Southern Justice!

Massive hat tip to Defense Tech.
I usually complain about the militarization of law enforcement.  But this just rocks.  Good to go!

NOTE*

Texas didn't name their boats after politicians, celebrities, or any other non-entity.  They named them after their fallen heroes.  Man!  These guys get it!

The Debate: Should Special Ops be its own separate service?

Not my debate issue but one that was held on the pages of US News and World Report's Debate Club.  It's to be expected.  SOCOM in general and SEALs in particular have been drumming up press lately.  Much to the chagrin of the old timers, this new breed of Special Operations personnel love the lime light.

The person putting forth the idea that Special Ops needs to be its own service is none other than Douglas Macgregor the guy that authored Breaking the Phalanx.

He's one of those persons that likes re-arranging deck chairs and trying out new ideas on actual forces without experimentation.  A bad mix in my opinion but he's become famous for his ideas.  To the article....

If Americans learned anything from the colossally expensive use of large general purpose Army and Marine combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a low-profile mix of special operations forces and covert operators to find and liquidate anti-Western insurgent, terrorist, and criminal elements is a more effective and economical solution in the Middle East. Special forces are also far better suited to foreign internal defense missions than general purpose Army or Marine forces.

In addition, a smaller defense budget is not only inevitable; it's a national economic necessity. Budgetary realities dictate a strategic shift toward more efficient and effective means of national defense, means predicated on a lighter footprint overseas with far fewer soldiers and Marines stationed on foreign soil.
Thus, it's time to make special operations a separate service. But Americans in and out of uniform must scale back their expectations regarding what such a service could achieve on its own. In a conflict with a capable opponent that fields effective armed forces and maintains a cohesive society, special operations forces can only operate on the margins in support of general purpose forces. Special ops is most effective in the developing world, where societies are weak and armed forces are ineffective or nonexistent. These are places like the Middle East, Africa, and most of Latin America, where capable air-defense networks, strong armies, and internal police forces are few and far between. In these settings, special operations forces can play a decisive strategic role.

There is also another reason why special operations should become a separate service. Operatives should be legally accountable for actions involving the train and equip mission, as well as direct action missions beyond America’s borders. Like all of the current services, a separate special forces service must not operate without regional combatant commander knowledge or permission anywhere under any circumstances.
One way to establish special forces as a separate service is to return the general purpose Marines to control of the Navy while also permanently reassigning selected Army, Marine and Air Force units to Special Operations Forces and Special Forces control. This would keep the number of service branches the same. All of these proposed changes should be considered in the context of a new National Security Act designed to replace the Joint Chiefs of Staff system with a unified national defense staff under a uniformed national defense chief.

I say let them do it.  But with a caveat.  66,000 people makes SOCOM as large as 3 US ARMY DIVISIONS!


No more leveraging off conventional forces.

They should be self contained and self sufficient.  Separate base, aircraft etc...

With a force that large they should be able to perform any mission short of an invasion without support of conventional forces.

This has been in the making for at least the last 10 years.  Time to make it happen.

Marine procurement games & the Marine Personnel Carrier.

Talking with friends about the Marine Personnel Carrier Program and there are some disturbing facts sitting in front of our faces.

1.  The MPC was conceived as a way to make up for a transport shortfall because the numbers of EFV's was going to be reduced due to costs.  The plan was to be able to transport the assault wave in EFV's with follow on forces to gain battlefield mobility with the MPC.

2.  The MPC promises to give battlefield mobility to keep up with the M1 Abrams, a certain degree of ocean going ability, protection against IEDs and full ship board compatibility.  In essence it will be more capable than the current AAV in all realms EXCEPT for ship to shore amphibious ops.

3.  For better or worse the USMC is moving toward a quasi-Commando force with a premium being placed on aerial insertion of not only raid but forcible entry forces.  With the current budgetary pressure and programed spending being locked into the air wing's F-35, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, MV-22, and CH-53K I don't expect this to change any time soon.

4.  Supposedly the AAV is going to be upgraded, the MPC procured and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle developed to replace the AAV, which the EFV failed to do.  How are we going to afford to procure the MPC, upgrade the AAV AND develop the ACV?

