Brazil Goes Swedish

From International Business Times:

After a decade of discussion, Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff announced Wednesday the acquisition of 36 Gripen NG fighter jets, from Sweden’s Saab (STO:SAAB-B), for the FX-2 program of the Brazilian Air Force.

Defense Minister Celso Amorim and Gen. Juniti Saito, the air force's chief of staff, said at a press conference after the official announcement that the planes will be delivered in 4 years. The total cost of the deal will be $4.5 billion.

"The choice took into account performance, technology transfer and cost, not only for acquisition but also for maintenance. The decision was based on the best balance of those factors," Amorim said. 

The decision puts an end to 10 years of speculation and delays on the transaction, which started as a plan under former President Luiz Inácio (Lula) da Silva. Three contenders stepped up to the bid: France’s Dassault (EPA:AM), with the Rafale model; Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA), with the F/A-18 e/F Super Hornet; and the eventual winners, with the smaller Gripen. In the early stages of the negotiation, Lula expressed preference for the Rafale, but the French contender fell out of favor at the end of Lula's second and last term in 2010, and was finally rejected on Tuesday due to its high cost.

The article goes on to cite the NSA scandal as the reason for Brazil picking Saab over Boeing who was offering the Super Hornet. Regardless, congratulations to Saab as this decision is a decade in coming and is well deserved in my opinion. 

Flashback Friday: AIR-2 Genie

      This week's Flashback Friday looks at the AIR-2 Genie. The AIR-2 was an unguided air-to-air missile deployed by the USAF from 1957-1985. The AIR-2 was armed a W25 nuclear weapon, with a yield of 1.5kT. The AIR-2 had a range of 10.8km and traveled at Mach 3.
      In the mid-1950s a major threat was a Soviet nuclear attack carried out with the Tu-4 (a B-29 clone).  Up to then U.S. fighters had been equipped with either 20mm cannons or 12.7mm machine guns, and unguided rockets like the Mk 4 FFAR. None of these were effective at shooting down aircraft, especially not high speed bombers, and true air-to-air missiles were still in their infancy. Thus, a solution was found in the AIR-2, as it was nuclear armed it could be fired into a bomber stream, and when detonated could bring a number of bombers in one detonation. The AIR-2 was only live-fired once, during the Plumbbob John nuclear test over Yucca Flats, at an altitude of 4.5km. The warhead had a yield of 1.7 kilotons.
     Video of the test can be seen from 6:00 to 6:30.

     During the test 5 USAF officers stood underneath the detonation to prove the Genie was safe for use over populated areas. Gamma and neutron radiation doses were reported as negligible.
      In the end the Genie was maintained through the 80s, and would have been at the frontline of any Soviet air attack against North America. It's effectiveness is debatable against bombers like the Tu-160 or Tu-22M, but it would have been highly effective against the Tu-95.

Bill Sweetman On The Su-35

I should mention that no Su-27 deriative has seen combat with the single exception of the Ethiopian-Eritraean War about 15 years ago. The Flanker is almost completely untested in combat.

 

Hat tip to Alert 5 for spotting this.

Possible Israeli Mega Arms Deal for 5+ Billion Dollars

     From Defense News: 

TEL AVIV — Israel’s Defense Ministry is asking the US government to guarantee billions of dollars in low-interest bridge loans for a Pentagon-proposed package of V-22 Ospreys, F-15 radars and precision-strike weaponry that it ultimately intends to fund with future military aid from the US.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, when visiting here in April, announced that Washington “would make available to Israel a set of advanced new military capabilities” to augment Israel’s qualitative military edge.

At the time, Israeli defense and industry sources criticized the premature publicity generated by the Pentagon-proposed package, insisting negotiations on cost, quantities, payment terms and delivery schedules had not yet begun.

But in the past two months, MoD efforts to secure a US-backed loan for eventually US-funded systems on offer have intensified, with preliminary responses from relevant authorities in Washington expected later this summer, sources from both countries said.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon aimed to advance the issue in meetings with lawmakers and Jewish leaders on Capitol Hill on Thursday. On Friday, Ya’alon is scheduled to fly to the Pentagon aboard an Osprey, where he will be greeted by Hagel ahead of their talks.

