I couldn't disagree more.

Cpl. Chad Wade and his wife during happier times..via Stars and Stripes.com

Battle Rattle has an article today that bothers me a great deal.  Read the whole thing but here are a few tidbits.

For another reminder of that, we need to look no farther than the story of Cpl. Chad Wade, a member of 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, Calif. He was killed by an improvised explosive device while on patrol Dec. 1, and four months later, the grief shared by his friends and family continue to spill out in new and painful ways.

then this...

No matter how well intentioned military journalists are, some of their work will sting families who don’t deserve additional pain. There’s no joy in that.
However, failing to publish those painful stories and take on those scary assignments will only leave the rest of our country in the dark about a fight directly involving 100,000 U.S. service members each day. It must be done.
This is a harsh, cold reality of war. I don’t like it, and I’m sure you don’t, either.

Dan Lamothe is trying to have it both ways and it annoys me to no end.  This guy had the honor of being embedded with US Marines...writes about the agony of losing a member of the unit and then proclaims that this is the harsh, cold reality of war and isn't talking about the combat itself but his interpretation of what needs to be reported?  Ernie Pyle must be turning in his grave.

Modern journalist have taken their 'art' too far.  The details of how a young man died and relating that to their families is just a step too far in my opinion.  To describe not only in words but also in pictures the suffering of a dying man...to record the frantic efforts of his buddies...to record for time immortal the pain and suffering of his comrades while they mourn his death isn't necessary.

Its ghoulish.

Its morbid.

It just shouldn't be.

But more importantly than my feelings about it is how the wives and mothers must feel.  Watching the son you raised in pain...moments before his death or soon after must be chilling and hearbreaking.  Watching the man you loved and wanted to spend your life with broken, bruised and dying must be like repeating the sorrow of being told that he died again and again and again.

Political correctness almost always protects the indefensible.  Its seems like the 1st amendment is being used to do the same.  Its time for the Department of Defense to grow a pair and start censoring news reports and photos.  Our military families deserve better.

Remember this.  Police departments that suffer officers killed in the line of duty often hide the fallen from the prying eyes of photographers cameras.    The news media often self-censors images of civilians that are dead or dying.  Only the military is not given the same respect.

And this from a man that we allowed to embed with our units.  Shameful.

F-35 STOVL Engine News.

via William (thanks...much appreciated!) from Defense Daily...

F-35 STOVL Engine Challenges Surmountable By Year's End Manufacturer Says
By Marina Malenic

      WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--The manufacturer of an engine that powers
a jump-jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is confident that
engineering challenges facing the engine will be resolved this year.
      "By the end of 2011, no one will be talking about difficulties
with this engine," Warren Boley, the head of Pratt & Whitney's military
engine business, told Defense Daily in a March 31 interview.
      Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies [UTX], builds
the F135 engine that powers all three variants of the F-35--a
conventional variant for the Air Force; a short take-off and vertical
landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps; and a carrier variant for
the Navy. Lockheed Martin [LMT] is developing the airplane.
      Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a
"probation" period for the STOVL variant, which has encountered more
developmental challenges than the other two, simpler models (Defense
Daily, Jan. 7). The Marines have said they need the STOVL variant to
replace the 25-year-old AV-B Harrier, which is used when landing on
amphibious warfare vessels and improvised airstrips.
      Boley said his company can complete all necessary improvements
to the engine by the third quarter of fiscal 2011.
      "If there are still problems at that time, I know they won't be
with the engine," he said. He added that he does not have "visibility"
into the avionics or any other airframe-specific problems that Lockheed
Martin may be having.
      "With the engine, we are dealing purely with application
engineering at this point," he added. "Tech development is complete."
      Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney is preparing to submit a pricing
proposal for the sixth low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch of
F135s to the Pentagon by the end of the month. According to United
Technologies CEO David Hess, the company was able to provide a 16
percent cost cut on LRIP 6 and is on track to keep reducing costs with
each follow-on production batch by 13 percent.
      Earlier this year, executives from the company said they would
require an additional $1 billion to add flight-test engines and related
support to the program after Gates restructured the F-35 program as a
whole. An extended development timeline and additional flight testing
will likely mean that four to six flight-test engines will be added to
the current fleet of 18, according to Boley.
      He added that about $600 million to $700 million of the $1
billion would be flight-test costs, while the remainder accounts for
incremental "product improvement" demanded by the F-35 Joint Program
Office following a technical baseline review completed earlier this
year. Most of those improvements relate to maintainability and field
support, according to Boley.

This must be repeated...shouted to the roof tops and broadcast to all interested parties.

THE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A 16 PERCENT COST CUT ON LRIP 6 AND IS ON TRACK TO KEEP REDUCING COSTS WITH EACH FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION BATCH BY 13 PERCENT!

I love it when a plan comes together.

First hand tour of the LCS-2.

Lee sent me this evaluation of the LCS-2 that I wanted to share.  Seems as if he shares my initial impressions.  The LCS-2, despite its limitations, has the potential to be much more than the sum of its parts.

If the USMC can develop mission modules designed for Infantry Companies with an eye toward mini-MEU capabilities then the idea of dispersed operations at sea become a reality. 

