Re: Other JSF options


"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:449A4712.5FF33383@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Been gone/fairly busy for the past week, so I'm slow getting to this.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:448E52E3.B227491C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip a bunch>

Apparently it was DoD and the USAF/USN which wanted to cut the
F136,
while
the JSF program
office thought that wasa bad idea at this stage (i.e., at least
until
they
know more about whether
the F135 will meet its specs). BTW, the May 29th AvLeak has a
good
article on F135 development
and some of the problems they've been having with it.

yeah, and they will no doubt have their share of problems with the
F136
development if it goes through--problems that we will have to pay
to
fix
as
part of the development cost.

Entirely possible, but then that's the beauty of capitalist
competition,
isn't it? "Your engine
isn't meeting specs,and is running over budget? Well, better get it
up
to
snuff and soon, or we'll
buy from the other guys.

No, no! It is evident from the way this is playing out that should the
F136
prove to be the pig in the mud, then the UK and GE-based politicos
over
here
will cry "Foul!" should the USAF try to dump them. This is gonna be a
corporate and international welfare package.

I doubt it. Oh, BTW, the June 5th AvLeak has an article on the F136
and
the
development problems it's been having. Which is to be expected of any
engine,
and which is why I think we need to keep them both going at least until
they
demonstrate their promised performance, reliability, durability, weight
etc.

Oh, boy...you are worried about the P&W engine being able to meet specs,
so
a better solution is to toss more money into a competeing program that is
also not meeting specs? Sounds like an odd solution set to me.

Sure beats not having a competing engine, which was the case with the TF30
and
early-on the F100. Are you saying that the competition won't hold both
companies' feet to the fire and deliver a better product sooner? You
socialist,
you;-)

No, I can actually see where competition could be a good thing...if you can
afford to foster it in the first place. I just read where the R&D phase
expenses for the F-35 program have jumped from some $33 billion to over $39
billion over the past year or so. Given the increasing tightness of defense
budgets, particularly the acquisition and development categories (which we
are already seeing compared to the previous few years), the question becomes
is it worth paying the cost of that second engine development up-front? I
don't think so, and neither have I read anything about the Brits increasing
their R&D contribution such as to maintain the level of their already rather
paltry 6% level (based upon the $33 billion figure).


Oh, and don't expect us to pay to fix it -- we aren't stuck with you
regardless of how poorly you perform."

Yes, we will be. GE and RR will be comfortable in the smug
satisfaction
that
they have the UK govt ready to do their bidding and apply
disproportional
(to their measily contribution level) leverage to keep them in the
game.
Just as they have already done.

Kind of hard to do so if the engine's a dud and you've got a better
option.

They managed to do so thus far, have they not?

Given that neither engine let alone the airframe is yet in production, and
neither is yet meeting its specs, of course they have (barely). Which is
hardly
the same situation as will exist several years from now. Personally, I
wish we'd
kept 'Monica' development going too, because I have no doubt it would have
concentrated L-M's mind and eliminated many of the cost overruns and
delays, and
I'm damned tired of the services selecting an a/c that is far from being
production representative, only to then have them have to spend another 10
years
modifying it (and usually having to back way off on the spec in the
process).
IMO the selection never should have been made between the X-32 and X-35,
but
between a YF-32 or YF-35 (I'll ignore nomenclature stupidity). I think
fly
before buy is the best policy, just as I would never buy a car without
inspecting and test-driving a representative example first. We really
haven't
done that since the LWF fly-off, and even there the a/c were some way
short of
production representative.

