Ok folks, this one has me scratching my head. Alert 5 Blog put this out...
A report from Izvestia says Russia is researching on a new ekranoplan – aka ground effect vehicle – that can perform rescue missions and resupply remote bases in Arctic and Pacific.
The project is given the code-name Rescuer and will be handled by Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, which in the past produce ground effect vehicles such as Lun and Orlenok. The vehicle is expected to weigh 600 tons with a length of 93 meters and wing span of 71 meters. It will be able to operate on land as well. Top speed is 550 km/h. Scaled models have completed wind tunnel testing and the timeline to complete the project is 2025.
Alert 5 didn't provide any links so I did a quick Google search and came across numerous articles from THIS year talking about the new Russian project (how did we miss that?????).
I came across this vid posted by the Russian Embassy in the UK...
Welcome to the world of tomorrow. Field testing of ground effect vehicle in Russia. pic.twitter.com/bGCWdnJ3uE
But even that doesn't explain things because I found an article from The Register stating that China was buying the vehicle you see at the top of the page and indicating that they (Russia) was heading in a different direction.
I've speculated that we would be seeing the next generation of Chinese armor soon. You'd expect me to gloat and shout I was right but I don't think this is it.
I'm expecting new generations of their MBT, IFV and amphibious IFV soon. When that hits is when we need to do a careful reassessment of Chinese mechanized warfare and the direction its headed.
As things stand I view this as simply busy work for their defense industry.
China's heaviest cargo unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) completed its maiden flight in northwest China's Shaanxi Province Thursday. The AT200 drone, jointly developed by several research institutes and companies, made a successful 26-minute maiden flight, according the Institute of Engineering Thermophysics. With a maximum take-off weight of around 3.4 tonnes and a payload of 1.5 tonnes, the AT200 could be one of the world's most powerful civilian UAVs, according to the institute. Developed on a P750XL utility aircraft, the UAV has a maximum flying speed of 313 km per hour, a flight range of 2,183 kilometers and a 6,098-meter service ceiling. Taking off and landing can be automatically completed within 200 meters. It could be used to conduct freight transport in mountainous regions and on islands, according to the institute.
Interesting.
The Marine Corps is all over UAVs for close air support, fleet defense, refueling and ISR but logistics seem to be a blind spot. The K-MAX was developed and appeared to be a very useful piece of gear but it looks to have been left by the wayside as the Marine Corps moves forward.
What makes this Chinese effort so stunning is because its a simple yet elegant solution to the problem. If you are pushing a concept that has small, widely dispersed units then "on time" resupply could be the difference between life and death.
Even if the K-MAX has continued its doubtful that it would have the raw speed that this plane does. It probably lacks the range too.
Small Rant.
Being a critic of Marine Corps/Pentagon concepts is getting old. I really want to understand what these people are thinking. The people on this blog can't be the only ones that can see the problems we point out on a daily basis. What is the debate like inside the Marine Corps? Is there a debate or are these ideas simply pushed down the food chain and Marines are simply accepting it? I hope not. Critical thinking is part of being a Marine. That hasn't changed has it?
After demonstrating its ability to fire artillery rockets from decks of U.S. Navy ships, the U.S. Marine Corps now says it is interested in a similar, but super-compact mobile weapon system small enough to fit inside its MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotors or its future CH-53K King Stallion heavy lift helicopters. Such a vehicle would greatly increase the capabilities of Marine expeditionary elements, but even the service itself acknowledges it might just not be physically possible.
U.S. Marine Corps Major General David Coffman, presently serving as the U.S. Navy’s director for expeditionary warfare, explained the basic requirements to Military.com on the sidelines of the National Defense Industry Association’s (NDIA) annual Expeditionary Warfare Conference, which ended on Oct. 26, 2017. The officer described a weapon that would have a “competitive” range and capability compared to the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, and its GPS-guided 227mm rockets, but on a vehicle smaller than a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), or Humvee, all of which could fit within the main cabin of an MV-22 or CH-53K.
I love reading about old concepts in the Marine Corps because leadership was so dynamic, so bold, so willing to try and if it didn't work they were quick to abandon it without regret, remorse or embarrassment.
Flash back to the 1950's. The US military was in the middle of the atomic scare (civilians too). After seeing the tremendous power of the atom bomb over Japanese cities, the common belief was that future battlegrounds would see the wide spread use of atomic weapons.
The US Army developed Pentomic Divisions to deal with the threat. The USAF was born and inaugurated the Strategic Air Command and put bombers on 24/7 alert while putting several different types into service. The Navy was having to revalidate aircraft carriers and sought aircraft that could deliver weapons from the sea....and the USMC sought to use helicopters to deliver Marines from ship to shore because it was thought that closing to the beach would be impossible in this new age.
Vertical envelopment was born and the Marine Corps fully embraced heliborne forces.
