PRT Meymaneh

PRT Meymaneh's FLICKR stream from Sept of last year.  No updates.  Nothing.  I don't think they've pulled out of Afghanistan yet so I'm not sure what the deal is.  If you know then hit me up.

Robert Work talks Marine Corps future.

via DefenseNews.com
Read the whole thing but this is the part that covers the Marines.

Q. The Marines are thinking ahead to where they're going to be post-Afghanistan. How do you see the shape of the Corps ten years from now?

A. The Corps structure review group that was set up by Commandant Gen. James Amos has finished. It was a bottom-up review to look at all the different things they were told to in the most recent quadrennial defense review and defense planning guidance. They come up with the 186,800 person Marine Corps. Now, they're a force of readiness. That's their key role. And the Secretary of Defense endorsed that role.
The plan is, depending on resources of course, to be manned very close to 100 percent as possible. They would have an entirely modernized and upgraded ground mobility portfolio based on two new systems - the Marine Corps personnel carrier and the new amphibious vehicle. Our hope is that we can get have eight battalions of the new amphibious vehicle and four battalions of the Marine personnel carrier.
The Marines have already dropped the total number of vehicles in their Marine Air-Ground Task Force, forcewide, from 42,000 to about 32,500, and they did that by essentially matching butts to seats. And they said how do we keep mobility in the ground force? They are looking at their joint light tactical fleet, what's the best way forward, should it be the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or should there be some other option? They've looked at their medium truck fleet. I think they're in real good shape.
Aviation looks very bright. The secretary, the commandant and I are very confident that the engineering problems on the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter are going to be resolved. The Marines have made a decision to put five F-35C [carrier variant] squadrons aboard carriers, so they have lined up about 21 active squadrons, five of them C's, the remainder of them B's.

[Development of] the CH-53K [heavy-lift helicopter] is moving right along, and we're extremely happy with the AH-1Z [attack helicopters] and the UH-1Y [utility helicopter].

So when we take a look at a force in readiness, able to come from the sea, the plan is in place for a thoroughly modernized Marine Corps and thoroughly ready Marine Corps, going back to its naval roots and its amphibious heritage.

Q. Is naval fire support something in need of a solution or is the current capability acceptable?

A. In '13, we hope to take a look again at the 5-inch guided round, but the 6-inch guided round, the 155mm is going well. It's already met its threshold in range. The plans are to have three DDG 1000 destroyers carrying six of those systems.
We have an awful lot of 5-inch cannons in the fleet and if we can solve the 5-inch round problem, then the combination of the 6-inch rounds, 5-inch rounds and air-delivered ordnance is going to be plenty for any foreseeable contingencies.

Q. Production of LPD 17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships is continuing, with half the class is already in service and the sixth ship to be delivered this summer. Every previous ship has had problems to varying degrees. Shipbuilder Huntington-Ingalls Industries (HII) would really like to deliver a good ship, but they haven't done so yet. Do you see anything on this next ship that gives you hope?

A. We've had an awful lot of problems with the class, but the most recent ships are coming in in much better shape. We're still working with HII, we still want to see quality improve. As quality improves we expect scheduling and costs to improve.
But we're very satisfied with the basic design of the ship. Workmanship is getting better. We just awarded LPD 26 to HII, LPD 27 is a 2012 ship, and we'll start to worry about that once the budget is settled.
Sailors and Marines can't say enough about [the ships]. [U.S. Fleet Forces commander] Adm. John Harvey spends an awful lot of time trying to get that ship and the wellness of that class right and I think we've made great strides in doing so.

I just realized something while reading this entire article.

If I was a Sailor, I'd be downright pissed!

Think about it from their point of view.  The Marines are glorified passengers that do little aboard ship except take up space.  They're cargo.  Yet this minor service is taking up all the oxygen when it comes to discussions inside the Department of the Navy!

To say that a few months ago, it was fashionable to question the necessity of the Marines, its beyond refreshing to see that all of our major efforts are motoring right along.

For the Marines...life is hard, but life is good.

PS.

F-35 foes...read the part covering Marine aviation again.  How did Sheen say it?

Winning!

UPDATE:
I left off a part covering the USS America Class LHA...