Cost, Guy. I think the days of two or more firms coming up with
significantly developed prototypes to compete for a final contract are long
gone. Either the losing company would immediately go belly-up, or the USG if
it has fully (or as close to "fully" as would be expected) underwritten the
effort (which it would do in such a case) it would find itself having dumped
a large percentage of multiple years RDT&E budgets down the drain with the
losing aircraft. We did do a fly-off in this case, though it was done
economically; similarly, we did a fly-off for the ATF (remember the YF-22
versus YF-23?)...and yet the YF-22 has required how many years and how many
billions of dollars to reach IOC this past December? Major combat aircraft
programs have become so complex and expensive that *all* (Typhoon, Rafael,
Gripen, F-2, etc.) of them seem to experience the same kind of developmental
problems that the F-35 and F-22 have/are experienced/ing...regardless of
whether a competitive fly-off between (or even individual flight of)
"representative examples" occured.


For every congresscritter trying to keep the pork barrel
going in their district regardless of how the thing works, there
will
be
two others holding televised
press conferences and hearings on performance deficiencies and cost
overruns, to show that they're
fulfilling their role as guardians of the public purse and servants
of
the
PeeePulll. It may not be
pretty to watch, but it does occasionally do the job.

Nah. The chief-pork-killer himself has already hitched his wagon to
the
F136, and he is not likely to flip-flop on it in the future (McCain is
not
known for admitting his errors).

ISTM that McCain has hitched his wagon to the idea that you should
demonstrate
the performance you claim before we throw tons of money at you and
limit
our
options, and that it's a good idea to have competition as late as you
can,
as it
keeps costs down and performance up. Which is the way it's supposed to
work in
a capitalist system.

McCain has made the F136 his baby, from what I have read. Translated--if
it
goes ahead as predicted now, it ain't gonna fail 'cause egg on his face
is
something he really detests, no matter how ell deserved it is.

Source for this claim?

When you and I first started discussing this I read that he (mentioned by
name) had come out against single-source engine funding for the F-35 (he
subsequently voted to keep the F136 program). Reference to that was made by
Reuters: "McCain also raised concerns about the Bush administration's
decision to cancel a second engine for the F-35..." I can't provide a good
link because the story has apparently expired where I found it
(wireservice.wired.com).

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in town April 11 to campaign for Rep. Steve
Chabot, R-Cincinnati, put it this way: "Wherever you can have competition,
it's capitalism 101 to keep costs down." Soaring costs are a huge problem in
defense contracts, he said. "Monopolies can raise prices almost at
will"...GE's allies include Ohio's senators and House members, and others
like McCain."

The above from the GE-friendly Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 April 2006.

I draw the conclusion that he is not going to let that puppy down now--he
has indeed hitched his wagon to it.

Strangely enough, he was also reported to have been ready to propose cutting
the overall F-35 budget for next year by some $1.2 billion (out of $5.3 bil
requested). Really odd--he wants to hamstring the military in terms of
allowing them to reprogram what dollars they get for the program into what
they feel are better ways to spend it, and at the same time he wants to cut
their overall funding.

The bit about his willingness to cut funding (because he does not want to
support early production) can be found at
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-F35_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.89b8e0f.html
among other sources.


<snip>

And make sure the F-35 isn't crippled by having an engine that
doesn't
meet specs, as well as
increase competition and according to the GAO report, lower
over-all
program costs (break-even at
the 1,700th a/c).

I tend to side with the guys wearing the uniforms and "walking the
walk"
being the best source for determining where the limited resources
are
used

Who are often just as biased because they have some personal
investment
in
a program (you were the
one saying how hard it would before Moseley to back out now, because
he
would be contradicting a line
taken by his former boss, which he supported. We don't know if
Moseley
ever held that view himself,
or if he was just being the loyal subordinate).

Actually, he went beyond the usual call of toeing the line. His
comments
were his own, and were not *required* to be offered.

Whether he was in agreement or not, you were sayingthat he'd have a
tough
time
taking back what he said previously, which is a personal investment of
prestige
if nothing else.

Just like McCain will be facing when/if keeping the F136 proves to have
been
a bad decision, right?

Since I've seen nothing to indicate that McCain has said we must keep the
F136
going regardless of its performance, cost or reliability vis a vis the
F135, the
situation is hardly the same.