Under the novel, Israeli-proposed funding plan, US government guarantees would allow MoD to initiate near-term contracts for advanced, Pentagon-offered weaponry with cut-rate cash from commercial banks. Israel would pay only interest and servicing fees on the government-backed loan, with principle repaid from a new, 10-year military aid package that President Barack Obama — during a visit here in March — promised to conclude before the current bilateral aid agreement expires in 2018.

Israel is slated to receive $3.1 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant aid through 2017, minus some $155 million in rescissions due to US government-mandated sequester. Those funds, sources from both countries say, have already been tapped to cover payments on existing contracts for Israel’s first squadron of F-35I joint strike fighters, heavy armored carriers, trainer aircraft engines, transport planes and a host of US weaponry.

Read the rest at Defense News. What the Isrealis are asking for is 5 billion dollars in free military equipment, maybe as much as 8 billion if a second squadron of F-35Is is included in the deal. I'm all for selling the Israelis military equipment, and supplying them in wartime. However, in a time when our own military is rapidly heading for the point where it will fall apart, I cannot support loaning the Israelis 8 billion dollars so they can buy U.S. military equipment. That 8 billion dollars could better be used in Navy shipbuilding, DoD R&D, buying aircraft for the services, or even paying off the debt. This deal is nothing more than giving the Israelis free military equipment.

Photo: China's New Stealth Fighter, The F-60

Hat tip to Alert 5.

What Is Wrong Here?

   
Hint: Look at the vertical stabilizer. The DEW Line thinks this is a testbed for Iranian built ejection seats.

Photo Credit: Airliner.net

LockMart & Taiwan Ink Deal To Update Taiwan's F-16s

     From Aviation Week:

Taiwan’s state-owned aerospace company and Lockheed Martin on July 12 said they had signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on upgrades of Taiwan’s 145 F-16 A/B fighter jets once Washington and Taipei finalize the deal.

Today a source familiar with the matter confirmed that the U.S. government and Taiwan signed a letter of acceptance on a $3.7 billion deal to upgrade 145 F-16 fighter jets.

Lockheed officials also confirmed the news, which was announced in Taipei by Taiwan’s Aerospace Industrial Development Corp., a state-owned aerospace company, although the memorandum was signed at the Farnborough International Airshow on Wednesday.

The memorandum confirmed the AIDC’s “determination to work with Lockheed Martin” to meet the requirements of Taiwan’s Air Force on upgrading its aging F-16A/B fleet.

Under the memorandum, Lockheed will work with the Taiwanese company “on F-16 retrofit modifications, F-16 component parts manufacture and other potential offset projects.”

The memorandum comes when Taiwan and the United States are close to finalizing a deal to upgrade Taiwan’s 145 F-16A/B jet fighters at a cost of up to $5.3 billion.

A letter of acceptance on the larger weapons deal could be signed within weeks, said a source familiar with the matter.

The Obama administration approved the F-16 upgrades for Taiwan last September, upsetting China, but details of the actual government-to-government weapons sale are still being finalized.

Obama administration officials say the upgrade would give the planes essentially the same capabilities as new late-model F-16 C/Ds that Taiwan had sought to deter any attack.

China opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan on the grounds that they sabotage Beijing’s plans for reunification. China deems Taiwan a renegade province and has never renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control.

U.S. lawmakers sympathetic to Taiwan are pushing for Washington sell 66 new F-16s to Taiwan, in addition to the upgrades.

     About time. Though, I do wish Sen. Cornyn would increase the pressure on the Dear Leader to sell those new F-16s to Taiwan.

Photo Credit: USAF  

Stealth: Too Much Of A Good Thing?

     Stealth. Since the development of Northrop's Have Blue prototype in the 70s the Air Force has fallen in love with the concept, and has bought 4 types of stealth bomers and fighters since. But at what cost to capabilities? Stealth is an extremely valuable resource, but today and for the next 10 years we will be fighting an asymmetric war against third world terrorists, rather than large conventional wars on the plains of central Europe. The question I ask, has stealth destroyed the Air Force and naval aviation?