Me and my buddies came to this conclusion.

The Marine Corps is playing games.

The MPC is going to be the replacement for the AAV and the ACV will be ultimately canceled due to budget pressures.  The JLTV will be touted as making up for overland mobility shortfalls and the CH-53K will be dragged out of development purgatory in order to tout the MPC's ship to shore mobility, additionally the Navy will push the follow on to the LCAC and deem the amphibious tractor obsolete.

I hope I'm wrong but little else makes sense.  Of course HQMC could be playing it straight and the plan really is to develop these vehicles as planned.  But if that's the case then what is the make up of the Assault Amphibian Battalions?

How many MPC's will they have?  How many AAV/ACV's?  Will the make up depend on locale?  Will we tailor all AAV/ACV Battalions to support ops in the Pacific while using MPC's in the Middle East and Africa?

Lots of questions.

Very few answers from the program office.

Pic of the day. Israeli Armored Reconnaissance

A fighter from the Armored Brigade's Reconnaissance Unit levels the way for the following tanks during an exercise of the Armored Brigade's Headquarters.

Africa's the new hotspot. 26th MEU trains for its deployment.

Photos by Lance Cpl. Adwin Esters

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

A Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marine, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fires M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Maj. John Brown, engineer officer, right, and Capt. Thomas Waller, a Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 team leader, fire a M40 sniper rifle at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

NOTE*

They're not even hiding it anymore.  26th MEU is heading to Africa as part of its upcoming deployment.  It appears more and more like the secret war in the horn of Africa is becoming public.  My only question is why is it necessary for an MEU to provide support to SOCOM's operations?  They have a Division (-) of personnel in house.  

F-35s at NAS Patuxent River

General Dynamics Land Systems...the 500 pound gorilla in the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest.

US Army Stryker ICV

Piranha V, failed entrant in the UK FRES competition

Piranha III, in service world wide most notably with the Canadian Army, the Spanish Marine Corps and the Brazilian Marine Corps.

A 500 pound gorilla.

That's about the best description of General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) if they decide to jump with both feet into the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest.

THEY ARE NOT GIVING OUT ANY INFO!

Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.

I have written everyone I can think of in their outfit and they must hit delete without thinking about it.  BAE and Lockheed were cautious but were forthcoming with as much info as they thought reasonable.  It is after all a competition.

GDLS.  The info on what they're going to be presenting is password protected, and marked eyes only.  I have a feeling it has to do with the tremendous burn that they received from the British when it came to their FRES contest.  From the outside looking in they had a much better product than the ASCOD, yet were shot down in a weird cost shoot out (we keep coming back to that factor instead of the best vehicle winning).

With that being said I'll list a few bullet points on what will make GDLS a formidable opponent in this contest...even though I'm not quite sold on their offering in comparison to what BAE and Lockheed are putting forward.

1.  They could attempt to make the Stryker amphibious and push commonality with the US Army.  As a matter of fact if they can make the Stryker surf ready and keep many of the components the same then they're well on their way to winning....but...

2.  Number one in this depends on what the Army does with its M-113 replacement program and whether the Marine Corps will wait for them to decide.  If the Stryker wins that contest then the first option becomes even more attractive.

3.  Eyes will also be on the contest in Canada for a close combat vehicle.  GDLS was at one time going to enter the LAV-V with the Lancer turret in that contest.  If the Canadians get their act together and make that buy then the Marines could be tempted to go with that setup.  The LAV-V though has not been touted as an amphibious vehicle and I don't know if it swims or could be made to.  What I do know is that the Lancer turret is an outstanding looking piece of gear.  The Canadians will be running ballistics tests and the LAV-V supposedly is an uparmored variant of the LAV-III.

4.  The Piranha III is in service world wide with a number of forces.  The Marines on the east coast did a training evolution with the Spanish Marines (I believe it was the 24th MEU) and got an up close look at the beast.

5.  A major down fall of this vehicle is its troop carriage.  Its limited to a crew of 3+6.  Not competitive.

6.  If this does turn into a price war then GDLS should have it going away.  They already have manufacturing set up.  A supply chain already in place. NSN setup for ordering parts, etc...