See above--he is a politico, and if you think he is going to be willing to
step forward later and say, "Yeah, I screwed up and supported spending $X
billion on the F136, which turned out to be a bad idea", then you are being
very naive. BTW, I saw where the F136 failed in its most recent test run...

If you have such evidence, please feel free to
provide it. McCain wants to keep our options open,

Yeah, he wants to keep those options open by (a) forcing the DoD to spend
money on a part of the program that it feels is less valuable to the overall
effort, while at the same time he wants to cut the overall program budget
for the same timeperiod...real smart, that.

while Moseley's statement
was conclusive and definitive. Which do you think would require me to
publicly
wipe more egg off my face -- If I said "having now acquired more solid
facts on
which to base a decision as to whether we should do 'X' or 'Y', I believe
we
should do 'X' rather than 'Y'";

Again, he is a politico who has been identified as being among the main
chargers in keeping the F136 alive; again, you are being very naive if you
think he will ever admit error in this regard if/when it comes to it.

or "What I told you were the indisputable facts
just a year or two ago, a 'slam dunk' to coin a phrase, was all wrong.
These
are the new, indisputable facts. Trust me, I know what I'm doing." (for
old
fans of "Sledge Hammer")

And the GAO?! Geeze, Guy, you can get those yahoos to come up with
about
any
result you want, and I think you know that.

Unlike many on the NG, I don't find the GAO to be all that biased.
Sure,
they can go in with a
pre-conceived result, but they've got nothing to teach the services
in
that line. And unlike the
military they can be asked to analyze a program by members of either
party
(biased for or against),
while the military chain of command lacks that sort of independence.
I
have found a few GAO reports
to be junk, but the majority are not, especially when they use the
militaries' own claims and numbers
to refute their arguments.

An old SGM of mine used to say, "Liars figure, and figures lie". The
GAO
is,
IMO, expert in that arcane field of endeavor.

And the services aren't??!!

Sure they can be. But your source here was the GAO, which does not have a
great reputation (beyond yourself, if the results of the GAO discussion
in
this NG are counted) for lack of bias or accuracy in its pronouncements.
As
another poster noted, the GAO has rarely seen a program it did not try to
derail or discredit--the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, etc., being among the
very successful programs it once tried to quash.

More often, what I've seen them do is offer up options that the services
were
unwilling to consider themselves for parochial reasons. Would we have won
DS
with M60A3s instead of M1s? Sure we would.

The USMC was unsure enough about that at the time that they rushed ex-Army
M1A1's into service to replace part of their M60 fleet. Would we have still
won? Yeah--but the victory might have been significantly different (73
Easting may not have turned out the way it did, not to mention the different
timeline for the advance, more crews would have likely become casualties,
etc.). I served in an armored brigade with M60A3's, and it ain't in the same
league as the M1A1, or even the M1 vanilla version.

Does that mean that would have been
the best way to go? That's another matter. As another example where I've
found
the GAO's case more persuasive than the military's,

get back to those past piccadillos where they proved to be utterly wrong.
IIRC, the M1 was supposedly just too danged high tech to do the job reliably
(ODS proved that one wrong), the M2 Bradley was just way too underprotected
(compared to what, the M113??!), etc. A 1994 GAO study indicated we no
longer needed a continental air defense force (where was the GAO when 9-11
recriminations started flying about?). In 1981 the GAO strongly questioned
the USAF's desire to turn the F-16 into a more capable multi-role platform
and have them optimized for air-to-ground work (thank goodness the USAF view
prevailed). For every "good" GAO story you tell, I can tell you two "not so
good ones". What do these cases say about your view that the GAO is just a
wonderful and accurate organization?

