Flying Through the Web

This week, I have been looking through the web to find sites and blogs that would help me better understand the current situation in the United States Air Force as well as its role in national security and foreign policy. I used Webby and IMSA criterias to determine the standards of the sites and blogs and I found out that while there were very limited number of legitimate blogs that specialize on the air force, several think-tank and research center websites shined in terms of content, structure and navigation, visual design, functionability, interactivity, and overall experience. I have listed about twenty sites and blogs which I found useful onto my linkroll, and I will go over each one, starting with think-tank and research center websites.

First, I must say that RAND Corporation's Project AIR FORCE website takes the gold. RAND is a think-tank that specializes on national security issues (my father works here but there is little bias involved) founded by the air force actually. This connection provides top-notch resources (mostly the joint-effort studies by top civilian experts and air force officers). The overall web experience reflects the military elements; the structure is very well organized and easy to navigate; the visual design is clear and not too busy. While most of the resources are used to advise the government officials, they are also fully available to the public; easy to search and download. One weakness is that, there is small room for interactivity.

Another site that stood out was the Air Force Times. The name says it all, but the most impressive elements were its fuctionability and interactivity. It was just more than a newspaper; it was a community. It provided sources of help for all aspects of life in the air force - family (spouse, children), jobs after the military, etc. It also had discussion boards and polls that helped the airmen to freely express and share their own thoughts. Another one that had similar qualities was Airman. It is an official magazine of the US Air Force, meaning everything is written and edited by real airmen and therefore legitimate. It is really helpful in terms of letting readers search, download, and even give feedback on the contents very easily. This site also has the visual designs that basically creates the air force environment. Another official air force magazine that stood out was Leader. It is mostly because it is targeting cadets like me. I am not an avid reader, but whenever I read, it gives a deep insight into preparations for active-duty, and any critical information or updates I need to know about the air force. The structure, visual design, functionability, and interactivity on the web was disappointing, unlike its printed edition.

The United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies provided many helpful publications and links to other similiar institutions, but since it was a strictly government website, the other elements besides the content were pretty dull. Another same example was Air War College. It actually gave links to other air force related journals. Yet, unless you subscribe them, they were hardly available. Journals such as Jane's Information Group was a high-quality material, especially its content (covering the worldwide conflicts, defense products, etc). The group is based in United Kingdom so it does not specialize on our national security/defense. Nevertheless, it is still very useful. It is also supposed to provide special services and functions for its "clients", but I have not signed up yet, therefore I do not know. Globalsecurity.org's military section was very comprehensive in terms of content and structure; covered all systems, branches, operations, industries, etc. However, it functions as news-feeds mostly, and its visual design needs some improvements too. Council on Foreign Relations is one of the nation's most influential think-tanks, and its websites on Defense/Homeland Security and International Peace and Security show high qualities in all areas (especially the content). The only thing is that it's about overall military, not focusing on the air force. National Defense Univeristy, Center for National Policy, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, Center for International and Strategic Studies, The Heritage Foundation, Henry L. Stimson Center, and Lexington Institute were all helpful research centers, but too broad in terms of military, not just the air force.

There were also some blogs related to the air force which I had enjoyed. The first one was Air Force Blues. It was just a personal blog by an officer who draws cartoons about the life in the air force. The visual design is just like any other real air force website, and very interactive – people commenting every time. The other ones were Air Force Live and Air Force Pundit, which were also ran by officers, but very limited amount of content and functionability.

I enjoyed searching through things online, and I look forward to keep looking into more.

F-35: Just a "baby seal"?

In the last post, I talked about the quagmire over tanker contracts in Washington, and last week, another type of aircraft created a fuzz not just among the leaders in Washington but around the world.
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, a product of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), has been touted as the strongest of the next generation of jet strikers, and nine countries around the world have been partening up to invest billions of dollars for the development; they include the United States (obvious leader), United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark. However, this last week, the Australian press had reported that it had obtained a report from RAND Corporation before it was to be released. It found that F-35 was "clubbed like baby seals" to the other fifth generation fighters being developed by Russia and China in a simulation wargame conducted by the U.S. Air Force.
This was especially alarming because RAND Corporation is a leading non-partisan research institution on the U.S. and global security and defense issues. RAND later issued a statement saying that the assertions made by the Australian press were "inaccurate", and explained the study was focused on logistics, not battles. Of course, even Lockheed Martin and some USAF leaders came up with their own clarifications. Despite the denials, the capabilities of F-35 has now come into question - after all the time, money, and joint effort, was it going to be inferior to the ones developed by non-NATO countries?
I explored two blogs that had fierce discussions on this issue. One of the blogs is run by a group of people sharing same interests, and one of the authors Graham Warwick has been following up on the issue. He first concluded that the arguments from Lockheed Martin and USAF leaders were not as convincing to counter the Australian report then could not figure out how the actual report led to the smear. The other one is run by Stephen Trimble, and he had also obtained the copy of the actual RAND report. Trimble also reached to a pessimistic conclusion about F-35 after drawing from the studies. I also had a chance to read the posts and the actual report, and posted my thoughts on them.