The idea of Company Landing Teams via the LCS is nothing short of brilliant.

But before I get ahead of myself here's his review.

Well gents I got onboard the second LCS on Friday 26 Feb.  The an officer new to the ship (Blue/Gold crewing) led the group, he did not have all the type experience which the other crew had.  I tagged along with a group of medical type sailors from local shore commands.  The contractors were weight testing the after gantry aka twin boom lift system so I did not get to ask much about it.  Did not get into ICC2 which is the enclosed CIC space.  Did not get into engineroom not offered.  Was NOT allowed to photograph the flight deck because Fire Scout UAV was on it?  I will start from bow and go aft  These are my deckplate impressions.  I will go into programmatic and operational matters SEPCOR.

 

The first and overlying observation is the LCS-2 is MUCH larger than LCS-2 (which I got on last year).  All the working spaces, passageways, ladders, overheads – everything is bigger.  While the interior layout amazed some sailors in the tour group, it seemed conventional for some used to civilian crewed T-ships.  Flight deck is huge by comparison to Perry and wider than DDGs.  See the deck problem below.  Here are my other observations

 

The height above water of the Mk110 gun is notable especially when compared to Burke DDG that the Independence was bow on to.  I would also assume that it keeps the mount somewhat drier from seas?   The soft patch on foredeck behind the gun is big.  I was told that there is a large space under it.  The new missile system could certainly be changed out for something bigger? (Topic of any earlier discussion).

 

The view from the bridge is exceptional (about a 280 deg view), but there are NO bridge wings. There are many cameras installed onboard for both internal and external viewing with large displays in several positions on the bridge.  There are two roll-down windows to look out for during UNREPs (sort of like hanging out a truck’s window while driving?~).  There is a removable pilot platform which apparently is disliked?

 

The bridge is laid out well, but smaller than the T-AGS60 class which I spent a lot of time on.  On the aft part of the bridge is ICC-1 which is essentially a mini-CIC cordoned off only by a black-out curtain.    There are 3 “operator seats” tight together on the bridge centerline with a chartable (no full paper portfolio onboard just harbor charts) to port and the CO’s chair to stbd with large display panels in front of all chairs.  Ship has no conventional helm being steered by joystick.  While there were peloruses on the bridge, apparently traditional fixes were only done as backup?   Windows had rounded corners and were deep set in structural frames.  Engineroom monitoring is done by the Readiness officer seated to left of Conning officer.   Then engineroom is unmanned with two roving patrols and full monitoring on the bridge.

 

Tour went down to centerline passageway which doubled as cafeteria food line.  Wardroom, CPO and crews mess rooms were along it.  Hospital aka sickbay also there was aft.  Staterooms had bunks for 74 (crew + air det + 1 mission team) and were installed 1, 2 or 4 person arrangements depending on rank/rate.  We were told that the ship bunks had not filled up during normal operations to date, but when more than one mission module was onboard a habitability module would be added on the mission deck.

 

Can you believe that everyone onboard has to bus and clean their own dishes?  While this may be egalitarian, it certainly seems like a poor use of rather limited manpower.  The galley crew was small.  I spoke with the LPO and it would appear the galley arrangement, crewing and messing are, once again, similar to T-AGS 60 Pathfinders (which has only two mess rooms and stewards to serve/cleanup).  I would suggest that someone go over and look at how an MSC ship operates for a better food service arrangement.  This is even more important since the galley staff is small and must be augmented by crewmembers at times since the cooks are assigned extras duties outside foodservice.  This is partially because there are NO E-4 or below in the crew.

 

The hangar and mission deck (in fact most interior surfaces) have some form of metal foil wrapping & insulation on them.  It everywhere! The hangar has room for two H-60s.   Apparently they have only operated one aircraft at a time so far.  Hopefully the Navy will test for both H60 and two Fire Scouts which would be a really effective “fire team”.  The Fire Scout reps onboard said that the UAV had been operated out to about 110 nmi from ship and currently flys for over 6 hrs, but when test gear is removed and a new model enters service (in a year!?) flight time could be up to 8 hours.  One UAV had a 6 person test team.  They thought that 2 UAVs could be operated by 6 buy that is TBD.

 

Now comes the weird parts.  While the Fire Scout was landed on a large landing platform about 10 ft square~ that apparently is used for shipment and securing purposes.   BUT the flight deck itself was NOT rated for H-53s?!   On a ship whose dry goods/provisions are expected to delivered by VERTREP, and where other cargo like mission modules may be larger than an H60 capacity, why in the world should that big deck be so restricted?   It also means that support of large USMC lifts may not be feasible.  A bad design decision which needs to be corrected.  (subsequent discussions have indicated that the deck can be strengthened to accept an MH-53)

 

That leads me to another design flaw which I think is unacceptable.  There is an elevator from the hangar (stbd side long.) deck to the mission deck which is NOT capable of lifting anything over 6000 lbs.  The elevator is about the dimension of a TEU container.  Why in the world the ship is so restricted from moving cargo/gear between main deck and mission deck is beyond me?  So in essence nothing large/heavy can be landed and lowered below or vice versa?  Again a dumb design and certainly part of this “box” which needs correction.  A shipalt should be considered (if any changes are being allowed)?