     Exhibit 1: The A-12. The A-12 Avenger II was supposed to be a stealth bomber successor to the tried and true A-6 Intruder. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost and weight overruns, and problems with the radar system. Because the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6 , the Navy canceled the A-6F Intruder II which would have had new engines, electronics, and 2 extra hardpoints for carrying ordnance. However, since the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6, the Navy turned Grumman's proposal down. Then when the A-12 was canceled in 1991 the Navy was left without a tanker aircraft and bomb truck.  And because the Navy placed all it's bets on the A-12, it was forced to use the F-14 as an attack aircraft, and purchase the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, while an excellent fighter, is acceptable in the attack role, but is not meant for it. Conclusion: Because the Navy relied too much on new technologies (read A-12) that had kinks to be worked out, lost their deep strike and tanker capability. 

    Exhibit 2: The F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor has become darling of the Air Force, as it  can enter a dogfight with any type of aircraft and come out on top. However, in recent months the F-22 has had problems with it's oxygen system resulting in one pilot killed and a six month grounding for all F-22s. That does not include it extreme cost at 350 million dollars each, which has only been surpassed by that of the B-2 Spirit at 2.1 billion dollars. The damage to the Air Force done by the F-22 is not as obvious. And rather than manifest itself in loss of capability, it shows itself in quantity. With only 187 combat aircraft produced, the Air Force is forced to rely on a small number of extremely capable platforms. Not only that, but the Air force will be reluctant to risk a 350 million dollar piece of equipment in hostile airspace, simply because of it's cost and the technical secrets which the enemy would obtain. Conclusion: Because the Air Force was set on buying the newest, coolest airplane, they lost several good legacy fighters for each F-22, rather than buy better, new build fighter fighter like the F-16E of F-15SE.

     Exhibit 3: The F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 is the latest and greatest of Air Force programs, and is the planned replacement of the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10. The problem here is the number of F-35s to be purchased. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are planning to to buy ~2400 F-35s of all types. I agree with many that the F-35 is a good fighter, but we simply cannot afford to buy enough to cover all the services. The Air Force has stated that they alone need 2200 fighters of all types, subtracting the 187 F-22s that leaves 2013 fighters that the Air Force needs. Subtracting the 680 F-35Bs and Cs the Marine Corps and Navy are buying, the Air Force is only buying 1233 F-35As, leaving a shortfall of 800 fighters. And the idea that the F-35 will replace the A-10 in the CAS role is a pipe dream (see example here, point made?), simply because the F-35 cannot absorb the punishment or carry the ordnance an A-10 can. Conclusion: The F-35 is a good bird, but at the moment it is not what we need, as it is too expensive, and it's mission can be performed by new legacy fighters. However, that does not mean it should be canceled, rather it should shelved for the moment until a need arises.

     The other issue that hasn't been mentioned, is that are we willing to deploy stealth fighters into hostile airspace? The F-22, and F-35 are cutting edge fighters with some of the newest technologies in the West on board, and if lost would hand a technical goldmine over to enemy forces. Back in 1999 an F-117 was shot down, and it is almost certain those stealth materials fell into enemy hands. While obsolete by our standards, the F-117 is cutting edge for the rest of the world. Frankly, the Air Force or Navy would probably not risk stealth aircraft in hostile airspace like Iran, simply because of the rick of valuable technical secrets being lost.

     Stealth is here to stay, that is a fact. However, in our current fiscal condition we cannot afford the number of stealth fighters or bombers we need to maintain our commitments worldwide. We also must be willing to risk our stealth aircraft in hostile airspace, even if that risks technical secrets falling into enemy hands. Even if we are willing to risk stealth aircraft in enemy airspace, we still don't have the money to afford enough stealth fighters. To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, yes, stealth has destroyed the Air force and naval aviation.