I've always agreed with the
GAO that the F-18E/F was a bad bargain compared to the numerous
alternatives we
had. In addition, it was a pure snow job by the military on the members
of
Congress less cognizant of military matters and development/procurement
rules,
by asking for and getting a Milestone IV decision (modification of an
existing
program) instead of the Milestone II decision (new program) it should have
had.
The Marines are now doing much the same thing again with the CH-53K,
attempting
to pass off an a/c with an entirely new, wider fuselage as well as new
rotors,
transmission, drivetrain, engines and cockpit as just a development of an
existing airframe -- to the uneducated eye it's going to look about the
same as
the CH-53E, but it's development, like the F-18E/F's, is going to take as
long
or longer and cost as much or more as the original a/c's,in constant
dollars.

<snip>

So, assuming USAF goes down to 1,000-1,200, engine production just
for
the
definite customers is
1,830 - 2,030 plus spares, before you add in any of the other export
customers (Spain, Italy,
Australia being pretty certain, with lots of other likely buyers) or
possible use on other
platforms. Last time I checked L-M was still claiming a potential
demand
for 3,000 a/c, although
AFAIC that's pie-in-the-sky. 2,000-2,500 seems more probable. But
I
doubt anyone other than the
most giddy optimist at GD would have predicted 4,000+ for the F-16
back
in
1978, so who knows. The
pace of UCAV development and acceptance will likely be the
determining
factor.

Uhmm... the USN has also been known to make noises about final
production
numbers, and the Brits threatened to pull out altogether. 1700 is not
assured as of yet, though I think it likely that we will acheive that
number.

Last I checked 1,700 included revised USN/USMC numbers.


But according to your own GAO, it very possibly never even enter into
production at all.

that's a bitgarbled so I'mnot sure what you're referring to, the a/c or
the
engine(s)?

Both, obviously (if the aircraft goes, the engines will be sort of useless
unless they find new homes). GAO has come down hard on the idea of going to
production until the final definitive version has been tested...they never
heard of spirals or what? They don't mind if we slip the program another few
years *right now*? You probably like their "fly before buy" argument, I
know... I on the other hand don't like the idea of futher slipping the intro
dates *now* because we *might* run into problems later in the program that
*might* necessitate a slip....


But paradoxically, they argue that we shoudl dump money
that we want to spend elsewhere into the development of a second engine
for
a program that they say should not receive a production decision...odd,
that.

They say it's not ready to receive a production decision yet, and clearly
it
isn't. We've done far too much concurrent development and production over
the
years, often because the military wants so badly to have a program (which
they've become institutionally invested in) that they try and put the a/c
into
production before it's ready so that the momentum will be too great to
stop it,
and they can then go back to Congress later for the money to fix the
problems
which they already knew about but were afraid to mention.

How long you want to fly those F-16's and A-10's? How much more money do you
want to dump into buying more of them because you are unwilling to take an
acceptable risk in regards to F-35 spiral development?

You know I'm not a
member of the hysterical anti-MV-22 brigade, but the Marines tried to do
just
this back in 2000-2001. That the squadron commander was caught on tape
saying
as much and telling his men to falsify the maintenance records for the
good of
the service was the only unusual aspect of the matter.

<snip some of Brits ripping us off>

Gee, and that was my favorite part... I wonder if I can find somebody
who
will sell me full rights to my next home for only 6% of the purchase
cost,
and then refund that committment twice over? Heck of a deal the UK got
there...

Worth it IMO.

We will have to disagree on that one. The contribution of a paltry share
of
the R&D costs (which is to be repaid twice over), and the purchase of a
measily 150 aircraft, at what amounts to US taxpayer cost, by the UK does
not exactly merit "equal partner" status in my book. I recommend you
steer
away from private enterprise if you think otherwise, 'cause your
"partners"
will skin you like rabbit... :-)

Seeing as how the UK (and maybe the Aussies)are just about the only
military
ally we have that can actually field a force of comparable capability (if
not
size), and they're the only ones likely to be with us in many cases,
_giving_
them the a/c gratis would likely still be a net gain for us. Or do you
happen
to think Lend-Lease was a bad deal for the US?