 

Dropping down to the mission deck.  A couple of features stand out.  First there are three longitudinal “bays” for modules with structural columns in-between.  This is a typical configuration of Austal HSVs. There is a straddle loader for moving containers and boats etc around the deck.  A rather large piece of MHE, but seemingly flexible.   I could not get to see how the containers onboard were secured, but both ISO sockets and raised D-rings were installed in the mission deck.

 

The overhead gantry, aka twin boom lift system, was well into the overhead on the overhead aft to midships.  The officer said that boats could be launched at 5 to 8 knots easily, but he had not launched more than one type boat.  The ship had a Navy Standard 11 meter RHIB onboard for utility and testing support.  This ship needs to be tested with a full boat det onboard to prove capacity for boats, spares and crews.  Operating one boat is a bare minimum capability. NECC/NSW unit support should be anticipated.  There was a rescue boat outside the skin to port launched by at SLAD.

 

The sideport ramp is very substantial and can support a full ISO 20 ft container on a forklift truck.  I would say the mission deck is a vast improvement over the LCS-1 design (which was rusted from water intrusion and had an inoperable smaller ramp).

 

From an operational viewpoint, the ship was a little hard to judge.  The tour time did not allow for more discussions about weapons or sensors.  I was told there was relatively new ROC/POE, but the CONOPS was several years old.   The lack of installed weapons was obvious.  One medium caliber gun and SeaRam plus small arms.  There was a comment that these ships are “not expected to conduct offensive operations like a conventional warship”.  The comment was amazing, but since there was a tour group, I did not press the point.

 

The two 30mm guns were not expected until later as that was a different mission?!  To date the ship had been used/tested for one mission at a time and that was mainly MIW.   It would appear that while an air det (composition?) was expected as SOP, ALL other mission modules were on a one at a time only basis?  This may be testing peculiarity?   I submit that an air det (1 H60 + 2 UAV) and SUW mission module should be minimum for most operations,  but of course that is debatable.  OT&E was still going on, final trials and PSA had not been completed.  I did not discuss engine problems.  The ship is reportedly very maneuverable inport.

 

I obviously could have gone back to discuss more topics, but the crew was busy preparing for u/w ops next week.  Some other info noted:  The whole crew is cross trained, seems like every sailor had a collateral duty?  I did not discuss DC/FF.  Survivability was not discussed. There are lots more details that need to be looked at and the final OT&E report should be scrutinized for problems.

 

The ship is big, it has potential, I am very skeptical of its naval warfare capabilities especially in the dangerous green waters

 

For now, I think the characterization some have used before is applicable: 

 

LCS-2 has potential but for now it is a sub-optimal platform.  It must be improved up front.  BUTI suspect the Navy has cut a no change order deal for the dual buy, so improvements won’t be seen for years to come??

 

Lee

News on the F-35 that many won't want to hear!

via DoD Buzz by John Reed...

It looks like the first quarter of 2011 was a good one for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test program, with the plane logging 57 more test flights than the planned 142, even in the face of a fleet-wide grounding last month, according to Lockheed officials.
Interestingly, it was the Air Force’s F-35A conventional variant and the Marine Corps’ F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant that did much of the heavy lifting in achieving the 199 test flights last quarter.
The F-35As flew 82 times against a plan of 62 flights while the F-35Bs flew 101 flights against a plan of 62 sorties. Heck, the embattled Bravo performed 61 vertical landings last quarter. Compare that to the 10 vertical landings it performed in all of 2010!

Meanwhile, the Navy’s F-35C carrier variant racked up only 16 out of 18 planned flights for the quarter, according to Lockheed. No information was provided as to why the Cs missed their targets.
Two production model F-35As also took to the skies for a total of seven flights in 2011.
All told, the F-35 now has 753 flights under its belt since 2006, according to Lockheed.

Absolutely--Positively--Great News.

The critics are spinning and banging their heads.

APA is about to have a coronary.

I proudly say "I TOLD YA SO!"

Amazing.

Read the whole thing here.  This is ... inexplicable ... I don't get it.  But it does explain some of the operational decisions we've seen from the RAF.  Germany for all the hatred that I send their way seem to have the best grasp of things.  Either you fund a military that's able to fight or you don't.  If you don't then they stay on the sidelines.

How do you describe this Marine? Unbreakable!

via Marines Magazine.