To sum it up.

I have no idea what GDLS is going to do.

If they offer the Piranha III and if its compatible with the Stryker as far as drive train, components, parts etc...are concerned then they will win a price war.  All they'll really have to do is meet requirements.

We're in the unfortunate place of having the air wing gobbling up a tremendous part of the budget (not bitching, just pointing this out).  With the F-35, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, MV-22 and the CH-53K all gobbling up funds, it looks like the ground side is just going to have to gut it out.

A side note to all this is you can bet that the only reason why the JLTV is still alive in Marine Corps planning is because the US Army is basically subsidizing the buy.

But back to the Piranha.  I just can't put my finger on but I'm just not warm to this vehicle....

Note*
My buddy Grim tells me I might have flubbed the issues that GDLS has in the FRES competition. He's probably right. Between the European, US and Canadian divisions its hard to keep up with the vehicles, how they're designated and what competitions they're involved in and heck, even the vehicles designations are confusing.

Pic of the day...Hilltop Watch...

Spc. Richard Madrid (left) and Command Sgt. Maj. Samuel Murphy of 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, take in the view of the horizon at a check point near Daab Pass in Shinkay district, Afghanistan, Feb. 25.

SOFREP takes credit from the Marines of Fallujah.

Major Douglas Alexander Zembiec, probably the FINEST Officer and Commander of this generation...also known as "The Lion of Fallujah"

Sgt Maj Bradley Kasal...a SNCO that leads from the front...kicking in doors and bringing hell to the enemy....

James Blake Miller..a survivor that's broken inside...

First read this article over at SOFREP.

Then click on the captions of the Marines above.

Read the pages.  Drink it all in.

Know that SOCOM is SUPPOSE to be the home of the QUIET PROFESSIONALS.  

Think about that a bit more.

Now go back over as many pages of articles over at SOFREP as you can stomach.  Digest all the sales pitches.  Digest the chest thumping.

SOCOM in general and Navy SEALs in particular have broken the bargain.  Blowback has arrived and its going to be courtesy of my blog.

Why?

Because even in a pivotal battle...one that will shape the Marine Corps for the next generation, they seek to steal the glory won by those that gave so much.  Its not right and I'll make it my mission to call them on it every chance I get.

A look at the BAE/IVECO Super AV 8x8.

Super AV 8x8 with unknown cannon mount.  It is not listed on the OtoMelera website although it bears a similarity to the HitFist OWS 30mm

The Super AV 8x8.

The mystery vehicle in the Marine Personnel Carrier Program.  Thanks to go to Sarah with the BAE Public Affairs Office for forwarding my questions to the Team working on this vehicle and my sincere thanks to them for answering.  The written interview will be discussed but first a few personal observations and a bit of speculation.

click on image for larger size.

click on image for larger size.

First observation.  The Super AV 8x8 in my estimation has already been trialed to some extent by Iveco's work on the Brazilian VBTP.  This vehicle is amphibious (to a high degree), is capable of carrying 11 troops and is can carry a variety of weapon systems (its been seen with Elbit's 30mm RWS...same as the one trialed on the AAV by BAE).

Perhaps more importantly, this vehicle is derived from the Freccia which was itself derived from the Centaur.  In essence they have developed a series of vehicles that share common automotive components, drive trains etc...

This should enable BAE/Iveco to be extremely competitive if this comes down to a cost battle.  Additionally the Italians have a strong showing in the amphibious vehicle area.  Just a look at what's been done with the old M-113 by Aris shows that they are first rate in this department.

But back to the Super AV 8x8.

Compare the above photo with the one below.

Unfortunately I don't know the date that these photos were taken but the top one indicates that some type of modular armor is going to part of BAE/Iveco's bid.  But perhaps the best indication is this.  They're working with IBD-Deisenroth Engineering.  On their website they list the armor that's going into the Super AV 8x8 as being 4th generation.  They demonstrated an LMV that had STANAG 4569 Level 4 protection due to 'new ceramic' armor.  The Super AV 8x8 has undergone ballistics testing with the Italian Army so it should be competitive in this arena.