Q. The biggest ship they're building right now on the Gulf coast is the assault ship America (lha 6). Will there be another lha without a well deck and an aviation version of that ship or is that going to be a one-off ship?

A. Nope, there will be two ships. LHA 7 will not have a well deck on it, and we'll have two aviation-capable ships.
Our intent is for LHA 8, which right now is a 2016 ship, to have a well deck in it. We're doing an analysis to determine the best and most inexpensive way for us to achieve that. Is it a repeat of the LHA 8 Makin class or is it an LHA with a well deck inserted into it? It's not going to be a completely newly-designed ship. It'll be a mod repeat of some type with a well deck in it.

Q. If it has a well deck, why isn't it called LHD 9?

A. That's a good question. I don't know whether that's been decided yet.

Libyan Forces fight NATO to a standstill.

I know what you're going to say.

This isn't an actual NATO loss...its a rebel failure.  NATO fought according to UN rules.

I know all that, but think about this sad fact.  As a military union, for whatever reason, NATO is 0-2.  A loss or draw in Afghanistan and a loss or draw in Libya.

The dumbest thing the former Soviet Union ever did was to NOT test Western military capabilities.  Conventionally we were at best on par...and no one had the guts to go nuclear.  Germany would have been conquered and the Nordic countries imperiled.

But back to this Libya thing.  If the madman can hold on long enough to start peace talks then he's won.  If he can be patient enough to martial his forces...do something silly to keep gas prices high without bringing down retaliatory strikes...is smart enough to keep his hands off international terrorism...then inside of a year he'll have regained all lost territory and no one will care.

Amazing.

Vehicle Neck-Down Campaign.

When it comes to the Ground Combat Element, we have a recurring issue that must be addressed.  That pesky little issue of what is the future of Tanks Battalions?

I believe we have a possible solution...but the solution leads to another question.  What about Light Armored Recon Battalions?

This whole issue is based on the Marine Personnel Vehicle.

In essence the USMC is about to acquire two personnel carriers...the first being the legacy AAV and its follow-on and then a new wheeled transport.

Why is this different from the way things have traditionally been done?  Quite simply because in the past, tactical transport was provided by the AAV (a tactical vehicle) and the MTVR (and before it the 5-ton truck), a logistics vehicle pushed into the tactical role.

The opportunity here is to decide exactly when, and where we will be using the heavy fire power of Tanks Battalion and if its necessary.

I believe it is but the opportunity to mount a 105mm gun to a wheeled platform can't be overlooked.  Additionally this could potentially lead to the Marine Corps being able to divest itself of the costly M1 Abrams, go to a lighter vehicle and incorporate all these vehicles into the AAV Battalions.  We have done something similar to this in the past with the LVTH-6.

If you can follow that reasoning then that leads to the LAR Battalions.  We are in essence going to have two separate wheeled combat vehicles (if General Dynamics doesn't win the contract).

That seems to be a waste of resources and a doubling of supply chains.  Trained mechanics that must be proficient on the MPC winner, the LAV-25A2 and a possible Hummer replacement (the Marines haven't announced if they're pulling out of that program) and now you have not two wheeled combat vehicles (depending on configuration) but three.

The idea is totally unsat.

Its time for a vehicle neck down campaign for the Ground Combat Element.  Cutting personnel might be a necessity, but cutting different vehicle types is a must.

UPDATE:

Let me be clear on an issue that Aussie Digger brought up.  My idea is that US Army Tank Detachments can be called upon when needed for heavy support.  How they decide to do it is up to them but I would probably push for 1 US Army Battalion of Tanks to be co-located with each Marine Division.  Lets face it.  Army Tank Battalions are looking for work, they can be easily attached and it would save us money.  Win win.

Expeditionary Fire Support System

European Sea Power done right.

The Phoenix Think Tank is a blog whose members thoughts mirror my own.

*They believe in a strong independent Europe and most relevantly...a powerful UK.

*They believe that as a maritime nation, the UK must reverse the terrible downsizing that the Royal Navy is currently suffering from.

*They believe that the retirement of the Harriers was shortsighted and politically motivated (so true!)

*They believe that economic strength comes not at the point of a gun but from the ability to first deter aggression and then, if that fails, to be able to react successfully to protect their nations goals/beliefs.