Unbreakable

by Sgt. Mark Fayloga | Thursday, March 3, 2011 9:17 

SOUTHERN SHORSURAK, Afghanistan – Cpl. Matt Garst should be dead. Few people survive stepping on an improvised explosive device. Even fewer walk away the same day after directly absorbing the force of the blast, but Garst did just that. 
A squad leader with 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, Garst was leading his squad on a patrol in Southern Shorsurak, Afghanistan, June 23 to establish a vehicle checkpoint in support of Operation New Dawn.
The men were four miles from Company L’s newly established observation post when they approached an abandoned compound close to where they needed to set up their checkpoint. It would serve well as an operating base — a place for the squad to set up communications and rotate Marines in and out of. But first, it had to be secured.
As they swept the area with a metal detector, the IED registered no warning on the device. The bomb was buried too deep and its metallic signature too weak. Two men walked over it without detonating it.
At six feet, two inches tall and 260 pounds with all his gear on, Garst is easily the heaviest man in his squad by 30 or 40 pounds — just enough extra weight to trigger the IED buried deep in hard-packed soil.
Lance Cpl. Edgar Jones, a combat engineer with the squad, found a pressure plate inside the compound and hollered to Garst, asking what he should do with it. Garst turned around to answer the Marine and stepped on the bomb.
“I can just barely remember the boom,” Garst said. “I remember the start of a loud noise and then I blacked out.”
Since Garst’s improbable run-in with the IED, his tale has spread through the rest of the battalion, and as often happens in combat units, the story mutates, becoming more and more extraordinary: He held onto his rifle the whole time … He actually landed on his feet … He remained unmoved, absorbing the impact like he was muffling a fart in a crowded elevator …
What really happened even eludes Garst. All went black after the earth uppercut him. When he came to, he was standing on his feet holding his weapon, turning to see the remnants of the blast and wondering why his squad had a look on their faces as if they’d seen a ghost.
Marines in Company L think Garst is the luckiest guy in the battalion, and while that may seem a fair assessment, it was the enemy’s shoddy work that left Garst standing. The three-liters of homemade explosive only partially detonated.
Marines who witnessed the event from inside the compound caught glimpses of Garst’s feet flailing through the air just above the other side of the building’s eight-foot walls. The explosion knocked him at least fifteen feet away where he landed on his limp head and shoulders before immediately standing back up.
“My first thought was, ‘Oh [shoot], I just hit an IED,’” he said. “Then I thought, ‘Well I’m standing. That’s good.’”
Garst’s squad stared at him in disbelief. The square-jawed Marine has a tendency to be short-tempered, and the realization that the blast was meant to kill him spiked his adrenaline and anger.
“It pissed me off,” he said. He directed his men to establish a security perimeter while letting them know in his own way that he was OK.
“[What are you looking at?]” he said. “Get on the cordon!”
Garst quickly radioed back to base, calling an explosive ordnance disposal team and quick reaction force.
“I called them and said, ‘Hey, I just got blown up. Get ready,’” he said. “The guy thought I was joking at first. ‘You got blown up? You’re not calling me. Get out of here.’”
Once EOD cleared the area, Garst led his squad the four miles back to their observation post — just hours after being ragdolled by an IED blast.
“I wasn’t going to let anybody else take my squad back after they’d been there for me,” he said. “That’s my job.”
The next day Garst awoke with a pounding headache and was as sore as he’d ever been in his life. “Just getting up from trying to sleep was painful,” he said.
But he saw no reason being sore should slow him down. He popped some ibuprofen and after a day of rest, Garst was back out on patrol, showing his Marines and the enemy that just like his resolve — Cpl. Matt Garst is unbreakable.

Its time.

Time for a bit of unfortunate truth telling.  Europe is in decline and is no longer worthy of defense discussion as a whole.  Certain countries are maintaining robust capabilities, developing them etc...but as a pseudo-nation state, Europe is unworthy of discussion as a military power.

Roll Call.

England is no longer worthy of discussion.  They have destroyed their own forces in a way that no enemy could.

Germany is a non player in defense matters.  They maintain a strong industrial base solely for the opportunity to export weaponry.  A pacifist, isolationist strain exists to such an extent that they are the European version of what Japan once was.

Italy is worthy of discussion.  Besides maintaining strong naval forces, they have proven that they have the will and the means to exercise force.

Spain.  Ditto.

Romania is definitely worthy of discussion.  They are an example of "new" Europe and probably represent the saving grace of the continent.  Romania, along with the rest of the former Soviet Union satellite nations still possess a strong view when it comes to national security.  It is tinged with a big dose of practicality.  Once economic conditions improve expect these nations to shoulder the burden of the defense of Europe.

The Netherlands and the rest of the Nordic Nations.  Worthy.  They maintain strong forces that punch well above their weight.  Again, economic conditions will determine exactly how robust those forces will be in the future.  They do bear watching though.

NATO is dead.  This Libyan Conflict has shown that it is an institution that is out of balance and is not composed of equals.  Time to "hold it underwater till its feet stop moving".  The US gains no benefit from this alliance.

A favorite European past time is to discuss the demise of the United States.  Time they looked in the mirror.  It appears that not only has the US shouldered the burden of the defense of the West, but we also saved most of Europe's Banks during the economic meltdown.

A new way to view SNAFU!

Hey Everyone.

Blogger is upping the ante when it comes to its competition with Wordpress (I knew staying with these guys was the right way to go...even while others fled to the enemy)...

Anyway..long story short, if you want to see this blog in other dynamic formats all you have to do is this...

Copy and Paste which ever form fits your tastes into your browser and enjoy...

Flipcard: available at http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/view/flipcard

Mosaic: available at http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/view/mosaic

Sidebar: available at http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/view/sidebar

Snapshot: available at http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/view/snapshot

Timeslide: available at http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/view/timeslide

I'm personally thrilled by the 'usability' that this will add.  Blogger is doing its part to stay cutting edge.  I'll do mine to keep interesting, Marine Corps centric, Naval Service specific info coming your way (with a huge dose of "all things military").