     The solution? The F-16E/F and F-15SE. The F-16E/F is the latest version of the venerable F-16, and is already in production. The F-15SE is a stealthier version of the F-15E, with conformal weapons bays (CWBs) rather than the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs). Both types are cheaper than the F-35 at around 80 and 100 million each. They are not the most advanced fighters in the sky today, but have two advantages. 

We can afford them in the numbers we need, and they are proven in CAS and air-to-air combat. As to the Navy and Marines, the Marines would have to keep flying AV-8 Harriers off of helicopter carriers, and use F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for land-based aircraft. The Navy is another story, the A-6F needs to be resurrected, and a new cheap naval based fighter developed.

    The problem for so many years has been that aviators across the board (with the possible exception of the Marine Corps) have become fixated on buying new aircraft. The "if its new, if its high-tech, we need it" mantra has killed the Air Force and Navy at a time when tried and true beats new and unproven. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

    

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy and USAF

Photo: F-35B's Gun Pod

    That right there is a GAU-22 20mm cannon in an external pod. Unlike the F-35A, the B and C don't have an internal gun. Kinda like the SUU-16 without the gunsight problems. 

Photo Credit: USAF

Philippines To Purchase 12 Fighters From S. Korea

     From ABS-CBN News:

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Air Force (PAF) said they will be acquiring fighter jets in the next two years.

Twelve surface attack aircraft lead-in fighters or TA-50s from South Korea are expected to be delivered by 2013.

Each jet costs P1.25 billion for a total of P25 billion for the dozen jets.

The TA-50 is a supersonic aircraft that requires more experienced pilots.

Authorities said bulk of the P70 billion allocated for the modernization of the Armed Forces under the Aquino administration will go to the Air Force.

“Dati hindi natin pinapansin ang territorial defense dahil wala nga tayong capability gaya ngayon. ‘Yung  bangka ‘yung atin, ‘yung kalaban natin napakalaking platform. Ngayon, tumaas ang rating ng problema natin sa territorial defense. Hindi pala natin pwedeng isantabi,” said Defense Sec. Voltaire Gazmin.

    (Here is a translation from Google Translator, it's not the best but it gets the point across.)

The Air Force currently has two trainer jets, which are now nearly 25 years old.

The S-211s were originally meant for training purposes but the military was forced to use them in actual operations.

The PAF admits that this is the current image of the air power of the Philippines, which has been left behind by its neighbors.

The country's lone fighter jet, an F-5, was sidelined in 2005 and has yet to be replaced.

     The President of the Philippines discussed this on a radio show in May, but at the time I derided it as political posturing. Looks like he was serious about that. What I don't understand is why they chose the TA-50, as it is the attack model of the T-50 trainer. And as such doesn't have an good air-to-air combat capability like the F-16s they wanted. Still, it is better than nothing. 

Hat tip to Pacific Sentinel for spotting this.

Photo Credit: Sergey Ryabtsev

Flashback Friday 6/15: Kawanishi N1K-J

     This week's Flashback Friday looks at the Kawanishi N1K-J fighter called "Strong Wind" by the Japanese, known to Allied forces as "George". The Kawanishi N1K was unique among Japanese fighters in that it had self-sealing fuel tanks, a great deal of armor (by Japanese standards), and could fight an F6F Hellcat to a draw.

     The George began life as the Kawanishi N1K (known to the allies as the "Rex"), a floatplane fighter meant for defending the extremities of Japan's then-large empire. However, by the time the N1K was introduced, Japan was on the defensive and no longer needed a new floatplane fighter.  However, the suggestion was made by Kawanishi to remove the floats and make the N1K a land based fighter, and thus the N1K-J was born.

     The N1K-J, known as the George, entered service in 1943, and was arguably the best fighter of the Pacific War. The N1K-J was armed with 2 7.7mm machine guns in the nose, and 4 20mm cannons in the wing, later versions of the  N1K-J also had bomb racks capable of holding 250kg of ordnance each. The N1K-J had a top speed of almost 600km/h and a range of 1400km. 