In short, we're like brothers in our thinking...in our service to our respective nations...and in our belief that naval forces are many times the instrument of choice when it comes to dealing with 22nd century despots, dictators and madmen.

Follow the link and read PTT. 

Sharkeys World also has a wealth of interesting information and is authored by the same individuals.  I have them both bookmarked.

Easy defense cuts.

If we want easy defense cuts then here's the way to do it.

Stop subsidizing Europe and pull our Combat Brigades out and bring them home.  Defense experts complain that Europe should be spending more on defense.  The Europeans complain that we spend too much.

Lets make this simple adjustment, get Europe from behind the US shield and watch our allies shoulder more of the burden.  This story is via Military .com but even though the Obama Administration is calling for fewer cuts, you can bet that budget reality will make this low hanging fruit.

Want to really save money?  Pull everyone back (the allies complain about US troops on their soil...well everyone but S. Korea and maybe Australia...if we ever get that base built in the Northern Territories).  World wide.

Read the whole thing but this is the operative paragraph...and from a Republican no less.  Shameful.

In a recent letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar warned that the withdrawals could undermine European security and the sense among NATO allies that the U.S. is committed to Europe.

I mean seriously.  European security.  Not US security but European security?!  Time for him to find a new job.

Quote of the day. April 8, 2011.

Lying offshore, ready to act, the presence of ships and Marines sometimes means much more than just having air power or ship's fire, when it comes to deterring a crisis. And the ships and Marines may not have to do anything but lie offshore. It is hard to lie offshore with a C-141 or C-130 full of airborne troops.
Gen. Colin Powell, U. S. Army
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

Come back from the edge Sweetman.

I wrote this on ARES blog tonight...

and guess what XGDUDE.

Congress forced a single program down the throats of the military. there was a competition and Lockheed Martin won. i don't remember nary a complaint about LM when they did. i hear nary a complaint about the F-22 even though its shorter ranged than the F-35, is a maintenance nightmare and its vaunted supercruise has yet to be validated in even a combat exercise.

but as usual this board has been and continues to be overrun with apostles of Bill in their negativity toward a program that is flowing tech advancements back to legacy programs and even the F-22 at a rate that would have had NASA engineers blushing during the heyday of the Apollo space program.

i marvel at the audacity, cringe at the stupidity and wonder at the motives of some of you here.

have fun boys. it ain't worth visiting or reading tripe like this anymore. oh and to the author of this piece. i've read the whole report and the summary.

seems you left out more than a few positives that were contained in it.

was that by accident or on purpose.

fair and balanced?

i don't freaking think so.

Sweetman and his merry band of followers have definitely gone too far.  No one is yanking him back and this vendetta against the F-35 is becoming twisted.

A noted journalist spinning facts to fit a narrative?

It ain't suppose to work that way.

But it is and no one is calling him on it.

This is a copy of the actual GAO report so that you can read it for yourself.  Suffice it to say that Sweetman left out quite a bit of positive information in his reporting.

I'm to the point where I don't expect anything less.

Thanks for sending this Craig...you're a hero (and forgive my rant)..



d11325

Lasers at Sea.

Lasers at Sea.

If it works on Destroyers then a major excuse for not performing amphibious assaults (and the missile threat is simply an excuse) goes away.  Amphibs will be able to make runs toward the beach and launch AAVs, and the next generation AAV with almost impunity.

But it gets better.

The threat of China's Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile becomes neutralized as well.

via Fox News...