Geez! I thought this crap was over with.

Meanwhile back in Japan...

I was looking for information on the 'making of a modern Japanese Marine Corps' which first took me to David Axe's site War is Boring which led me to the website Japanese Security Watch.  While still surfing for information on the 'new' Japanese Marine Corps, I ran up on the issue of the nuclear disaster and the ingenious Japanese using the NBC equipped Type 74 Main Battle Tank as part of the effort.  Read it all here, but this is the main part of the story.

According to the Daily Yomiuri, the GSDF is sending two Type 74 main battle tanks to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor to help clean up rubble and debris from the earthquake, tsunami, and explosions at the reactor site. The rubble and debris are hampering emergency efforts to repair the reactors. The GSDF is using tanks instead of bulldozers because the thick steel hull of the Type 74 is effective at blocking some radiation from the crew. The tanks also have NBC air filtration systems.

Swords into plows...or in this case adhoc nuclear disaster fighting vehicles.  Just out of curiosity I wonder why they're using these older vehicles instead of the more modern MBT's available?  Is there a difference in armor composition that makes them less robust around high levels of radiation?

Canadian Troops give instructions on making coffee.

Too Funny.  via EveryDayNoDaysOff....

Royal Australian Navy. A force without a spear.

The Australian Defense establishment and the Royal Navy in particular are to be congratulated on their procurement plans.

They are assembling a credible amphibious capability...but are missing the specialized force necessary to fully exploit new equipment coming online.  Cross training with the US Marine Corps has demonstrated one thing.  The Australian Defense establishment is missing a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to having a full spectrum force....

It  lacks a Marine Corps.  Having a battalion of Army Infantry cross trained to act in a naval role is short sighted and inadequate.

My modest proposal.  Form a Battalion of Marines.  The benefits will be incalculable and the risks are negligible.

Highlight on Harvest Hawk.

UPDATE! 

I've had a couple of readers question my assertion that the USMC came out with this idea before SOCOM did and since other nations are attempting to jump on the "instant" gunship bandwagon, that the Marines should consider this another innovation in the art of war and shout it to the roof tops (I stated that SOCOM will and the public and more importantly lawmakers will know no better).  Well it seems that proof is needed and to provide that proof I turn to the Blog "War is Boring" circa 05.07.09.  Read it and weep those who doubt me...

by DAVID AXE
The Marines have always envied the Air Force’s two dozen AC-130 gunships — which, with their accurate guns and long loiter times, count as some of the deadliest weapons in U.S. wars. This spring, the Marines decided to buy nine kits for their KC-130J tanker-transports, each kit comprising Hellfire and Viper Strike missiles and bolt-on sensors — with a door gun, optional. The result, code-named Harvest Hawk, turns a tanker into a gunship, in just four hours, on the cheap.
Now the twist: the Air Force has struggled for years to build a new gunship to replace the AC-130s, which average more than 20 years old. The AC-X gunship concept went nowhere. The AC-XX “gunship lite” program, meant to turn the twin-engine C-27J transport into a small gunship, apparently died this year, when the Pentagon cut the C-27J program in half. So now the Air Force is borrowing the Harvest Hawk idea, adding “sensors, communication systems, precision guided munitions and a single medium-caliber gun” to eight MC-130W infiltration transports, pictured, according to budget documents.
This kind of modularity represents the future of air power. Build a basic platform like a C-130, and add kits — and extra crew — for the gunship, tanker and other roles, as needed.

KC-130J Harvest Hawk: Marine Corps teaches old plane new tricks in Afghanistan 

4/1/2011  By Staff Sgt. Christopher Flurry  , 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Fwd) 

 