This ain't lend-lease, this ain't WWII, and the Brits want full partnership
prerogitives without sharing equal risks or expenses. And as I pointed out
earlier, that 6% is probably more like 4.5% based upon the new cost
estimate...wanna sell me a house for that?


<snip>

Playing in them, no, but being deeply concerned by the outcome,
yes.
Which do you think is likely
to cost the US taxpayer more; ponying up a couple billion for the
F-35/F136, or having a weakened
Blair or a future British PM decide to pull British troops out of
Basra/southern Iraq (and/or
Afghanistan), forcing us to take those jobs on as well?

Hey, Spain did it and we survived. Are you actually equating the
F136
with
continued British participation in OIF and OEF?

Kevin, are you actually equating Spanish participation in OIF with
the
Brits?

No, not really. And you should not equate the F136 deal with continued
Brit
participation in OIF.

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not.

In reality you have. You have repeatedly argued that we should follow
through with F136 to help Blair remain in office and ensure the UK's
continued support with OIF. I suspect you did not really mean it when
you
did so, though. :-)

You suspect wrong, then;-) But hey, I'm not the only one. Oddly enough,
well
after we started this dialogue (honest) I found a book in the library
titled
"American Ally: Tony Blair and the War on Terror", 2006 by Con Coughlin.
He
seems to have talked to numerous senior people in both governments, both
on and
off-record, including Blair at some length. Prior to OIF, there was
considerable
concern that Blair's government might not survive if he tried to go to war
without a second UNSC resolution (when we were unable to get 9 votes,
before the
French let us off the hook by saying they'd veto it regardless):

"Bush talked to Blair about the various voting permutations at the
Security
Council, which would enable them to secure the necessary nine-man [Sic.]
majority they needed for the new resolution. Bush was deeply concerned
that if
Blair went down, he would not only lose a key ally, he would get the
blame. And
the overthrow of one of Saddam's leading opponents would strengthen the
Iraqi
dictator's hand."

"'If they don't vote with us,' said Bush, 'what I want to say to you is
that my
last choice is to have your government go down. We don't want that to
happen in
any circumstances. I really mean that.' By this time, more than 35,000
Brtitish troops were assembled across the southern Iraqi border, ready to
join
an American-led invasion force. If it would help, Bush said, he would let
Blair
drop out of the coalition and they would find some other way for Britain
to
participate. But Blair would have none of it."

"'I said I'm with you, I mean it.' Blair insisted. Bush continued to
press the
premier, suggesting they could think of another role for the British
forces, 'a
second wave, peacekeepers or something. I would rather go alone than have
your
government fall.' Bush said he really meant it that it would be OK for
Blair to
opt out. 'You can bank on that.'"

"'I know you do,' Blair said, and I appreciate that. I absolutely believe
in
this too. Thank you. I appreciate that. It's good of you to say that.
But
I'm there to the very end.'"*

*Guardian, April 26, 2003. Now, considering the source we can have our
doubts
as to its accuracy. So here's a quote immediately following the above:

"'We were really taken aback by the strength of Blair's committment to
this,'
said a close Bush aide. 'He did the right thing against tremendous
pressure at
home."*

*Quoted from Hans Blix' "Plan of Attack". Blair did survive the Commons
vote,
although 139 Labour MPs voted against him and 40 abstained.

Wonderful. But I still fail to see what that has to do with the management
and budgeting of the F-35 program...nor do I think it a proper view to hold
(I don't always agree with the current Admin).



I consider anything we can do which might
help keep the current UK leadership in power worthwhile, but keeping
the
F136
development going at least until the F135 demonstrates maturity and
that
it can
meet its specs is a no-brainer to me.

Lessee, that means you are saying we should continue to pour more money
into
a less mature second project that does not meet specs instead of maybe
using
the same money to ensure the first more mature project can indeed meet
specs, all while trying to stay within a fixed budget...not the best of
solutions IMO.

