A confidential Pentagon report leaked to the Washington Post accuses hackers of stealing the designs of many of America’s most advanced weapons systems.

Experts warn that the electronic intrusions gave China access to advanced technology that could accelerate the development of its weapons systems and weaken the U.S. military advantage in a future conflict.
  
Some of the weapons form the backbone of the Pentagon’s regional missile defense for Asia, Europe and the Persian Gulf. The designs included those for the advanced Patriot missile system, known as PAC-3; an Army system for shooting down ballistic missiles, known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD; and the Navy’s Aegis ballistic-missile defense system.

Also identified in the report are vital combat aircraft and ships, including the F/A-18 fighter jet, the V-22 Osprey, the Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship, which is designed to patrol waters close to shore.

Also on the list is the most expensive weapons system ever built — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is on track to cost about $1.4 trillion. The 2007 hack of that project was reported previously.

The confidential list of compromised weapons system designs and technologies represents the clearest look at what the Chinese are suspected of targeting. When the list was read to independent defense experts, they said they were shocked by the extent of the cyber-espionage and the potential for compromising U.S. defenses.

“That’s staggering,” said Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute, a think tank that focuses on Asia security issues. “These are all very critical weapons systems, critical to our national security. When I hear this in totality, it’s breathtaking.”

The experts said the cybertheft creates three major problems. First, access to advanced U.S. designs gives China an immediate operational edge that could be exploited in a conflict. Second, it accelerates China’s acquisition of advanced military technology and saves billions in development costs. And third, the U.S. designs can be used to benefit China’s own defense industry. There are long-standing suspicions that China’s theft of designs for the F-35 fighter allowed Beijing to develop its version much faster.

So here’s the deal, at least for Canada.  The justification for the F-35′s sky high price tag is the airplane’s, top secret, ultra high-tech electronic wizardry and limited stealth.   Take that key advantage away and you’re left with a pretty mediocre warplane with marginal performance in all the traditional areas that make a fighter great – speed, climb rate, roll and turn rate, range and payload.  Because all three versions of the F-35 are based on the bloated, short take off and vertical landing design for the U.S. Marines, it’s a single-engine aircraft that is incapable of supercruise.

The cost of this “way beyond state of the art” technology is supposed to be spread among the select group of nations allowed to buy the F-35 except that China, the country the F-35 is intended to target, helped itself to club privileges when no one was looking.   And they aren’t kicking in a dime toward the shared costs either.

Worse yet, the Chinese knock-off doesn’t have the single-engine limitation of the F-35.   And it could be operational at around the same time as the F-35 comes into service.   And it’s bound to be a lot cheaper.  And did I mention theirs has twin engines?

A huge limiting factor of the F-35 is that it has just one engine.  In a vast, sparsely populated country with extreme weather (yes, that would be Canada), twin-engine reliability is a huge bonus.  One engine goes out – from a bird strike or …

A huge limiting factor of the F-35 is that it has just one engine.  In a vast, sparsely populated country with extreme weather (yes, that would be Canada), twin-engine reliability is a huge bonus.  One engine goes out – from a bird strike or mechanical failure, whatever – and you’ve still got one to let you limp back to the barn.

The F-35′s vastly more capable big brother, the F-22, has twin engines.   So why just a single, massive jet engine for the F-35?  There is an answer.

When the F-35 was conceived it had to (Read more…)

There’s one thing F-35 pilots won’t be seeing as much as they’d like – the inside of an F-35.   Instead they’ll be spending a good deal more time pretending to be inside an F-35, in a simulator inside some cavernous hangar.

Now how the balance between actual stick and rudder time and simulator time is struck will depend on a lot of factors, some of them political.

One of the big political issues of the day, at least to prospective purchasers and operators of the F-35 light attack bomber, is the cost of operating the warplanes.   Some critics seem to think they’ll be very expensive to fly.

U.S. Air Force general Chris Bogdan recently told nervous Dutch legislators that the F-35 would be barely 10% costlier than the hourly flying costs of their F-16s.  What’s that old line – figures don’t lie but liars figure? 

When it comes to crunching the F-35 numbers there are a lot of figures to be fiddled with.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall says the cost-per-flying-hour figure for the F-35A recently provided by the stealthy fighter’s program executive officer to The Netherlands is more aggressive than the official figure that will go next month to Congress.