  CAMP DWYER, Afghanistan  — One of the U.S. military’s most seasoned aircraft has found a new purpose as a one-of-a-kind weapon for the Marine Corps in support of troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The U.S. military has relied on the C-130 Hercules platform for a variety of tasks including air-to-air refueling, and cargo and troop transportation for more than 50 years. But the Marine Corps, in partnership with Lockheed-Martin, has recently created a unique variant of its KC-130J by outfitting an existing plane with what has been dubbed the Harvest Hawk weapons system.
“It’s a brand new capability for the Marine Corps and it’s proving itself very well,” said Capt. Joel D. Dunivant, a KC-130J aircraft commander with Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352 out of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., who is currently deployed to Afghanistan. “I’ve been a KC-130 pilot my whole time in the Marine Corps, but this is a new capability for us to support the Marines on the ground.”
The Harvest Hawk system includes a version of the target sight sensor used on the AH-1Z Cobra attack helicopter as well as a complement of four AGM-114 Hellfire and 10 Griffin missiles, a modular, precision-guided missile system typically employed on unmanned aerial vehicles.  The system expands the role of the KC-130J for 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) beyond its traditional level of support to include close air support against enemy positions and providing surveillance to disrupt improvised explosive device emplacements.   
“Harvest Hawk, for me, is an opportunity to help the guys on the ground,” said Capt. Bradley C. Stadelmeier, with VMGR-352, a co-pilot for the Harvest Hawk equipped KC-130J.
Even with its expanded capabilities, Harvest Hawk crewmembers said the aircraft retains its original capabilities in refueling and transportation. Crewmembers said the Harvest Hawk KC-130J has been used to refuel other coalition aircraft in Afghanistan, and that the entire system can be removed in less than a day if necessary.
The Harvest Hawk first saw service in the Afghan skies in late 2010. Nearly six months since its inception, the aircraft has spent hundreds of hours in the air supporting coalition troops.
“I was highly skeptical of this program until I was on the ground side,” said Capt. Christopher Klempay, the air officer for 3rd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment.  “Now, my opinion is that this is one of the best missions the Hercules can provide the ground force commander.”
Supporting Marine Corps ground forces and coalition partners is one of the primary missions for the Harvest Hawk equipped KC-130J, and both aircrew and Marines on the ground said its ability to stay in the air for long periods of time, providing both surveillance and close-air support is a primary reason for its success.
“It’s great to be a part of something that helps Marines get home safely at night,” said Cpl. Jessica M. Egan, a crew chief with VMGR-352, who serves with the Harvest Hawk detachment.
Additionally, the aircraft’s laser-guided weapons allow for pinpoint accuracy, helping to ensure insurgents are neutralized with minimal impact on the Afghan people and their property.
“The Harvest Hawk is the close air support platform of choice for counter insurgency in Marjah, where collateral damage is a major concern,” said Klempay. “The fire control officers, who sit in the back of the Hercules, are the best in town because they have the ability to devote 100 percent of their attention looking for the enemy on their video imagery and talking to the forward air controllers.” 
In addition to its standard complement of officer and enlisted crew, the Harvest Hawk equipped KC-130J is manned by two fire control officers to monitor and control the weapons and surveillance systems. These Marines, either AV-8B Harrier pilots or F/A-18 Hornet weapon systems officers, bring their expertise in close air support and serve as a vital link between the Marines on the ground and the aircraft supporting them.
“The tools are a little different, but the job is similar,” said Maj. Marc E. Blankenbicker with VMGR-352, the lead fire control officer for the Harvest Hawk detachment, whose primary duty in the Marine Corps is as an F/A-18 weapon systems officer. “It’s very rewarding to take a skill set from one aircraft and translate it to another aircraft.”
Both Marines in the air and Marines on the ground have cited a recent mission as a hallmark of the Harvest Hawk equipped KC-130J’s effectiveness. On March 14, the aircraft stayed airborne approximately 10 hours, expending its entire complement of Hellfire missiles providing close air support for multiple Marine Corps units operating across Regional Command Southwest.
“That Harvest Hawk was on a general scan for IED emplacers. They found four individuals digging in the road, saw them drop something heavy into a hole in the road, and the battalion determined these individuals to be hostile,” said Klempay of one of the requests the Harvest Hawk KC-130J supported that day. “The Harvest Hawk launched a Hellfire, neutralizing the enemy threat.”
Blankenbicker explained the KC-130J supported two other Marine battalions operating the same day, eliminating a number of enemy fighters.
“The Harvest Hawk is a great platform. I can talk directly to the pilot and we can improve each other's situational awareness on the spot,” said 1st Lt. Charles Broun, a platoon commander with Kilo Company, 3rd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment. “Throw in the precision ordnance it carries and it is an outstanding combat multiplier.”
“Being in the aviation community, as an aircrew, gives you a unique perspective as what the infantry battalions do every day,” said Blankenbicker. “You see where they live; you see the villages where they work. We see firsthand the efforts of the units that we’re here to support.
“Whenever you are enabling a Marine battalion to better do their job,” added Blankenbicker. “That’s a good feeling.”

Awesome new capability but one thing annoys me.  This is another innovation courtesy of the United States Marine Corps...an innovation which is being copied by the Special Operations Command (and soon other nations around the globe...if memory serves a nation is already attempting to copy this with a C-27) and one that SOCOM will shout to the roof tops.  But it was brought to the imaginations of the warfighting community by the USMC.

Somehow, someway, the Marine story needs to be delivered in a more timely fashion.  Of all the services the idea of jointness has hurt the Marine Corps the most.  I believe its time to emphasize the differences.

Cool, Creepy and Insidious.

Not our usual fare but this was just cool and reminded me of a real life Aliens "chest buster!"

UK's Decline as a World and European Power is complete.

Think Defence has a remarkable story regarding the contribution of their force to the mission in Libya.  He proclaims half way through ....

Lets get a few things straight before the doom mongers start doing down the UK’s contribution.

He makes some rather fanciful (in my opinion) claims to refute the thought that I and others have.  They've cut too deep and are no longer a major player.  Read the whole thing but here's my attempt to rebut his claims.

Whilst Libya has been hogging the newspaper columns let’s not forget the scale of contribution to Afghanistan, anti piracy operations, the Falkland Islands and plenty of other deployments.
The Libya deployments have been in addition to these.

Sorry Think Defence but the other European Powers have commitments as far ranging as the UK's.  The UK has stood strong in Iraq and Afghanistan but this offensive against Libya is straining their resources in a way that is almost comical (if it were an enemy nation).  To see a trusted friend and ally suffering under the weight of this limited combat is most depressing.

