SNAFU!

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Pic of the day. Sep 30, 2010.

via NAVAIR.

Wow. USAF Para-Rescue strikes back. HARD!

I am becoming a 'fan boy' of the Lexington Institute blog. And the latest just sends a tingle up my leg! Not because its from one of the authors but because the rebuttal from the Para-Rescue community is vicious, well stated and apparently heartfelt. But the Lexington Institute still had the balls to post it. GOOD FOR YOU LexInst.

MUST READ GUYS!

Get it here.

Oh and two simple questions...
1. Why was the Air Force in such a hurry to deactivate the most advanced helicopter in the western world---the MH-53J?
2. Why isn't the Air Force simply hanging tough with their current aircraft and climbing onboard the CH-53K program?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Think Defence on 'reading between the lines'

Think Defence has an excellent article on a leaked letter. At the end of his piece he asks a couple of questions.

Why the focus on naval matters and what does this mean.

My take is that the Brits are blinking on the aircraft carrier controversy and on the F-35. To move away from their naval roots would be to abandon there role on the world stage. That would alarm and embolden nations both in Europe (France comes immediately to mind...it seems as if they want to be the 'military' leader of the EU, while Germany seeks to be its economic powerhouse...the UK balances them both) and could even affect US relations with China.

Forget the sensational newspaper stories. The carriers and the F-35 will survive and thrive wearing British colors.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

JLTV is dead. Meet the future Humvee.

Via Jonathan and Defense-Update.

The new suspension offers the vehicle a 70 percent off-road profile capability. The new suspension restores a 2,500-pound vehicle payload capacity in addition to the armor and occupants. Introducing 14 inches of independent wheel travel, the HMMWV can overcome obstacles and navigate rugged, mountainous environments. The vehicle’s performance is also improved in 40 percent increase in the maximum speed and a 46 percent improvement in braking. With ground clearance increases to 17 inches, and additional payload capacity, an under-vehicle V-shaped panel can be added, to further improve survivability from mine blasts and IEDs. The higher ground clearance further improves mobility and occupant visibility.

This is why I enjoy Loren Thompson articles.

Concise. Clearly written. No by products. Read the whole thing here.

At the very least, Mabus needs to have a convincing explanation of why killing EFV won't put the lives of thousands of Marines at risk. The Department of the Navy has embraced "forcible entry" as the defining mission of the Marine Corps, which means storming enemy beaches under heavy fire. It also acknowledges that forcible entry requires an "amphibious tractor" like EFV that can maneuver warfighters from ship to shore and then quickly transition to land operations upon hitting the beach. Having made those two concessions, it has put itself in a box in explaining how to fashion a credible force structure in the absence of EFV. Even if EFV didn't have three times the water speed and twice the armor of the existing amphibious vessel -- which it does -- the simple reality is that the existing vehicle was developed in the 1970s, and littoral regions have become more dangerous since then.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Think Defence on the small arms debate.

I never considered that the same conversations were going on in Europe. This is a must read. Check it out here.

Thompson on the F-35.

The latest production agreement represents an auspicious start to the Pentagon's big efficiency push, because the aircraft will be built for about 20 percent less than government estimators had expected under a fixed-price contract in which any cost overruns will have to be partly covered by the contractor. Government plans had called for commencing fixed-rate pricing later in the program, but the government elected to transfer risk to the contractor earlier in the production cycle, in return for which Lockheed Martin received incentives to surpass the performance to which it had committed. The company apparently felt confident it could meet or exceed government goals, based in part on the very positive test results being recorded for the Air Force variant of the plane in California.
The defense department expects to buy 2,443 F-35s in three different variants for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. The sea-service versions will cost more than the Air Force variant because they are being bought in smaller numbers and incorporate special features such as the ability to take off and land vertically. Recent testing successes on the Air Force version are crucial to the program's success, since it represents over two-thirds of the planned domestic buy and is the main export variant. The Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office stated earlier this year that all three variants of the plane were meeting key performance requirements and appeared to face no significant design challenges.

Read it all here.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

M-60E4's are still in the inventory?

I got the above pic from the Navy website. Its of a Sailor providing security on an ~~amphib~~ some type of naval vessel. What got my attention though is his weapon.

If I'm seeing it right, it looks like an M-60E4.

The Navy Seals and US Marines both ditched that weapon years ago and now we see it again. Does anyone have an visibility on how or why its in the regular Navy's inventory and how many there are?