      The N1K-J had a production run of only 1435 airframes, production was hampered by B-29s bombing the factories where they were produced. However, the aircraft that made it to the front lines were issued to the elite of the Japanese Navy. An example of this is the 343 Air Group which was formed Christmas Day 1944, fought in at least 15 major battles to the end of the war. the 343 Air group shot down somewhere in the range of 3-5 dozen Allied aircraft, but due to discrepancies between American and Japanese sources the number is not certain. 

     As of 2011 at least 3 N1K-Js survive in American museums, at the National Air & Space Museum, National Museum of Naval Aviation, and the National Museum of the USAF. The N1K-J was the best Japanese fighter produced during WWII hands down, beating the Zero, Tony, and others by a wide margin. However, like many other promising Axis designs it thankfully entered the war to late to have a major effect, and production was hampered by American bombing raids. Like so many other designs it makes you think how the Pacific War might have been fought differently had it been introduced earlier.

Flashback Friday: Heinkel He 219 Uhu

     This week we take a look at one the world's first and best night-fighters, the Heinkel He 219 Uhu (Eagle-Owl). Among other innovations, the Eagle-Owl was equipped with an ejection seat, and a VHF intercept radar.
      Less than 300 Eagle-Owls were built during World War II, but for such a small production run it had a great effect on the RAF's night bombing campaign. During the Eagle-Owl's combat debut, a single Eagle-Owl shot down 5 RAF fighters. The Eagle-Owl was also one of the only German aircraft that could fight a British Mosquito on even terms, due it's peed, maneuverability, and firepower.
    However, due to the fact that all of Germany's resources were being poured into the "Emergency Fighter Program", only ~300 He 219s were built. As of 2012 2 He 219s survive, one in National Air & Space Museum, and one in Denmark. The He 219 was such a promising design, one has to wonder how it would have affect the RAF's night-bombing campaign if more resources had been invested in it.



Photo Credit: LuftwaffePhotos

2nd J-20 Makes Maiden Flight

Photo Credit: David Cenciotti

Quantity or Quality? That Is The Question

     Over the last 55 years the American mantra has been "Quality over Quantity" in military equipment. Examples are the F-35, F-22, B-2, Zumwalt-class destroyer, Seawolf-class submarines. In a war with a country that has a capable military/ has an enormous numerical advantage, the technological edge America has always held becomes moot.
     During WWII, Nazi Germany often held the technological advantage over the Allies (Radar being a notable exception). The Panther and Tiger series of tanks consistently outclassed American and British tanks, and it wasn't till 1945 with the advent of the M90 Pershing and A34 Comet that Allied armor could truly match German armor. Another example is the ME 262 "Swallow", the world's first true jet fighter, it could outrun and outgun any Allied fighter of the time, but was defeated because of it's vulnerability when taking off and landing (just like every other fighter). Other examples of Germany's technological advantage include Type XVII, XXI U-boats, He 219, Ta 152, Do 335, Go 229, Ju 290, Ju 390, Ar 234, Ju 287, V-1, V-2, Wasserfall, Enzian, and the Rheintochter. Unfortunately, I can't go into detail into detail on all these systems at the moment, but the point I'm attempting to make is that Germany had an enormous technological advantage. However, it was moot because they did not have the production capability, time, resources, trained personnel, trained production personnel, Hitler's meddling, and the Allies numerical advantage.
     During the Second Persian Invasion of Greece, 300 Spartans held off the Persian army for 3 days at the Battle of Thermopylae buying time for Greece to unite and organize to defeat the Persians. The Spartans, who were better trained,  killed several times their number, but because of the Persians sheer weight of numbers they were defeated. Later, at the Battle of Plataea 10,000 Spartans supported by roughly 30,000 other Greeks defeated 300,000 Persians. The reason I bring up the Spartans is because in their day they had the equivalent of a technological edge in their training. When you have a technological edge it only matters when deployed in large numbers like at the Battle of Plataea.    