Of course the main news point has been about a lack of carriers and Harriers, especially when compared to the French and Italians but instead of concentrating on what we haven’t got, how about a look at what we have, then compare that with the French and Italians.
Submarine launched Tomahawk, ASTOR/Sentinel, RAPTOR, significant tanker, intelligence and command and control support.
This in addition to combat air patrols and strike missions, whilst Afghanistan and other operations haven’t skipped a beat.

Again, Think Defence is off the mark.  One or two Tomahawk launches is hardly credible.  Compared to the number of sorties that the French launched with their Rafales, its somewhat paltry.  Add the fact that the French were making raids before the first Tomahawk was launched and not only must the Rafale be re-examined (it might be a better war plane than I thought) but the lack of having Harrier based strike being retired should be considered a HUGE mistake. Command and Control was accomplished with US and NATO E-3's.  The Sentinel is due to be retired shortly so its capabilities will soon vanish...and NIMRODS are going away soon.  The hallmarks of the UK's unique contribution will soon  be high demand assets with far too few of them to maintain any capability beyond that of a brush war.

The UK has in essence placed it expeditionary war fighting capability in the hands of the RAF...and the RAF is not up to the task!  If combat had occurred outside of the range of bases in Southern Europe then the UK would be sitting on the sidelines.

If I didn't know better I would think that UK strategy is to mirror Germany's by not fighting.  The UK is in essence removing itself from the stage.  Major foreign interventions will be impossible for at least a decade...probably two.

Politicians have been warning that their is a protectionist/isolationist movement in the United States that was dangerous and nonsensical.  Someone should warn the British government of the same.

USS Nassau decommissioned from service

via wavy.com

USS Nassau decommissioned from service

Ends nearly 32 years of service to U.S. Navy

Updated: Thursday, 31 Mar 2011, 5:17 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 31 Mar 2011, 3:23 PM EDT

NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - Over three decades of military service came to an end Thursday as the USS Nassau (LHA 4) was decommissioned at Naval Station Norfolk.
"Haul down the colors and secure the watch," was ordered by one U.S. Navy officer.
As crewmen from the amphibious assault ship disembarked the USS Nassau for the last time, the falling rain seemed appropriate for the occasion.
"This is not rain, these are tears," said Vice Adm. Peter Daily. "Tears because we're saying goodbye to a magnificent ship. Maybe a little bit before it's time."
In its 31 years of service, the Nassau carried Marines and sailors in support of military and humanitarian missions from Lebanon, Iraq and Haiti - missions similar to those carried out today off the coast of Libya and ashore in Japan in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake.
"We are witnessing a living clinic for why we need amphibious power in our Navy," said VADM Daily.
As the Navy retired the Nassau, her last commander reminded the audience that a ship, in and of itself, is nothing more than steel.
"Nassau was brought to life by people," said Captain Samuel Norton. "People have made Nassau Special."
People like Jim McGaha, who joined the ship about a year after she was commissioned in 1979.
"When I come on the ship that's one thing, said McGaha, "but I've not seen these guys in thirty years so that was reason enough to come back."
"Whether you're a sailor or Marine, you're a part of Nassau and you'll always be a part of the "Top Gator" team," said CAPT Norton.
As the decommissioning ceremony closed, one final pronouncement was made aboard the ship was made for all to hear:
"The men and women, both past and present that have served in Nassau gave her life for almost 32 years. Now as machinery is secured, the lights go dark, the hatches are closed and the last sailor goes ashore, her decks fall silent as she exhales her last breath and goes into history having proudly and faithfully served our nation."
The Nassau now heads to a facility in Beaumont, Texas, where it will stay in storage in case the Navy decides to reactivate the ship.

I'm not saddened by the news of the NASSAU being retired.

I'm pissed about it !

Why are we going to let this ship sit in a "watery retirement home" when it should be used in Marine Corps experiments to see if the aviation connector of the Sea Base is viable and necessary.  The Mobile Landing Platform is budgeted this year.  Every part of the concept is coming together...the only part in doubt (at least in my mind) is the 'aviation connector' so why not let the NASSAU do that work?

Using the Nassau in the role during exercises would allow  active ships to remain viable, it would allow the experimentation to go forward without disrupting ship/unit deployment schedules, and it would make a notional exercise come to life with an actual ship filling another vital role in the concept.

F-35B formation flight...

NavAir photo releases...

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - At a test range near Naval Air Station Patuxent River,
Md., two F-35B test aircraft accomplish a formation test point March 17.
Lockheed Martin test pilot David "Doc" Nelson flew BF-2 and Royal Air Force
Squadron Leader Steve Long piloted BF-3. The F-35B and F-35C variants are
undergoing test and evaluation for delivery to the Marine Corps and Navy
respectively. (Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin)

A bad day for Marine Aviation.

Yesterday was a bad day for Marine Aviation...a stark reminder that even training is dangerous.

First this from NBC News...