Competition, competition, competition. What's P&W's incentive to get
things
fixed quickly and keep costs down if they know they're the only game in
town?
We've been down that road before with them.

Yeah, and your own GAO once published a very favorable report concerning
their sole-sourcing of engines for the F-15 and F-16 (they actually *did*).
"Competition" does not mean squat if the program becomes so slow or too
expensive such that it never reaches fruition. Nor will "competition" mean a
lot to the guy who in 2018 or 2020 is tasked to take his F-16 MLU-cubed into
a nasty IADS environment because the F-35 was stillborne due to cost
overruns incurred early in the program by doing things like demanding a
second engine be developed *right now*...


Given that its timeline is a couple of
years behind the F135's it benefits from being able to modify the basic
design
to meet the needs of the F-35 as actually built, while the F135 was
frozen
earlier when the F-35 design still had to undergo some fairly major
changes.

Again, the idea that a less amture project that already is not meeting
specs
is better than a maore mature project that also needs to meet thos same
specs?

Neither is currently meeting specs, although both companies claim the
problems
are minor and easily fixable (they would), and the airframe is also behind
schedule and over-budget. We've already denied ourselves an option with
the
latter, with theprogram running about 2 years behind schedule, so why
would we
wish to repeat that with the engines?

Because some folks realize that despite all the well-wishes for
pie-in-the-sky competition in the future, they have to try and restrain
*current* costs in an increasingly constrained budget environment?


<snip>

I figure the F-35 and similar help we
can give the current UK government (like the US101), if it helps
keep
them
in power, is cheap at
the price.

Sounds a bit like blackmail to me. I don't want the UK support if
it
is
that
mercenary in nature (and I don't think it is).

If it were primarily mercenary in nature, they would have demanded
far
more from us. Do you remember
how much Turkey wanted from us just to let us bring the 4th ID in
through
there? It was a lot more
than a measly couple of billion.

It's not a question of blackmail, it's a question of Britain being a
democracy whose elected leaders
are responsible, first and foremost, for the interests of the people
who
elected them.

Ta-da! And so should ours! Now you may LIKE subsidizing UK industry
out
of
your tax payments, but I am not real fond of that approach. You keep
dancing
away from the cold hard facts--they are contributing some 6 whopping
percent, they plan to recoup at least twice what they invest in direct
contracts, and you think we OWE them more??!

Kevin, we're currently spending $8 billion a month on our military in
Iraq.

Whoopie, that has little to do with the JSF program, nor should it.

But it has a whole lot to do with how much it would cost us to replace the
Brits
in southern Iraq, seeing as how we've currently got 2 or 3 division
equivalents
in the country. Let's low-ball it and call it $1 billion/month.

Bad math, IMO. Firstly, there is no way the Brits are gonna pull out that
ricky-ticky; even if they do decide to pull the chocks, it takes some time
to disengage unless they want to look *really* foolish. We are already
looking at drawing down our own forces (indeed we already are, evidenced by
the fact that equipment is being returned from Iraq that had previously been
used as a deployment pool due to future reductions in committed forces). You
are dealing in really big "what ifs" here, Guy, and even then your "what
ifs" have too many supporting "what ifs" of their own to draw any real
conclusions.


We
also have troops in Afghanistan, and the UK, Canadians and a few others
are
taking over some of their work, allowing us to decrease our presence
there
by
3,000 or so. The UK has a two-brigade division in southern Iraq, and
has
had it
there for three years. How much do you think it will cost us to pick up
the
British mission in southern Iraq and Afghanistan if they decide to pull
out?