Navy Shows Off Powerful New Laser Weapon

By Jeremy A. Kaplan

Published April 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

One if by land … lasers if by sea.
A futuristic laser mounted on a speeding cruiser successfully blasted a bobbing, weaving boat from the waters of the Pacific Ocean -- the first test at sea of such a gun and a fresh milestone in the Navy's quest to reoutfit the fleet with a host of laser weapons, the Navy announced Friday.
"We were able to have a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," chief of Naval research Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told FoxNews.com.
The test occurred Wednesday near San Nicholas Island, off the coast of Central California in the Pacific Ocean test range, from a laser gun mounted onto the deck of the Navy’s self-defense test ship, former USS Paul Foster.
In a video of the event, the small boat can be seen catching fire and ultimately bursting into flames, a conflagration caused by the navy's distant gun. Some details of the event were classified, including the exact range of the shot, but Carr could provide some information: "We're talking miles, not yards," Carr said.
The Navy, Army and other armed forces have been working to incorporate so called "directed energy" laser weapons in a range of new guns, from tank-mounted blasters to guns on planes or unmanned balloons. But this marks the first test of a laser weapon at sea -- and proof that laser rifles are no mere Buck Rogers daydream.
“This is the first time a [high-energy-laser], at these power levels, has been put on a Navy ship, powered from that ship and used to defeat a target at-range in a maritime environment,” said Peter Morrison, program officer for the Office of Naval Research.
"The Navy is moving strongly towards directed energy," Carr told FoxNews.com.
The weapon, called the maritime laser demonstrator, was built in partnership with Northrop Grumman. It focused 15 kilowatts of energy by concentrating it through a solid medium -- hence the name.
"We call them solid state because they use a medium, usually something like a crystal," explained Quentin Saulter, the research office's program officer. It was used in Wednesday's demonstration against a small boat, but Carr told FoxNews.com that this and other types of laser weaponry could be equally effective against planes and even targets on shore.
"To begin to address a cruise missile threat, we'd need to get up to hundreds of kilowatts," Carr said.
The Navy is working on just such a gun of course.
Called the FEL -- for free-electron laser, which doesn't use a gain medium and is therefore more versatile -- it was tested in February consuming a blistering 500 kilovolts of energy, producing a supercharged electron beam that can burn through 20 feet of steel per second.
The FEL will easily get into the kilowatt power range. It can also be easily tuned as well, to adjust to environmental conditions, another reason it is more flexible than the fixed wavelength of solid-state laser. But the Navy doesn't expect to release megawatt-class FEL weapons until the 2020s; among the obstacles yet to be overcome, the incredible power requirements of the FEL weapons require careful consideration.
Also in the Navy's futuristic arsenal: a so-called "rail gun," which uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound.
Railguns are even further off in the distance, possibly by 2025, the Navy has said. But the demonstration of the maritime laser demonstrator this week proves that some laser weapons are just around the corner: Northrop Grumman experts aim to have the final product ready by June of 2014.
"One of the things that amazes me about this business is that the future is getting closer every day," Carr said.

Brits to rethink defense cuts in light of war in Libya.

Read it at Sky News  

One thing is obvious.  It appears that the leadership is dead set against reactivating the Harrier force and for some reason is totally focused on the Tornados.

The Royal Air Force needs to be downsized.  It is constantly at war with the Navy and Army --- and seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of defense funds.  And its major contribution to the war in Afghanistan was in coordination with the Navy, yet they seem to have garnered all the credit.

Communication with the public regarding capabilities, roles and work done is beyond necessary.  Its essential to winning budget wars.  The US Marine Corps needs to learn from the Royal Navy.  Don't expect policy makers to "KNOW" what you've done, the sacrifices made and the value brought to the nation.  It MUST be shouted to the roof tops and publicized.  If not then the Corps will face the same issues that the RN is.

Patria AMV and the USMC.

Ok, a couple of things. That's being tested at Pendleton...Second I didn't know that the vehicle was suppose to be able to operate in surf conditions. Lastly...I like it. Still love the modularity of the now dead SEP but this seems to be doing the job. Also, its very interesting that the USMC would put out a video featuring ONE vehicle. This might be a nod toward the Patria AMV being single sourced for production. The Commandant said that he wanted this vehicle quickly...a selection now would be about right to have it in production by fiscal year 2013 or just after the next Presidential election.

Even Galrahn acknowledges the need for the EFV!

Galrahn has a post covering the fighting in Libya and where it might be going.  Read the whole thing but this stood out...

And yes, I'll say it, the EFV sure would be useful in the type of amphibious raid scenario we see in Libya where we do not want under any circumstances to have US Marines on land for longer than a single day at a time. The ability to rapidly move a Marine Rifle Company to shore from sea at sunset, roll into the city, blow up enemy equipment in an urban environment (hiding by a hospital, for example), hit a FARP, attack another couple targets, then pull back out to sea before daylight... EFV sure would be useful. I am not convinced the AAVs can do that, and if you send M1A1s and LAVs, you are staying longer than a single night because you can't get them on and off the shore fast enough.