So how did we decide to keep battlefield mobility if we were being deployed by helicopter? We needed unique vehicles that could be delivered by them! This birthed the Mighty Mite Jeep you see in the vid above.
My issue with the move toward various iterations of Internally Carried Vehicles for the MV-22?
We're repeating the mistakes of those that came before. The Drive speculates on what could work to meet the Marine Corps requirements or rather "ask fors" and they seem to be pretty neat vehicles but not delivering what the Marine Corps says they need.
The systems they describe from Fletcher are pretty darn interesting (above). So is the rig that Lockheed Martin displayed a couple of years ago (below).
My issue isn't with the "want". It's with the "what are we doing" part of this story.
I have yet to understand or to hear a rationale for how these lightweight forces are suppose to be survivable on a modern battlefield with even the weapon systems that are being proposed.
The thinking in my mind is unclear. The desired endstate wishful thinking.
Rocket artillery that can fit inside an MV-22? Sorry but that's batshit crazy on the surface. I guess to sum this up (because I know I'm once again all over the place) is that the Marine Corps is trying so hard to be innovative that its becoming silly season.
How many of you guys remember this? via Popular Science.
The proposal, part of the Corps's push toward greater speed and flexibility, is called Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion, or Sustain. Using a suborbital transport-that is, a vehicle that flies into space to achieve high travel speeds but doesn't actually enter orbit-the Corps will be able, in effect, to instantaneously deliver Marine squads anywhere on Earth. The effort is led by Roosevelt Lafontant, a former Marine lieutenant colonel now employed by the Schafer Corporation, a military-technology consulting firm working with the Marines. Insertion from space, Lafontant explains, makes it possible for the Marines-typically the first military branch called on for emergency missions-to avoid all the usual complications that can delay or end key missions. No waiting for permission from an allied nation, no dangerous rendezvous in the desert, no slow helicopter flights over mountainous terrain. Instead, Marines could someday have an unmatched element of surprise, allowing them to do everything from reinforce Special Forces to rescue hostages thousands of miles away. "Sustain is simply an ability to move Marines very rapidly from one place to another," says Marine colonel Jack Wassink, director of the Corps's Space Integration Branch in Arlington, Virginia, where the program is based. "Space lends itself to that role."
My refrain is that we don't have time for wishful thinking. America's enemies are gunning up, working out, getting harder everyday while our planners are in fantasyland trying to come up with an easy way to do the hard thing.
There are no easy ways.
Neller himself has said that the future battlefield will be beyond chaotic and bloody beyond belief. I agree. If we're right then its time to do the hard work of prepping physically, mentally and morally to face our fate.
The time to dream is over. It's time to get to work...and that means putting away foolish ideas and getting the gear we need now...not hoped for some time in 2030.
Hey all. I see a new meme developing among the F-35 fanbase that needs to be curb stomped ricky ticky quick. What the fuck am I talking about? Well check this article out from Foxtrot Alpha...
Another bad sign? For the second year in a row, Lockheed Martin is expected to deliver fewer F-35s than it had planned. The company had planned to produce 66 jets this year but acknowledged in its third quarter earnings this week that it seems very unlikely to reach that number. Only 44 of the fighters have made it off the production lines through the end of September.
While the F-35 is currently assembled in Texas, Italy and Japan, major components for the aircraft are made in places scattered across the world, including Turkey and Australia. Still, over 3,000 F-35s are expected to be built, with 2,456 planned for purchase by the Pentagon. Lockheed and the Air Force will do everything they can to support the deployment, with the jets getting as much flying time as the pilots can handle.
No matter what happens, of course, there will be many interested parties watching the deployment, including America’s allies and enemies. Both will be hoping for different outcomes.
As usual Tyler wrote a very balanced article that pointed out the good and the bad with the F-35. But that ending left me cold and I've been seeing that talking point pop up more and more on F-16.net and other F-35 fan sites.
The basic claim is that critics of the F-35 want the same thing that America's enemies want. That is to see the F-35 fail.
That's wrong!
I am speaking for myself but also believe that I speak for many of the other critics out there. We don't want to see the plane fail. We would love for the F-35 to deliver on what's being promised. WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!
But the problem is that it isn't and it won't.
We are simply the canaries in the coal mine that's warning of the obvious danger of continuing to place all our eggs in the F-35 basket. Speaking again for the critics, we've seen enough to make a determination about this program. We've seen enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that this plane will be harmful to the defense structures of the West.
In short we aren't giving aid to the enemy, we're giving a warning to our brothers and sisters. That's why the ending paragraph of Tyler's article is so problematic.
No matter what happens, of course, there will be many interested parties watching the deployment, including America’s allies and enemies. Both will be hoping for different outcomes.
I am an interested party.
I am hoping for a different outcome than the enemies of America...and at the same time I want the USMC to change direction on the F-35.