You have just come full circle back to the mercenary view. IMO, if they
folks of those nations feel the missions are necessary and worth the
costs,
they should (and have, and do) contribute to the effort. Not becuase the
US
is going to assure them a nice, fat paycheck for doing so. We have to
resort
to the latter measure in some cases with other nations, but that does not
mean we should have to do it with our closeest allies. If I were a UKan
or a
Canuckian reading your views on the subject, I'd be rather peeved that
anyone should even suggest we were supporting the efforts for "filthy
lucre". If they pulled out over the lack of the F136, or even over their
failure to continue with the JSF program at large, then I would say we
would
have lost damned little--luckily, I don't believe those nations to be as
shallow in thier outlooks as you seem to think.

You might want to check how the folk of the UK and most of the ruling
party feel
about the mission's necessity and whether it's worth the costs -- see the
vote
total above, for their attitude _prior_ to the war, never mind their
current
feelings. The Brit's are still there because Blair is still in charge --
Brown
hasn't invested his personal and political capital in the war, and it's
unclear
to me whether he believes it's necessary; Blair has and does.

You are further confirming yourself into the mercenary view of the British
mentality; and I just don't think that is fair to the Brits, nor is it
accurate.


Blair has
been with us in the Balkans (ahead of us, in that case),

Ah, yes, the Balkans... The local where the EC weenie made the public
statement that we Yanks should keep our noses out of that tent, that
the
Euros would handle it all quite niclely themselves, thank you...before
switching to the "Where the heck is the bloody US!" cry later. We are
just
now getting loose of that tarbaby...

I'm not about to defend the EC about their tardiness inYugoslavia (or
ours,
either).

LOL! Our tardiness was *encouraged* by the Euros, or have you so soon
forgotten that fact?

And was happily accepted by us, because most of the Clinton adminstration
from
the president on down (other than Madeleine Albright) wanted no part of
it.
Blair was way out front of us on this, and was continually pushing Clinton
to be
more aggressive with the Serbs and not rule out ground troops, because
Blair
believed it was evil and must be stopped. Which is the reason he and GWB
get
along so well (and why Blair never fully trusted Clinton again after OEF).
Whether you agree or disagree with their views, both men are willing to do
what
is unpopular when they are morally certain that it's right.

The fact is that Blair was ready to do something effective, including
ground troops, before we were.

Heard that saw before, and unfortunately it does not stand up to actual
reason or fact. This is one of those few cases where I can say, "I was
there." We were conducting a V Corps Warfighter exercise at Grafoenwehr
in
Germany at the time, and the 1st ID(M) was pulled from the exercise
before
it even got actually going to prepare for a "real world" committment,
with V
Corps itself being ready to dump the exercise and paying a lot more
attention to real world events than what was going on in the sim centers
and
CP's. It was rather easy for Blair to beat the drum in that case, knowing
that there was going to be no ground force committment (period) unless
the
US was part of it and facilitated it.

Actually, he seems to have been almost willing to go it alone. He was
prepared
to put over 50,000 ground troops (i.e. over half the British Army) into
the
ground campaign, and he (along with Albright) was pushing the Pentagon and
Clinton to rescind their comments about not using ground troops, just as
he had
already. It's instructive that the Neocons (and GWB) were the ones saying
much
the same thing at the time, albeit from outside. Blair managed to get
Clinton
onboard, and together they worked out compromise language to keep NATO
from
publicly splintering over the issue.

Please show where the Brits were ready to go it alone, or even had the
capability to do so. They were not; heck, neither were we.


Afghanistan and Iraq, either because he
really believes that it's the right thing to do; or else because he
believes keeping the special
relationship going is important enough to support the US position
even
when he isn't fully convinced
of its wisdom, and he has risked his personal popularity to do so.
Name
_any_ other allied leader
who has been willing (and able) to do so against such overwhelming
domestic opposition, over such a
long period of time.

The funny thing is that is is still not our place to set policy to
favor
any
individual leader of the UK government, now is it?