“It is with a certain set of assumptions,” Kendall told reporters during a roundtable April 24 at the Pentagon, that Bogdan arrived at that figure. “I’m not sure we want to use that set of assumptions.”

The figure forthcoming to Congress next month, however, will be lower than that provided in last year’s selected acquisition report (SAR) to Capitol Hill, he says. That report cited the F-35A flying hour cost at $31.9 thousand versus $22.5 thousand for the F-16 C/D.

He says that there are at least six different ways to calculate F-35 cost per flying hour, depending on what assumptions go into the figure. And, it can be misleading. If you fly a fleet less – as the F-35 is expected to be used owing to advances in simulators – the per-hour cost goes up. But, the overall ownership price may be as much or less than legacy fleets.

“The question that I think matters is what is the cost of ownership?” Kendall says. “What is it going to cost you to have comparable levels of readiness for that aircraft? … And, that is going to vary by country.” This depends on how much each operator flies the aircraft, how many spares are procured and what level of skilled maintainers are used for specific tasks, among other things.

The Aviation Week story makes clear there is an enormous amount of leeway if one wants to manipulate the numbers for the F-35.  And it turns out that Canada is saddled with a government that likes nothing better.

There’s one thing F-35 pilots won’t be seeing as much as they’d like – the inside of an F-35.   Instead they’ll be spending a good deal more time pretending to be inside an F-35, in a simulator inside some cavernous hangar.

Now how the balance between actual stick and rudder time and simulator time is struck will depend on a lot of factors, some of them political.

One of the big political issues of the day, at least to prospective purchasers and operators of the F-35 light attack bomber, is the cost of operating the warplanes.   Some critics (Read more…)

When you’re going “state of the art” you always run the risk that the adversaries you have in mind will quickly find the Achilles’ Heel(s) in your latest & greatest technology.  It can be a lot easier and infinitely cheaper to find ways to cou…

Don’t Worry, This Will Only Hurt for a SecondThe United States is refurbishing 200 nuclear bombs for use aboard the F-35 light attack bomber.The old B-61 gravity bombs are being converted with new tail fin assemblies that will transform them into guide…

The United States is refurbishing 200 nuclear bombs for use aboard the F-35 light attack bomber.

The old B-61 gravity bombs are being converted with new tail fin assemblies that will transform them into guided weapons.  They’ll be kept at various bases in Europe from Belgium to Turkey.

“What will be going back to Europe will be a guided nuclear bomb,” [Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of Nuclear Scientists]  said. “Especially when you combine it with F35 with stealth characteristics, that expands the targets you can hold at risk from Europe, because by placing the (Read more…) closer to the target you can choose a lower explosive yield. That is very important as there is less radioactive fallout. For many people this is a great concern because it means making nuclear weapons more ‘usable’.”

The new B61 Mk12 will be a 50 kilotonne weapon, like . . . → Read More: The Disaffected Lib: Fangs for the F-35 – Obama’s Light Nuclear Bomber

read more

The Dutch already have one F-35 and they’re due to get another in just a few months.  They’re the first of what was supposed to be an 85 aircraft purchase.  But the Netherlands government and military are getting cold feet for the over-expens…

The Dutch already have one F-35 and they’re due to get another in just a few months.  They’re the first of what was supposed to be an 85 aircraft purchase.  But the Netherlands government and military are getting cold feet for the over-expensive, overdue and under-performing, partially stealthy light attack bomber.   So they’ve decided to park the F-35s while they explore their options.

Newly appointed defence minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert announced the decision to park the test assets in a letter to the Dutch parliament on 4 April. A first example – delivered in late 2012 – and second, expected to be handed over in mid-2013, will be stored at Edwards AFB, California, where they will be kept in airworthy condition and flown occasionally by US Air Force pilots. The effects of the decision will be discussed with the F-35 Joint Program Office.

