

One wishes that people might be able to remember the admonition Defensetech.org laid out this past August.

Sober people can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Boeing win. We’re agnostic on the issue other than to say that it seems the Air Force picked a heavy lift helicopter for a medium lift job. Hearing the Boeing folks talk about the superior range, speed and payload of the HH-47 was kind of like hearing Boeing say the C-17 is better than the Lockheed Martin C-130…of course, they’re different aircraft in separate classes.

But it’s starting to get to the point where the debate has devolved into the arcane world of defense contracting procedure and who dotted which “i” and crossed what “t” and when. At the same time, America has hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide in combat who will need this capability and it may start getting to the point where the bickering comes at the cost of our troops’ lives.

It really doesn't get any simpler than that. The Air Force is doing its part in the war on terror. We need to back them up with the best possible equipment and plenty of it.

A Predator crashes...

The Air Force admitted the loss of another Predator. This follows the loss of at least one more, possibly two, late in November (the Air Force fact sheet listed two other crashes in late November).

Back in March, USA Today reported that the Air Force had lost 53 Predators out of 139 delivered. The Air Force fact sheets reports an inventory of 97. More are on the way to both the Air Force and the Army.

One hopes the Air Force and Army have some backup options in mind - because the loss rates are very reminiscent of the losses suffered by the 8th Air Force over Germany in 1943. Those were considered unsustainable.

Seems to me that it is time to think about reconnaissance versions of the F-35 and F-22.

Prudes strike again...

Don Wildman is really starting to piss me off. Once again, he is trying to tell the military how to run their exchanges.

C'mon, Don, these guys are risking their asses to protect your right to be an asshole. Letting them read Playboy if they choose to do so is a small favor we can do for them.

Don't count it out yet...

Strategypage reports the Army views the SDB as a dud.

If anyone counts it out, they're being dumb. The SDB was not designed for an insurgency. It's a first-day-of-the-war weapon designed to be used from the F-22 or F-35, designed to allow them to do Very Bad Things to critical targets like radars, SAM launchers, and other targets you want/need to take out so that you can go after the stuff that really matters.

Now, why would counting it out be a mistake? Read an earlier article I did at that site.

When you're done, just think about what could have been, had the Army decided to stick it out with Comanche... just an example.

Army C-17s?

If this report from Aviation Leak - I mean, Aviation Week- is true, then this is a good thing.

After all, with apologies to Robert A. Heinlein, TANSTATMC17s - There Ain't No Such Thing As Too Many C-17s.

Fix the Procurement Mess... NOW!!

It is becoming patently obvious that the procurement system is a mess. Worse, between multiple protests over CSAR-X, and now the media war that has broken out over KC-X, it's become obvious that contractors whose projects lose out (or might lose out) are trying to game the system.

People can argue this point - and there can be reasonable disagreements on the issue. But we need tokeep in mind that our troops are out there, and right now, they're relying on 50-year-old aerial refuelling tankers, along with SAR choppers that are over 20 years old. They need replacement, and sooner rather than later.

Just ask yourself: Who would you rather have making the call as to what platforms replace the current ones, the Air Force or Congress? It's a no-brainer for me.

Another Round of Immigration Stupidity

Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.

Essentially, Petty Officer Gonzalez's wife managed to put one foot wrong while dealing with the insanely complex immigration laws of this country. The instant she married her husband, she technically became an illegal immigrant.

OK, that is messed up.

But wait, there's more . . .

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Yes, there is, Mr. Krikorian. The justification is that Petty Officer Gonzalez, unlike you, has shown that he is willing to sign a check for anything, up to and including his life, to defend this country--even down to utterly worthless oxygen-wasting dirtbags like you.

OK, immigration hardliners, justify this.

Heck, while you're at it, justify the law you were demanding last year:

Remember that big, tough immigration bill the House passed last year but failed in the Senate? It would have made harboring, in your home, someone without legal status a felony. The husband would be facing jail time. If it was base housing, then whatever officer made the decision to grant the base housing to her would also face felony charges, too. That's what the House Republicans wanted in their get tough immigration bill.

(Hat tip to doc30 at Darwin Central, the Conspiracy that Cares)

I don't want to hear "Well, I didn't mean that." That does not feed the bulldog. I want to hear you justify the law as written. I want you to justify your braying "Enforce the law!" in this case, or y'all can have yourselves a big helping of STFU.

The society that does not show loyalty to its warriors has no call on their loyalty.

Hillary's Dukakis moment...

Michael Dukakis once proudly proclaimed that he was a card-carrying member of the ACLU. We know how that worked out for him in the 1988 general election.

Fast forward to 2007. Hillary Clinton, with her Senate vote, chose to defend MoveOn.org's defamatory ad aimed at General Petraeus. Petraeus has a 52% favorable rating - a lot higher than the 11% Congress has. The military in general is also something that 69% of people have at least "quite a lot" of confidence in. Compare that to the 14% Congress gets.

Republicans need to hammer this constantly. The Democrats are undercuttign our military while the country is at war. Most people won't stand for that.

Defensetech has it right...

I cannot put my feelings on the CSAR-X controversy better than Defensetech put it last week:

[I]t’s starting to get to the point where the debate has devolved into the arcane world of defense contracting procedure and who dotted which “i” and crossed what “t” and when. At the same time, America has hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide in combat who will need this capability and it may start getting to the point where the bickering comes at the cost of our troops’ lives.

I'm just speaking for Harold here, but if you ask me, it's time to start getting this chopper fielded. In any case, as I have pointed out at Strategypage, the HH-47 blew the competition out of the water. It wasn't my first choice, either, I might add. I favored an HV-22, myself. Why the V-22 didn't get a shot is a mystery to me. But it didn't. That said, we got a darn good rescue chopper that can do the job - if Congress stops the bickering and starts funding.

We have troops in combat who need these choppers. Congress, by bickering, is rapidly approaching dereliction of duty.

Respectfully disagreeing...

Strategypage has done an article on the Israeli Nemer IFV. It's not bad, carrying eight infantry, and a crew of three. Based on an old Merkava chassis, it'll be tough, too.

But the ultimate IFV, though, has to be the BTMP-84. OK, it carries three fewer infantry, but it maintains the firepower of the Ukranian T-84 tank. Just imagine meeting that sucker in a dark alley, and ask yourself what you would do.

I don't think it would be much of a contest.

Lockheed goes Sore-Loserman...

The don't even wait for the award to file the protest.

I will refer people to my piece at Strategypage on the HH-47. It recently was re-run as a Dirty Little Secret.

Short version, the US101/VH-71 SAR variant got its ass kicked by the HH-47 in performance, past track record (four decades' worth), and existing logistical base/development risk.

John McCain needs to let this one go. The best chopper won.

LCS hang-ups...

Galrahn at Information Dissemination discusses the latest hiccups in the Littoral Combat Ship.

Now, the mission modules are being delayed. It seems as if the LCS is having one problem after another, including the cancellation of LCS-3 (the second of Lockheed Martin's monohull design for the LCS).

Can readers say, "Flight II Perry-class frigates"? That's what we ought to start looking into ASAP.