Let me just add this.  It seems like our past is our future.  During the 1930's the US Marines were involved in a series of small wars.  While Afghanistan and Iraq don't qualify...conflicts like Libya do.  These are the types of missions that the Marine Corps is expert at...these are the missions that will be our nations future.

UPDATE:
Galrahn also makes this tantalizing and fierce statement...

It is a true lack of respect for Europe how almost everyone interviewed on cable TV describes the European military capabilities as the punchline of a joke.

Its not just me (talking to my readers in Europe).  There is a feeling in the US amongst 'talking head' military experts that Europe is not adequately pulling its weight in even this limited war.

If Europe (as a whole) is going to take its proper place in the world then it might be time (especially in light of the Dutch and UK military cutbacks) for you to fully integrate your military forces. 

Dutch slide off the cliff.

Jonathan (thanks bud!) sent me this disturbing article laying out the Dutch plan to kill its ENTIRE fleet of Leopard tanks and Cougar helicopters.  Is it me or might I owe the Brits an apology.  As draconian as there cuts have been (and I'm convinced that they went too far...killing the Joint Harrier Force...the Ark Royal...basically giving away a new LSD...) it seems that other Western European countries are ready to go even further.  Read it and wonder.

Dutch Army to Sell All Leopards and Cougars Army to Sell All Leopards and Cougars

THE HAGUE, 08/04/11 - The cabinet is virtually certain to announce enormous cutbacks at defence today. According to a leaked draft version of the measures, 12,000 jobs and complete army units will disappear. Defence Minister Hans Hillen already announced permanent budget cuts of 1 billion euros per year earlier. The cabinet already considered the far-reaching cutbacks last week. The decision was however postponed and will likely be made today. Public broadcaster NOS has already obtained the plans. It says that all 60 Leopard tanks will be divested. The 17 Cougar helicopters are also to go, as well as four of the 10 mine-sweepers. At least one-third of the 86 F-16s will also be sold. Some 12,300 jobs will disappear. Around 6,000 soldiers will face forced redundancies. NOS has not yet discovered where the blows will actually fall. The unions are furious and derisive. Bigger missions such as that in Uruzgan - four years, 2,000 personnel - will no longer be possible in the future, says ACOM chairman Kleian. "The Netherlands will have a Belgian armed forces. Flying now and then. And if there is money and petrol, then we will do a trick." According to defence sources, the Apache helicopters and Bushmaster heavy armoured vehicles will take over the tasks of the Leopards. The Netherlands can also step up European partnership, for example with Germany. But for this, there appears to be more willingness within the Netherlands than outside it. The Netherlands and Germany do already have a combined army unit. Allies are however hesitant about awarding full airforce or army tasks to a specific country. One in seven of the military must fear for their jobs. Defence currently employs nearly 69,000 people, including 48,300 military. Hillen will sharply prune the number of officers. Generals will also not escape the cutbacks. A sour detail for the military who are virtually on the street is that the cabinet will likely also approve the purchase of a second F35 JSF test aircraft today. This US fighter aircraft is to replace the F-16s. The investment will cost many billions.

The only good news in this mess is that they're going to buy the second F-35.  Still despite what many think...I'd rather see a balanced, effective force rather than one that is so (evidently the future) tilted toward air power.

LVTP-5

Below are pics of the old Corps LVTP-5.  They're courtesy of SGT GRIT website.  One thing to notice is that in several of the pics the Landing Vehicles appear to be launched while the LSD is moving at flank speed.  Its rarely if ever done today.  If anyone can provide information on that bit, I'd surely appreciate it.

This is the pic that has me suspecting that the ship is moving at flank speed.  I can't tell if the LVTP is approaching or leaving the well deck but even with 'some' distance from the ship, its still being influenced by the ships wake.

Peace time training...

The Navy is reporting that two Aviators died in a plane crash today.  My heart and prayers go out to the families.  The military in general and the Marine Corps in particular is a curious place.

Its one of the few jobs in America where just preparing to do your job can get you killed.

In the Marines at least, its understood that the nation will call you to war, will ask you to risk it all and you or someone you know might not make it back.  That comes with being in the machine.

Whats hard and little understood is that training deaths happen all the time.  They're usually stunning, unexpected and a bigger blow to a unit than war time deaths. 