Oh, come, let's not pretend we live in an utopian fantasy world. We've
set
policy to favor/disfavor any number of governments/candidates, up to
and
including organizing their overthrow when it suits us. For a
democratic
ally
like the UK our favoritism should be less obvious and less intrusive
because we
still have to be on reasonablygood terms with the opposition if 'our'
candidate
loses, but to pretend that favoritism doesn't exist is naive.

I believe you greatly exaggerate the situation. We have no business
sticking
our noses under their political tent, just as they have no business doing
so
under ours. And largely the two governments have refrained from doing so.

See conversation between Bush and Blair above. If that doesn't constitute
favoritism in your book, then we have very different definitions of the
word.

What plums did we send them? None; nothing more than platitudes were
offered. No US scheming to keep Blair in office, no attempts to influence
the British electorate with contracts (as you seem to think would be
required), etc.


Let the Brits sort out their

own politics. You could just as well end up with bowing to them on
the
F136
and then seeing Blair get the boot anywho...which would leave your
argument
where?

Still having the F136, which IMO is all to the good.

I am not going to be hiring you to prepare out taxes...you are a bit
free
with my money, IMO. :-)

This year, maybe, but think of it as an IRA--the payoff's several years
down the
road.

But your GAO refuses to assure any such payoff,

Assure, of course not, which just shows that they're more honest than the
military and the contractors are. High-end development is a crapshoot;
guaranteeing performance is ridiculous in most cases, unless you set the
bar low
enough (as the commercial carriers do) that the companies can be virtually
certain they can meet it (and be prepared to pay penalties if they don't).
Even
they can get it badly wrong sometimes, as the Convair 880/990, Concorde
and to a
considerable extent the A380 have shown. Given a realistic spec, the
military
should be able to meet most or all the threshold requirements, with the
objectives being the "boy, wouldn't it be neat if" ones. But far too
often they
fall well short of the threshold requirements, often leading to
semi-clandestine
re-writing of the spec so that they can claim that everything is going
just
peachy.

and furhter thinks that
tossing money needed elsewhere at a less mature project that does not
meet
specs is better than tossing it at a more mature one that by all
c=accounts
will meet those specs well before the former does.

Assuming all goes well, as the military and contractor assures us it will,
and
they've never been hopelessly optimistic/wrong before.

Do you really think the P&W engine is going to fail? Do you really think
that contributing less money to the program now will result in getting to
IOC in the same timeframe as what is now planned? Do you really think that
forcing the DoD to spend $400 million of the R&D funding where it does not
want to, while threatening to pull $1.2 billion from the funding at the same
time, is a really *good* strategy to follow to acheive that IOC?

Brooks


<snip much HV-22 vs. MH-60>

gotta stick with my earlier assessment that the Navy is keeping its
options
open as to buying the HV (when the bad publicity wanes after the
USMC
has
them in operation a couple of years, you might very well see that
HV
procurment pop back into the active budget item list).

I certainly hope so, but short of a major CSAR failure how are they
going
to justify that buy just a
few years down the road after having spent all that money buying
MH-60s
for the Specops/CSAR
missions, not to mention all the training time?

The great thing about the MH-60's is that they are capable of being
used
in
other roles by the USN, not to mention that the procurment of another
tool
for the CSAR toolbox does not mean that they have to dump all of the
Seahawks.

They certainly need an airframe to replace the UH-46s for VERTREP, and
that's a
job that no one in their right mind would use a tiltrotor for.

They have been buying CH-60's already for that role, IIRC. Another way
that
the MH-60's surplus to the future CSAR role could be reused.

If I haven't completely lost track of all the re-designations, the CH-60S
became
the MH-60S, which is to say they're one and the same. Using the Blackhawk
tailwheel is all well and good for the CSAR/Specops role on land sites,
but I'm
less enthused about it for VOD or forward deployment onto FFG/DDG/CG
decks.
Apparently, regular Blackhawks have a tough time landing on them in other
than
ideal weather/sea conditions.

Guy



.

Loading