      The question in your mind at this point is probably, what does this all have to with question of quality over quantity?  There will be a war between the U.S. and a country with an actual military, which country is up for discussion. However, the fundamental flaw in our war fighting strategy is dependence on our technological edge in stealth. The cornerstone of our war fighting strategy is providing air support to the Army and Marines. If we do not have air superiority to allow bombers hit their targets the forces on the ground will be forced to retreat because of the lack of air support and the enemy's numerical superiority. A prime example of this flaw is the F-35 Lightning II. The reason I say this is because of a CBO report a few years ago called "Alternatives for Modernizing U.S. Fighter Forces". Basically there will be a shortfall in Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighter forces
with the F-35 being purchased in currently projected numbers. The F-22 is another example with only 187 being built, at extreme costs, which in an extended conflict will be useless because of their small numbers. Other examples include Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers, the LCS, and B-2.
     The solution? Strike a balance between quality and quantity. The T-34 is an excellent example, as it was simple so unskilled labor could manufacture it in large numbers, and at the same time was could beat the Tiger and Panthers because of it's angled armor and its ability to withstand cold Russian winters. Use a high-low mix similar to the F-15/F-16 or F-22/F-35, but in much greater numbers. Make the KISS principle the cornerstone of weapons development, and keep costs to a minimum.
     Josef Stalin once said the "Quantity has a quality all its own". What Stalin said was true to a point, but rather a balance must be struck between quality and quantity. Otherwise, you will be overwhelmed in a war against an actual military.

Photo Credit: USAF 

Obscure Stealth Aircraft Part 2: South Korea's KAI KF-X

     I have written previously on South Korea's KF-X program, but I did not discuss the KAI KF-X program in much detail at the time. The KAI KF-X differs from the original KF-X program in that the KAI KF-X it is supposed to be an indigenous stealth fighter. The original KF-X program is meant to purchase fighter aircraft from other countries, the aircraft purchased under the KF-X program is the F-15K Slam Eagle, the F-15K was purchased in both first and second phases of the KF-X program.

     The KAI KF-X is supposed to be equipped with a AESA radar built in South Korea, along with a IRST system. At the moment there are two designs competing in the KAI KF-X program, one design is similar to the F-35 in that it has only one engine. The second differs from the first in that the design uses two engines versus one, this would give the pilot a degree of insurance if one engine went out. Besides this there is not much else known about the KAI KF-X, but it is probably safe to say that the KAI KF-X will carry American missiles and bombs.

     If the cost stays down there could be a market for around 300-500 KAI KF-Xs being sold to various countries. South Korea has partnered with Indonesia in development of the KAI-KF-X, and Turkey has been discussed as a third partner, but as of yet Turkey has joined the KAI KF-X program.

     As the KAI KF-X program progresses it will be interesting to see which design is picked, how the program fares, and if North Korea attempts to purchase stealth fighters.

Photo Credit: TR Defense

Video: F-35 Flyby

Video Credit: YouTube

Obscure Stealth Aircraft Part 1: Japan's ATD-X

     This is the first of a new weekly series centered on lesser known stealth aircraft like Japan's ATD-X, South Korea's KAI-X, Russia's T-50K, and several others. This week the subject is Japan's ATD-X. 

     ATD-X stands for Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X, and will probably be built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The ATD-X's maiden flight is scheduled for around 2014, and in June the Japanese government reaffirmed the plan for the ATD-X's maiden flight in 2014. 

     The ATD-X is thought to be a jumping off point from where the Japanese can develop their own stealth fighter similar to the F-22 Raptor. The ATD-X is supposed to be equipped with a 3D thrust vectoring system similar to that of the Rockwell X-31. The ATD-X is also supposed to be equipped with an unknown AESA radar which possibly could have microwave weapon capabilities. Other planed features the ATD-X is supposed to have are, a fly-by-optics flight control system, a so-called "Self Repairing Flight Control Capability", which can detect damage or failures in the flight control system and use the remaining flight control surfaces to maintain controlled flight.

     Besides this, not much else is known about the ATD-X, but in 2005 there was a series of tests done with a model to examine the ATD-X's radar cross section, but no results have been  made public from those tests. The Japanese government has said that if they decide to put a stealth fighter into production the decision will be made around 2016. The ATD-X program will probably not affect Japan's purchase of either, the F-35 Lightning II, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, or the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace their aging F-4Js and F-15Js.