So to the commenter "Wing Wife" I follow your lead...God Bless these guys.  And the Marine that died in the CH-53 crash in Hawaii too.

By From Naval Air Station Lemoore Public Affairs

LEMOORE, Calif. (NNS) -- Two aircrew were killed when their F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft crashed in a field near Naval Air Station Lemoore at 12:08 p.m, April 6.

They were assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 122, based at NAS Lemoore, Calif.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends, and shipmates of the aircrew," said Capt. James Knapp, commanding officer, Naval Air Station Lemoore. "An investigation is being conducted to determine the cause of the mishap."

The aircrew was conducting routine flight training at the time of the mishap.

The incident occurred approximately one-half mile west of the installation's property line on private farm land located in Fresno County.

The cause of the mishap is under investigation.

Identities of the deceased will not be released until after notification of their next of kin.

Like taking candy from a baby!

Jonathan (thanks Bud!) sent me this article from defense-aerospace.com regarding the Australian purchase of the Largis Bay.

Suffice it to say that the Aussie's have gotten a steal of a deal.  In one 'cheap' (think about it...this ship is the cost of a brand new F-15), well conceived purchase, they've doubled their amphibious capability...and with two Canberra Class LHD's coming online they're becoming a major player in the Pacific (as if they weren't already).

The only thing left to do is form a Marine Corps!  Read the whole thing but this is the gist of the article...

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that Australia has been successful in its bid to acquire the United Kingdom’s Bay Class amphibious ship Largs Bay.

The Government has previously announced that it had asked Defence to develop new and comprehensive options to ensure transition to Australia’s Canberra Class amphibious Landing Helicopter Dock ships, which become operational from 2014, including the lease or purchase of a Bay Class Ship from the UK Government.

Today, the Government is confirming that Australia has been successful in its bid to acquire a Bay Class ship, Largs Bay.

Largs Bay is a Landing Ship Dock (LSD) which was commissioned into service in 2006. It became surplus to United Kingdom (UK) requirements as a result of the UK Government’s 2010 Defence Strategic Review.

The ship weighs 16,000 tonnes. It is 176 metres long and 26 metres wide. Its flight deck has room for two large helicopters and can also carry around 150 light trucks and 350 troops. Its cargo capacity is the equivalent of the Royal Australian Navy’s entire amphibious fleet.

Largs Bay is a proven capability having provided humanitarian relief as part of the international response to the Haiti earthquake in 2010.

Largs Bay will help ensure that the Royal Australian Navy has the amphibious capability it needs for operation and humanitarian support in our region in the period leading up to the arrival of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships.

The ship has been acquired for £65 million (approximately $100 million).

F-35C on the catapult.

Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

Navy F-35 flight test aircraft CF-1 approaches the TC-7 catapult at Naval Air Station Patuxent River March 22. With U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matt "Opie" Taylor at the controls, CF-1 completed functional checks and performed the first test hookup of the F-35C to the catapult.

The US is vital to NATO...NATO is NOT vital to the US.

A disturbing story for my European readers from the Guardian...

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.
David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.
"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.
Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.
But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.
"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.
"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."
Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the French, who have been the two biggest military players until now, are retaining national control over substantial military forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to Nato authority.

The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are under the Nato command and control which was announced last Thursday.

Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike aircraft.

Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have pledged more.
"We're very happy that one country decided to bring in more assets," said Van Uhm.
When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that it had assumed "sole command and control" of all air operations.
However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, withdrawing "air assets" for national operations before returning them to alliance control.
"It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the lead," said Van Uhm. "There are assets under national control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what Nato does ... You could say nothing is happening without Nato knowing."
The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.
Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing campaign – France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway – with many others involved in policing an arms embargo and enforcing a no-fly zone.
Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.
In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.
Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The previous day, they fired Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles south of Sirte.
On Saturday, they fired Paveway IV missiles at two tanks in Sirte and also hit "several small ground attack aircraft" on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.
Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct ground attack operations.

 So much for NATO.

Stick a fork in it.  For all intents and purposes, this alliance is the 'walking dead'...Perhaps even more disturbing for Europe is the understanding that at present levels even a limited air war appears to be beyond its capability to wage independently.

Pic of the day. April 5, 2011.

F-35C CF-1 completes Flight 44 on 1 April 2011.  Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was the pilot.