Last of my speculation goes to weapons mount.  I have absolutely no idea what they'll offer to the Marine Corps but that turret ring looks like you could mount anything short of the US Army's 105mm MGS on it.

But enough of my guessing.  Below are my questions to the BAE/Iveco team.  My questions are in black, the teams responses are in red and my commentary is in blue.

*** All responses other than Question 3 should be attributed to John Swift, BAE Systems, MPC Program Manger. The response to Question 3 should be attributed to Håkan Karlsson, BAE Systems Hägglunds AB, Director, Marketing Communications.***

     The USMC seems to be slow-walking the MPC effort.  As a matter of fact, only a week or so ago did the revised RFP come out. Do you see the same issues with the failed EFV program creeping into the MPC program?  To be specific, it appeared that for once the Marines seemed to have a lack of institutional focus on the program and did not apply the proper amount of urgency to its completion.

We stand ready to support the entire USMC portfolio of amphibious vehicles during the acquisition phase for each platform. The key to a successful vehicle acquisition program is rooted in quantifiable and discreet requirements that are ultimately validated to be achievable within the industry. We are confident that BAE Systems has a role in any such amphibious vehicle program and as we see them today, these include the AAV U, ACV and MPC. We support the USMC’s current efforts to fully vet and validate the requirements for each of these efforts before determining the appropriate acquisition approach each may need to support the overall portfolio.

OK, my bad!  Who do I think I am?  Bill Sweetman?  Just joking Bill, but seriously, I don't have the street cred, experience or evidently the common sense not to ask such a question to a contractor trying to win a contract from a customer.  I let my personal anger at the Marine Corps ground procurement system creep into my questions.  Big time mea culpa.

       BAE has an extremely strong design bureau.  The RG41 and RG35 are just two examples of vehicles built in house that surprised the industry and are tailored to market demand.  Why didn't BAE go with a clean-sheet, in-house design instead of teaming with IVECO?

IVECO possesses a sound amphibious engineering design that, once evaluated, proved easily adaptable to meet known MPC requirements. It only made sense to unite the two engineering efforts to a single effort in support of MPC. The requirements set by the Italian MoD were remarkably similar to what we understood the MPC requirements to be. The RG31 and 35 were not purpose built for an amphibious requirement.

If I had done my home work on Iveco before I sent in these questions this is another that would have been formulated differently.  Hmmm.  These guys are schooling me.

      Speaking of in-house designs, I'm a fan of the SEP, now renamed Alligator.  What metrics were performed to indicate that it did not meet Marine Corps specifications?

At the time of the initial USG MPC candidate vehicle assessment, the SEP was not yet fully mature to a level for which the Marine Corps wanted an amphibious off-the-shelf 8x8 solution.

    To the issue of the Iveco Super AV...  Many think that it’s simply an off-shoot of Freccia.  Is that true?

Although the Super AV shares several automotive assemblies with the Freccia, they are not the same vehicle. The Super AV incorporates a newly designed hull structure with added survivability considerations in addition to incorporation of features necessary to make it a vehicle fully capable of shore-to-shore and ship-to-shore transit in the open ocean.

       Little is known about the Super AV.  Articles are sparse and you're keeping it under wraps. Is this by design?  If so, why?  (BAE has been very forthcoming with other vehicles in its stable, and, as a matter of fact, the GCV has its own website.)

 Currently, the adaptation of the Super AV is for the singular MPC effort, and we haven’t socialized its capability beyond this audience. We will plan to do so when appropriate. 

 Performance characteristics for the Super AV are difficult to nail down.  What is the estimated speed in water and how high a surf can it withstand?  Projected land speed?  Has it undergone ballistics tests?  Ship board compatibility?

·      Up to 6 knots

·      Capable of sea state 2-3

·      Land speed of 65 mph

·      Has undergone a series of ballistic testing

·      Has completed shipboard compatibility evaluation with the Italian Navy

Absolutley brilliant Sol.  You asked a question that you KNOW they're not going to let out of the bag!  Detail performance specs!  And the response is the baseline performance characteristics outlined by the Marines.  I wish they were in the room with me.  The looks I would have gotten would reveal exactly how stupid I was for asking it.

