Damning F-35 Report

Surprising news about the deficiencies in close-in dog-fighting capability of the F-35. Check out the fighter pilot's report here from the site War is Boring.  If the report is authentic (which based on verbiage and content it appears to be), quite alarming that this $400 billion aircraft would be such a grape.

According to Pentagon officials, the nominated but not yet appointed JCS Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, USMC, has ordered a complete review of the F-35 development and purchasing plan (estimated by some to top out at up to $1.5 trillion).

No More Challenging Carrier Traps?

Saw this article last week in the San Diego Union-Tribune with the catchy title: "No More Tricky Landings" and had to laugh.  Do the pointy-head engineers really think they can program carrier landings to a science?  Hmm, seem to remember ACL and auto-throttle systems from the 70s and 80s. Sure, the technology is leaps and bounds better, but once the ship starts rocking and rolling, turbulence and lightening strike and a black box or two fails, dare to say it is more than "tricky" to land a 60,000-pound jet--even one with the most sophisticated computer system.

X-47B Update

It's been a while since I posted on the Navy's X-47B program. Here's a link from late Aug where the navy was conducting integrated flight ops on the THEODORE ROOSEVELT alongside an F-18 Hornet. I understand further carrier ops are scheduled in the coming months.

In researching unclassified websites and news reports, it looks like the navy is still at least five or six years away from IOC of the drone. Capitol Hill and the Pentagon continue to fight over what type of platform and mission is best suited for the X-47B-- light strike in a permissive or contested environment. In the meantime, trials and testing continue.

Predator Pilots Facing Burn Out

Dateline Nellis AFB (off the Vegas strip) and Eglin AFB (off Pensacola Beach):  The Air Force has conducted studies of its UAV crews which conclude the pilots are suffering burn out at an excessive rate.

According to one such report, "crewmembers in a MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft system (UAS) squadron had significantly increased fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and burnout relative to traditional aircrew."

Recent news articles on the subject supplements older reports that surfaced years ago.

I've said for some time I cannot comprehend how a pilot can wake up in the morning in a suburban home, put on a flight suit and kiss his wife and kids goodbye in the morning, stop at Starbucks on the drive onto the base, sit down at a console for the next 8-10 hours launching Hellfire missiles from a Predator 8,000 miles away which kill people and break things and then return home in time to coach his son's baseball game and drink a Budweiser while eating dinner with the family at home.  Apparently it works...every day, but with some major consequences.

I know I certainly could not have flicked that switch on and off each day while in combat. 

I'm already working on Troll's next story, but for a third, I'm thinking of an element that includes these drone pilots. I'll let you know as I progress on the story line. Till then, check six!

Navy Launches Its First Drone Squadron

Yesterday at NAS Coronado, the Navy inaugurated its first squadron with unmanned aircraft, formally adopting drone technology amid debate over its growing use in warfare.

The squadron will have eight manned helicopters and a still-to-be-determined number of the Fire Scout MQ-8 B, an unmanned helicopter that can fly 12 continuous hours tracking targets.

The squadron, the Magicians, will be aboard the Navy's new littoral combat ship in about a year.

Along with ongoing development of the X-47, this milestone marks the Navy's commitment to meanignful presence in the drone battle space. 

Combat Medal for Drone Pilots...YGTBSM!

Thankfully, last month's designation by outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of the Distinguished Warfare Medal for drone operators is being reviewed by current SECDEF. See Huffington Post article here.

Much of the flak, deservedly so, comes from the fact the new medal is ranked above the medals awarded service members who fought under fire on the front lines, such as the Bronze Star with combat V and the Purple Heart.

From MSNBC:

Defense officials said that the ranking of the new medal recognized the changing nature of warfare. A Defense Department press release said that in addition to drone operators, a possible recipient could be "a soldier at Fort Meade, Md., who detects and thwarts a cyber attack on a DOD computer system."

"I've seen firsthand how modern tools, like remotely piloted platforms and cyber systems, have changed the way wars are fought," Panetta said in announcing the medal. "And they've given our men and women the ability to engage the enemy and change the course of battle, even from afar."

But the thought of placing a medal for drone pilots — operating their aircraft from secure sites far from the battlefield — above medals for members of the military actually under fire drew a barrage of criticism from veterans and their families.
 

Personally, not sure why service members need yet another medal when the Pentagon already awards a couple dozen campaign, combat and warfare related medals.  Then again, I was in the Navy and not Air Force.

License to Kill...Americans by Drone

Tuesday's release by the Obama Administration of a 16-page "white paper" on targeting and killing of AMCITs by drones has failed to stir nearly the public denunciation that I expected when the news first broke.

Policical talking heads Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Natalie Cucchiara and Brooke Brower posted today possible reasons for the lackluster response:

What’s been surprising about this entire episode has been the lack of outrage from Congress. Don’t they want the administration to have to justify their actions even in AFTER-action settings? It’s amazing that it took Brennan’s confirmation hearing to convince the White House to allow even a FEW members of Congress to read the ACTUAL legal memos and not just a “white paper.”

Political whiplash: You’ll be forgiven if you’ve had political whiplash with Republicans defending Obama on the issue. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and even ex-Bush U.N. Amb. John Bolton gave full-throated defenses of Obama’s use of drones even in the targeting of American citizens-turned-al Qaeda operatives. Graham yesterday said that he was "totally supportive” of the actions. Bolton called it “entirely sensible” and “derived from the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror.” This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. This is an Executive branch vs. Legislative branch issue. There are still important and serious questions to be asked about the United States' use and increased use of a program that can catch (and has caught) civilians in the line of fire. But the big difference between this and, say, the political opposition to the torture memos is you had prominent voices on the right opposing this (John McCain), who were feeding the media back in the day. It’s not like Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Senate criticizing the drone program. That’s essentially what McCain did to Bush. But, as we learned then and see now, the public also seemed to overwhelmingly favor the use of drones overseas to target terrorists. In a Washington Post/ABC poll last year, 83% said they approved; it’s when they’re used domestically that people start to have privacy concerns.

Many leaders from both sides of the aisle are seemingly following the sentiments of their constituents. If, in fact, 83% of Americans approve of drones assassinating terrorists overseas, then they apparently do not distinguish between killing foreign terrorists in foreign lands and killing AMCITs in foreign lands. Makes sense to me. If a SEAL or Force Recon Marine in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere OCONUS is authorized to kill an AMCIT by way of 7.62mm round to the skull, then why would it be any different for a Barclay Lounge operator (aka Air Force UAV pilot) sitting in Nevada to fire a Hellfire missile from a Predator at the same target?