Loyalty without question is servitude. Reasoned opposition is patriotic.
The Harvey Weinstein drama is turning into a weird mess that could alter men-women relationships forever. By that I mean that Weinstein was undoubtedly a freak and a bastard.
What he did was wrong.
But I also get the sense that we're seeing some piling on. Additionally I'm kinda concerned when an old guy in a wheelchair that's as deceit as Bush Sr could be perceived as committing sexual assault with his WIFE right next to him.
And that's the rub.
I would bet body parts that Bush Sr wasn't seeking sexual gratification at the time of the incident. I would bet body parts that his wife saw the behavior and saw no harassment.
My guess is that he treated his accuser as he would his own daughters and it was taken/perceived in a way that he did not intend.
But that's the rub isn't it.
Sexual harassment is in the eyes of the women you're interacting with. From what I've seen and heard in classes is that if accused you're wrong. No if's and's or but's unless you have cameras with microphones or several other witnesses with you.
So the end result of all this could be detrimental to women advancing in society.
If a man views women as a career obstacle that must be maneuvered around, or carefully navigated if avoidance isn't possible then how is that good for women in the workplace?
I'm not being clear at all and hopefully you guys can read between the lines but this could have HUGE ramifications that no one is actually looking at.
Women have been able to make great strides in non traditional roles because of the aid of Hollywood and the media. Now it seems that they're going even after those people.
The point is that we're living in a telling moment between men and women with regard to relationships and no one is paying attention (yeah its redundant...I hope another blogger picks this up because it needs to be talked about but I'm an extremely poor messenger).
The first of a batch of upgraded M1A2 Abrams tanks has hit the Army, with more improvements coming in the next few years.
Earlier this month, the first of six M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 Abrams tanks rolled off initial production at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio, the Army announced.
These are the first upgrades to the Army’s 1,500-tank fleet. They fall in line with overall Army plans to enhance lethality and improve its ground combat systems, preparing them for potential fights with near-peer adversaries.
Another such improvement was the recent addition of a 30 mm cannon to many of the Army’s Strykers, which began deliveries last year.
“This version is the most modernized configuration of the Abrams tank, having improved force protection and system survivability enhancements and increased lethality over the M1A1 and previous M1A2 variants,” said Lt. Col. Justin Shell, the Army’s product manager for Abrams.
The version three enhancements address on-board power, electronics, computing, weapons, force protection and sensors. They are primarily a bridge to the version four variant planned for the 2020s, Program Executive Office-Ground Combat Systems spokeswoman Ashley Givens told the media.
I'm of the opinion that this is a common sense approach to our armored force. If you look around the globe you're not seeing any breakthrough in performance, just evolution. As awesome as the Armata might be its still a variation on the theme, nothing revolutionary.
Macgregor thinks otherwise. Check this out from his blog, FUTURE DEFENSE VISIONS...
A cautionary tale worth remembering: HMS Hood was the last battlecruiser built for the Royal Navy. Commissioned in 1920, Hood had design limitations, though her design was revised after the Battle of Jutland and improved while she was under construction. Despite the appearance of new and more modern ship designs over time, Hood remained the largest and most powerful warship in the world for twenty years after her commissioning. On 24 May 1941, 8 minutes after the first shot was fired in the Battle of the Denmark Strait with the German Battleship Bismarck, Hood was struck by several German shells, exploded and sank. Due to Hood’s perceived invincibility, the loss affected British morale. It’s time for new warfighting equipment, not upgrades of old designs. The Army is sinking money and resources into old solutions designed in the 1970s. The handwriting is on the wall. Our soldiers will man the land equivalent of Hoods.
I'm not looking to cross swords with ole boy, but I wonder if his complaints are valid. Quite honestly I think they're overblown.
Could he have fallen into the trap of having made his name with innovative thinking and because of that "rep" he's always having to push the envelope in order to remain relevant?
I wonder.
I consider that a cautionary tale for all "innovators" (and I can fall prey to it too). You have to honestly look at the landscape, the current state of the art, near term breakthroughs and threat weapons to properly determine whether a weapon system is viable.
I think the upgrade path of the M1A2 SEPV3 and later SEPV4 will keep the US Army's armored force in the lead or at worst equal to the threats they may face.
I keep forgetting the full scale of US Army Aviation.
We're looking at one aviation brigade's worth of helicopters. Just one.
That's more helicopters than most nations have in their entire armed forces!
I have mixed emotions about this. We have this tremendous combat power and yet we were slow to deploy forces to help with hurricane relief efforts? We have this many helicopters but we're still told that we should be worried about Russia?
Quite honestly after looking at this I have to wonder if I might be overstating the threat of China.
When it comes to protecting the US we are beyond set. Covering allies is an issue but when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of our own nation I can confidently say that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines pretty much have that covered in spades.