It seems the Dutch would like to keep . . . → Read More: The Disaffected Lib: The Netherlands Parks the F-35

When it comes time to hand out the annual Turfy Award — named for AstroTurf, the green synthetic blades that look like grass and feel like grass but do not absorb carbon dioxide like grass — I expect the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to be a c…

Former Canadian Taxpayers Federation Alberta Director Scott Hennig, now the group’s Communications VP, in a nice AstroTurf-coloured sweater at last weekend’s Ottawa conference of the Manning Centre for Undermining Democracy. Below: CTF President Troy Lanigan; CTF member … rrrrrrr … supporter, Riley Climenhaga; CTF Operations VP Shannon Morrison.

When it comes time to hand out the annual Turfy Award – named for AstroTurf, the green synthetic blades that look like grass and feel like grass but do not absorb carbon dioxide like grass – I expect the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to be a contender.

Indeed, consider ’em nominated.

After seeing as I cooked up the Turfies just now, the CTF’s chances are likely pretty good to win the award for the Canadian organization that best exemplifies the concept of Astroturfing – a slang expression for political activities that, in the words of our wonderful collectively owned Wikipedia, “are . . . → Read More: Alberta Diary: Minuscule Canadian Taxpayers Federation in running for ‘Turfy Award’

Though at least the Senate can operate in cloudy weather

Lockheed’s troubled F-35 is attracting criticism due to pilot complaints that they can’t see what’s behind them.   They can’t “check their six” man, bummer.Who cares?  If you’re piloting an F-35 and there is something behind you that’s a…

Lockheed’s troubled F-35 is attracting criticism due to pilot complaints that they can’t see what’s behind them.   They can’t “check their six” man, bummer.

Who cares?  If you’re piloting an F-35 and there is something behind you that’s a mortal threat, being able to see it isn’t going to be much help.   Chances are very good that by the time you see the threat your fate is already sealed.  It’s over.

The F-35 is not much of a dogfighter.   It can’t go as fast, it can’t turn as fast, it can’t climb as fast as contemporaries be they Russian, British/German or French.

And there’s another problem.   That stealth thing that’s supposed to make the F-35 invincible?   Well it’s “frontal aspect” stealth.  The airplane isn’t particularly stealthy at all when looked at from above or beneath or from the sides or from behind.   Then it’s “Hey, I’m Over Here“.

Don’t . . . → Read More: The Disaffected Lib: About that Blind Spot. Don’t Worry, Be Happy.

The Harper government has decided to upgrade Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s to buy a little time while it tries to sort out its blunder over the F-35.

Sources said the changes in the eligible options make it easier for manufacturers to propose a “mixed fleet” of upgraded CF-18s and other fighter jets, or a later delivery of new jets as the CF-18s fly beyond their planned phase-out.

The new proposal is the latest shift of position by the Harper government after last year’s highly critical report by Auditor-General on a planned sole-sourced purchase of 65 F-35 fighters.

It’s now rumoured that Harper wants to duck the CF-18 replacement problem entirely until after the 2015 election.   That should ensure those CF-18s will be the backbone of Canada’s air defences long after they were due to retire.

The debacle of the Canadian government’s decision to begin the process of spending spend untold tens of billions of dollars on a new fighter jet, Lockheed Martin’s F-35, is by now a well-told story. The untendered, F-35 purchase was declared a done deal several years ago by the Harper Conservatives. It’s all unraveling now. CBC Television’s The Fifth Estate documented the saga in a great, one hour broadcast last September.

read more

The U.S. Air Force general responsible for the troubled F-35 light attack bomber programme caused a stir with his blunt criticisms of the principal contractors, Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney.At an Australian air show, Lt. Gen Christopher Bogd…

The U.S. Air Force general responsible for the troubled F-35 light attack bomber programme caused a stir with his blunt criticisms of the principal contractors, Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney.

At an Australian air show, Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan, left a few contractors’ jaws dropped when he lambasted Lockheed and Pratt for trying to “squeeze every last nickel” out of the U.S. government for the F-35.

What seemed to get everybody in a tizzy was that Bogdan made his brusque statements publicly and in a country that is getting cold feet over its own plans to buy the .

“Airing dirty laundry in front of a key customer who’s on the fence about buying more competing aircraft, is a very dangerous game,” said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. He said Australia is already considering plans to buy more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets [it actually just did . . . → Read More: The Disaffected Lib: Please, Not In Front of The Children