     Over the next few years it will be interesting to see how Japan develops the ATD-X, and how other Asian nations respond to it.

Photo Credit: Flightglobal, (picture is an artist's impression of the ATD-X)

      

Are The F-35C And F-35B Going To Be Canceled?

     Aviation Week reports that U.S. Navy undersecretary Robert Work has ordered the Marine Corps and the Navy to  look for less costly alternatives to the Navy's current tactical aviation plan, and reexamine the consequences of canceling either the F-35C or the F-35B. Work also directed the Navy and Marines to find out if they could operate fewer than the planned 40 squadrons of F-35Bs and Cs. The order came in a June 7 memo that also ordered that "The key performance differences between the Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with all planned upgrades, F-35B and F-35C." 

     This is a major event in the F-35 Lightning II program, as there has always been solidarity in the high levels of all three participating services, in that they all supported the F-35 program and fiercely defended their service's variant. 

Thus, with this report it shows that the Navy at least is having some doubts about the F-35 program. This report could be based on fears that the F-35B's exhaust could be hot enough to melt the deck of the ships it lands on, and the fear that the F-35 could be canceled in future budget cuts.

      This is simply the beginning of a whole new F-111 fiasco, when the Navy left the F-111 program. During the 1960s then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara merged the Air Force's requirement for a high speed low altitude nuclear bomber, and the Navy's requirement for an aircraft capable of shooting down Soviet anti-ship missiles at long range. This snafu of a program became known as the F-111 Aardvark (hint: not a bird). The Navy eventually left the F-111 program because the aircraft was extremely expensive, overweight, under powered, just to name a few reasons.  The Navy then replaced the F-111 with the F-14 Tomcat, which today could be the F/A-18E/F, F/A-XX, or even the X-47B. The Air Force eventually bought the F-111 using it as a long range precision bomber and as an ECM aircraft (Electronic CounterMeasures) formerly known as the EF-111A Raven. 

     While the F-35 was originally a good idea, attempting to squeeze three different aircraft into one common airframe is a recipe for disaster, which we will see in the next couple of years. The Navy will probably pull out of the F-35 program, the F-35B will probably be canceled, but the Air Force will probably stick with the F-35 and rode out the storm.  

       

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

Video: J-20 Opening It's Weapons Bays

     Alert 5 posted this video showing the J-20 move it's tails and open what appears to be it's weapons bay. The weapons bay appears to have a straight edge which can decrease the stealth of an aircraft, that might indicate that the J-20 is a technology demonstrator rather than the first of a new type of Chinese fighters.

Video Credit: Alert 5

Is Support For The F-35 In Australia Weakening?

     Aviation Week reports that Australia is considering purchasing an additional 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to bridge an air-power gap that will occur when Australia's older 71 F/A-18A/B Hornets are retired. If Australia does purchase the additional Super Hornets, it would be the second order they have made for Super Hornets.

     Australia has committed to purchasing at least 14 F-35s already, but if the order is decreased to the minimum, it would be a blow to the F-35 program overall as Australia decreasing it's order would be a high profile blow for the F-35.

     Up till the last couple of years Australia has been planning to purchase 100 F-35As to replace the aging Hornets, but when a RAND study came out that claimed the F-35 would be at a disadvantage against Chinese fighters support has started to weaken. On top of this, the present administration in Australia, and the last administration have both stated that they will not tolerate a decline in Australia's air combat capability. Thus, with the F-35 suffering from delays, and Australia's aging F/A-18A/Bs being retired, Australia will probably order the additional Super Hornets.

     Possible reasons for Australia replacing the F-35 with the F/A-18 would be the fact that the F-35A has a shorter combat range than the U.S. Air Force required, and range is an extremely important factor in the south Pacific as the distances are great in that area. Another reason could be that the F-35 has only 4 internal hardpoints for carrying ordnance and placing ordnance on the wing hardpoints would disrupt the F-35's stealth capabilities. Other possible reasons could include lack of maneuverability, speed, and high costs.

     Whatever the Australians choose in this matter it will be interesting to watch these events unfold, and as a result watch how Lockheed responds.

     

       

Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force