Comment
Thank you for posting the actual report so that all the misunderstandings and bickering would be clarified and left it up to the readers. I would have to first say that both sides have their own justifications and it was purely a miscommunication. The Australian report was based on the simulation test conducted by the U.S. Air Force, and the results actually showed that F-35 was inferior to other models in a close-range combat. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin and USAF do argue that the test was more focused on the overall performance in the Pacific Theater, which includes logistics and deploybility as well, not just the combats. I would like to agree with all the other commentators here that the slides that really hit the points are from 79 to 81. Especially the "Double Inferior" is a critical one that states that F-35 has inferior "acceleration", "climb", and "sustained turn capability", which translates to "Can't turn, can't climb, can't turn."F-35 is not designed to have the energy maneuverability like F-16 did, but instead it is intended to have much more close-range or air-to-air combat superiority than F-22 Raptor or any other fighters that either exist or being developed. Yet, as you mentioned, in a conflict over Taiwan Strait, we will face the fighters from China, and this shows they will outperform us if we don't have the adequate maneuverability . Does this mean that we should keep F-16 for this? The "baby seal" was an exaggeration to spark media controversy, but it surely brought an important consideration to the light.
Comment
It was very helpful that you've been following up on the JSF issue. I just commented on The DEW Line by Stephen Trimble after reading the presentations and etc. I would have to agree that the origin of the "baby seal" smear was on the slide 80, which RAND and the USAF admits that F-35 is inferior in terms of "accelearation", "climb", and "sustained turn capability". This is a basis for the interpreations that it will lose to the Russian Sukhois and other fifth-generation fighters being built by the Chinese. The "baby seal" was just meant to gain attention since it is the media industry afterall. Yet, then we should all question the actual maneuverability of F-35. You have also published the defense made by Maj. General Davis on F-35's air-to-air combat capability. It seems he also acknowledges that it is not as maneuverable as F-22 or F-16, but it is still a lot more effective and powerful. I understand that F-35 has mulit-roles with more sophisticated built-in systems. However in order to maintain air superiority over other rising nations such as Russia or China, we should be always wary of possible conflicts, and Taiwan Strait is one of them. Unless we are guaranteed to outperform those fighters, we should keep testing and finding more weaknesses before it is too late.

National Defense v. Business Interests: $35 Billion Tanker Contract

Aircraft is expensive - especially if it has a use for combat - and profitable - especially when the main client is the Pentagon. That is why business incentives and competitions have always been the means to to demand higher qualities and achieve one of the nation's military's main objectives, which is to maintain superiority in military technology over others. Yet, those means not only have downsides, but eventually become the ends themselves.

Defense contractor companies have been major contributors to keeping this nation's military the strongest and most advanced in the world. Ironically, the national government's determination to keep its military the strongest in the world has provided the contractors with a pathway for making profits and competing against one another. Now the government and businesses are lost and torn over what the priority should be - national defense or business interest? The latest example of the debate was the recent cacophony in Washington over $40 billion project to replace the old "tankers" in the air force.

The U.S. Air Force has been using planes first made from the Eisenhower-era to refuel other aircraft in the air as it is increasingly engaged in multiple conflicts around the world. The Air Force has asked for the replacements since seven years ago, yet the issue was used as a subject of cut-throat competition between two giant defense contractors; Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force had already made its decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman last March, but Boeing disputed the decision, threatened to pull out, and Government Accountability Office had found an error in the process, therefore annulling the award. This issue also turned into a political battle between the two main parties, which each one is heavily linked to a different contractor (Democrat with Boeing while Republican with Northrop Grumman). Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has finally stepped in to put an end to the mud-fight until the start of a new administration in the White House, also signaling the restart of the competition from scratch. While the need for the upgrade concerns the military objective of the nation, the government has been torn apart by business interests without benefiting anyone at the end. This was just a "missed opportunity" as put by acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

What are Tankers?
It is important to first ask why those 179 new "tankers" are worth $40 billion - that is about $223 million per one. Those tankers serve the main purpose of "aerial refueling", literally meaning refueling other aircraft in the air by transfer. This is now the most commonly used method of refueling for the military especially in large scales for several reasons. First, it allows the aircraft in combat to stay longer in a flight, especially in the time of deployment. Second, each aircraft carrying weapons or cargo needs less amount of fuel and therefore it is a bit lighter and easier during take off.

The most commonly used tankers in the US and the world are now KC-135 Stratotanker, and KC-10 Extender. The first one was first made by Boeing in 1957 while the latter was developed by McDonnell Douglas for the Vietnam War. KC-135 is now the most widely used tanker, and is in a quick need of replacements.

The two competing models for the replacement are KC-45 (first named KC-30), which is a product of Northrup Grumman and EADS America, and KC-767, the product of Boeing. The first one is based on the Airbus's A330 model while the latter is a modified version of new Boeing 767 model. Boeing has now given more time to redesign the model to meet the Air Force's standards before the competition begins again next time.

Implications for the Future of Military Upgrade
The United States military overall is without a doubt the strongest and most technologically advanced in the world, and the air force branch is no exception. Contractors bidding against one another to provide the military with the best each one can offer has opened up options and privileges to the US government that few others have. But the recent fight in the mud that took place in Washington over the tanker contracts has shown that this nation now has to ask itself whether it should be the businesses serving the interest of the nation, or the nation serving the interest of the businesses?