One Marine was killed and three injured when a helicopter crashed into a bay on the coast of Oahu, a military spokesman said Wednesday.
The CH-53 D Sea Stallion, with four Marines aboard, crashed about 7:20 p.m. Hawaii time Tuesday, Maj. Alan Crouch, with the Marines' public affairs office in Hawaii, told NBC News.

Then this from Marine Times...

An AV-8B Harrier jump jet crashed Tuesday in the Gulf of Aden shortly after taking off from the amphibious assault ship Boxer, military officials told Marine Corps Times.
The pilot ejected and wasn’t seriously injured, according to Marine Corps and Navy officials.

UPDATE*  It was a worse day than I thought.  Add this to the roll of woe...

From Commander Naval Air Forces Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Ten Sailors aboard the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) were injured March 30 when an F/A-18C Hornet assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron (VMFAT) 101 suffered a catastrophic engine failure and subsequently caught fire.

The injured Sailors were working on the flight deck near the jet when the incident occurred at 2:50 p.m. They were initially treated by the ship's medical personnel.

Four Sailors have been flown to Naval Medical Center San Diego where they are in stable condition. The pilot was not injured.

The fire was quickly extinguished, and there is no significant damage to the ship.

"I am extremely proud of our crew," said Stennis Commanding Officer Capt Ronald Reis. "The flight deck of an aircraft carrier is an inherently dangerous place, but our personnel are well-trained to operate safely in this environment. They responded quickly, professionally and with purpose, extinguishing the aircraft engine fire."

The cause of the mishap is under investigation.

USS John C. Stennis is homeported in Bremerton, Wash., and was conducting Fleet Replacement Squadron Carrier Qualifications in the Southern California operating area at the time of the mishap. VMFAT-101 is based at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

Modest Proposal. Attach Riverine Units to MEU's.

I am about to propose something that is pure blasphemy to the Riverine Forces.

Attach them to the Marine Expeditionary Units, subordinate them to Marine Command on deployments and get them out and about with the Amphibious Ready Groups.

As it now stands, these forces are sitting on the beach with a mission but without the means to get into the fight with a Surface Navy that doesn't want to use them...A Special Warfare Community that already has its own Boat Drivers...and a Command (NECC) that doesn't have the clout to get them where they need to be.

That all changes if they're assigned to an MEU.

Consider this sad fact.  Piracy is running rampant off the coast of Africa.  Riverine's aren't there.  The 22nd MEU is deploying to the waters off Libya.  Riverine's aren't going.  Unless we're going to disband this asset then it going to take assigning them to an MEU to get use out of them.

Training foreign forces...or training with allied nations isn't good enough.  Its time to get them into the fight.

*UPDATE*

Hey all.

I don't want the Marines to take back the Riverine Mission.  I do however, want the Riverines to get deployed.  If you believe that Riverine Forces will get there own amphibs then you're smoking crack.  If you think that Riverines will be able to deploy with MPS ships then you're still smoking something illegal.  If you think that you can position gear at forward bases and have personnel fly out and marry up with it you're dreaming.  This unit WILL go away unless you tie it to units that are out doing work.  If its with the Destroyer Force, ARG or Carriers then so be it but NECC does not have the ability to lobby for its own large ships.

173rd Airborne Brigade's Commander is relieved.

There aren't many US Army units that I consider shit hot. 

Fewer still that I think can actually hump with or fight as well as Marines.  The 173rd Airborne is one of those units.  When I first heard this story a couple of days ago, I decided to wait...I wanted to see more info.  It wasn't to be.  The Army is mum and the only thing that exists is rumors. 

On a sad side note, have you noticed an increase in the number of Commanders being relieved?  I don't have exact numbers but it appears to be higher than normal.  This story is from Stars and Stripes.

173rd Airborne Commander Relieved

by Kevin Dougherty

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany -- The Army has relieved Col. James H. Johnson III of command of the 173rd Airborne Brigade for serious allegations “that were substantiated” following an extensive review, said the deputy commander of V Corps.

The Army announced its decision on Johnson late Friday. Col. Kyle Lear is serving as the acting commander until Johnson’s replacement arrives this summer. However, it didn’t go into any detail about Johnson’s transgressions, or whether he will be court-martialed.

Brig. Gen. Allen W. Batschelet, Johnson’s direct supervisor, said in a telephone interview that Johnson faced “a number of allegations that were (later) substantiated.” Commanders need to be held to the highest standards, he said.

“Once this is compromised, we have an obligation to take action,” Batschelet said. “These sorts of things can become a distraction.”

While the Army says it can’t elaborate on the allegations against Johnson, talk of the colonel’s troubles are the grist of rumors, particularly in the communities where the brigade is based.

“It’s a pretty grave decision we had to make,” Batschelet said of relieving Johnson. “We hold commanders to the highest standards.”

Based in Vicenza, Italy, the brigade includes six battalions. Two battalions are in Vicenza, and four are in Germany, with three of them in Bamberg. The fourth battalion is based in Schweinfurt.

Johnson assumed command of the brigade in October 2008. He led it on a yearlong tour of Afghanistan, with the brigade returning to Europe late last year. The Army suspended Johnson as commander Feb. 17. On Friday, the suspension was lifted.

“He’s officially relieved of command at this point,” said Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, a spokeswoman for U.S. Army Europe.