Weapon systems are also a mystery.  In the few photos available on the web, it appears to be sporting a 25mm cannon along with a TOW launcher similar to what's seen on the Bradley.  Is this correct or just provisional?

Currently we have designed the vehicle to accept the interfaces necessary for RWS integration. A medium caliber cannon could just as easily be integrated, but we have not yet determined a valid requirement to do so.

Lockheed Martin's Team Havoc has had its vehicle out to Camp Pendleton for hands on sessions with Marines.  Does your team plan on doing the same?

The BAE Systems MPC Team will indeed do so as may be deemed appropriate by the USG. Internal BAE Systems demonstrations have been conducted before several USG audiences and we will be scheduling more in the future.

  Is there anything you would like to add?

BAE Systems and IVECO are well positioned to offer a world class amphibious wheeled 8x8 vehicle that is unique and capable in its proven balance of survivability and mobility, for which its amphibious performance is paramount.

Wow.

All in all I'm particularly thankful.  First BAE/Iveco took the time to answer my questions.  Second, they EDUCATED me on trade craft.  Lastly they gave a quick glimpse into the program.

But even better than all that is this.  I know who to go to inside that organization.  I know that they're knowledgeable, courteous and will give out as much info as they feel is possible to the general public.  I'll give it a month or so and I'll make another run at this design team with a much better set of questions....but in the meantime I'm going to research a lot more and I've gotta pack my bags too.  Marine West here I come.

So we're gonna upgrade the AAV...

Bad news Bat fans.

Looks like the Commandant was in error.  He stated that he would drive the replacement for the canceled EFV before he left office.  And since we now know that's unlikely then the best I can say is that he misspoke.  Be that as it may, what does that leave the Marine Corps with?

Upgrades to the tired AAV and the Marine Personnel Carrier Program (More on that tomorrow.  Thanks to Sarah at BAE public affairs office I've been able to get some information on the Super AV 8x8.  Interesting stuff).

But what's on my wish list for AAV upgrades?  Upgrades that I would like to see started within the next two years...

1.  More horsepower.  We should get a power plant that develops serious horsepower in a compact package.  MTU has some offerings that look like winners.

2.  Upgraded suspension.  On this I have no clue but we need to get a bit more ground clearnace and a smoother ride.

3.  Upgraded firepower.  On this I'm conflicted.  I like the above installation but I worry about the vehicle commander losing situational awareness.  Yes I know that remote weapon station make up for this with cameras and such but nothing beats sticking your head out and have a look with your mark 1 eyeballs.

4.  Upgraded armor.  In particular belly armor.  Upgraded applique armor would also be a winner but I'm not sure PLASAN has anything in development.

5.  Band tracks.  With additional belly armor you won't need the tracks for self righting. Band tracks would theoretically increase mobility. and road speed.

6.  Improved thrusters.  Getting better waterspeed shouldn't be that difficult with the offerings on the market today.  Even without improving the hull, with increased horsepower and thrusters we should improve water speed by at least  several knots.

7.  Improved troop seating.  Benches are out.  Time to install ballistic seating.

8.  Improved hydraulics.  Somehow, someway that ramp needs to come down faster.  A simple thing but important.

A short list but doable and hopefully doable within my two year time limit.  Confidence is not high though.  The AAV, ACV and MPC have all been combined into one program office.  With the failure that we saw with the EFV---a lack of institutional focus, a lack of institutional urgency and finally a lack of institutional supervision of the prime contractor all led to failure.

And now we have one office in charge of three very different programs.

Yep.  Confidence is not high that this will be done in an efficient, military manner.

Not so big after all....

When the photos of the F-35 with pylons attached first came out, I made the comment over at ARES blog that they looked HUGE!

Rookie action on my part and more proof that I didn't spend any time with the wing.  In an attempt to find out the reason behind the "why" of them being so large, I was directed to not let my eyes fool me and to look at other aircraft.

Good call.  If you compare the size of the pylons found on several other tactical aircraft you'll find not much difference.  My bad.  Mystery solved.  Apologies to the JSF team.  Keep plugging away guys.