Quote of the day. June 14, 2011.

via SKY News.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope says the Government must "reprioritise" if the Nato-led campaign lasts beyond the UK's existing six-month commitment.

He also admitted parts of the operation would have been cheaper and "much more reactive" if the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal had not been scrapped.

But the Navy chief refused to criticise the decision to axe the vessel and its Harrier jump jets taken as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

Admiral Stanhope said such comments had a "corrosive" effect on morale.

And the hits keep coming to the Royal Air Force.

But so does the truth.  The scrapping of the Harrier Force was a mistake.  The complaints and the fight after the deed was done is also a mistake.  Sometimes I think that the Brits are so interested in being 'well behaved' that they fail to become involved in vigorous discussions.

The lack of candor.  The lack of forcefulness.  The decision not to push back against the 'haters' until its too late has cost the Royal Navy and the British people.

Hopefully (but I fear that it is) its not too late.

F-35 Family Photos.

via Elements of Power Blogspot.

Elements of Power on the V-22 hit piece.

Catching up on some reading tonight led me to SMSGT Mac's blog Elements of Power.

I'm glad it did.  He covered a story that totally escaped my attention and one I'm beyond grateful that he covered.

Here's a piece but go to his place to read the whole thing.

Most of all, the article gives me (again) the urge to kick Bob Cox's macabre little voyeuristic a**.

If you take the time to read the article, you'll understand how he arrived at that decision.

Diving Supervisors Course.

The UK can't defend the Falklands.

Oh, I've tapped on this before.  Think Defense and his merry band of fellows shot my thinking down.  Ya seen they're a RAF centric blog and despise all things Naval.  Well here's some bad news --- and its delivered from one of their own.  The UK is a maritime nation and unlike the US, has a history (long history, not just a creation of the Cold War) of forward basing forces.  Unfortunately a company of Paras or Marines isn't going to be more than a speed bump to a well organized Amphibious Assault.  This from DefenseManagement.com.

Britain 'could not defend Falklands'

13 June 2011

A shrinking navy and lack of US support mean that Britain would be unable to prevent Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands and claiming them as their own, the Admiral who commanded British naval forces during the Falklands War has warned.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward said that Britain was over-committed and could not rely on the US to support the defence of the islands as it did in 1982.

Instead the US would support an "accommodation" in order to create stability in the area, Woodward wrote.

He also pointed out that the Royal Navy was significantly reduced and no longer had carrier strike capability.

"We can no longer rely on the Pentagon to support us in helping the islanders in their wish to remain essentially British sovereign territory," he wrote.

"Significantly the islands are already being called the Malvinas by the US. This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing."

"With our land and air forces already over-committed in Afghanistan and Libya, with the defence budget still shrinking, our submarine force more than halved, our destroyer and frigate force halved, our carrier force more than halved in terms of deck availability and completely discarded in terms of fixed wing assets – the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing other than accede to US pressure," Admiral Woodward concluded.

There are currently over a thousand troops, four Typhoon fast jets and a frigate stationed in and around the Falkland Islands.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance. The current garrison in the Falkland Islands is much larger in scale and has a greater capability than in 1982 and this together with our ability to reinforce rapidly by air has been maintained. "

I'm truly embarrassed to admit it but the Admiral is right.  This US Administration would not support the UK.  And that's shameful.  I'm ready to pull our forces out of Europe for one reason.  Decisions like the one that scrapped the Harrier and its carriers means that the UK is not serious about its own defense.

And that should be shameful to any Brit.

Marine Corps Sea Basing Warfighting Publication

I wasn't aware that this had been written.

Mcwp 3-31.7 Seabasing

Blast from the past...Chinook HC-1B

CH-53K

Yes its propaganda.  Yes its a rebroadcast.  But does anyone have an update on this program?  The first fully 'skinned' airframe should be ready.

Most Americans against continued action in Libya.

Any US involvement in Libya is and was a mistake.  It now appears that most Americans agree with me.  This from Rasmussen Reports.

A plurality of voters now opposes further U.S. military action in Libya, and most say President Obama needs congressional approval to continue those operations.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters feel the United States should continue its military actions in Libya. Forty-two percent (42%) are opposed  and 32% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is outstanding news.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that these foreign entanglements are draining our resources and allowing others a free ride.  Small realizations lead to changed policies. 

I'm loving it.

T-6

A Hawker Beechcraft T-6A Texan II Turboprop Trainer aircraft used to train Navy and Marine Corps pilots and Naval flight officers sits near the seawall at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., May 19 after undergoing a wing-off structural inspection and receiving a vintage WWII paint scheme at Fleet Readiness Center Southeast. (U.S. Navy photo by Vic Pitts/Released)

Modest proposal. Get protectionist with our defense spending.

Its time. 

Time to get protectionist with US defense spending.

We might not have the best product for a given task.

We might not have the best gear for our troops.

But it needs to be American made.  I'm a fan of the CV90.  I'm a fan of the Patria AMV.  I'm a fan of the Force Protection Europe Ocelot.

But our defense dollars need to be spent on and for US products.  Sad fact.  We are the biggest market in the world and every corporation in the world is trying to wiggle in on it.  Sad fact.  If we had even a semi functioning Attorney General Office, then all these mergers/acquisitions wouldn't have gone through.  We're allowing legalized monopolies that are destroying our defense base.  Sad fact.  Our gear will get the job done.  There is no need to go overseas for it.

Its time to play this game the way the Chinese, Europeans and other countries around the globe play it.  Free Trade is free for some but not for the US.  Want a strange take on things?  Read the Early Warning Blog.  On one of his posts he speaks up mightily for the Beechcraft product in the USAF light attack program vs. the offering from Embraer. 

What is that except protectionism?

Its mainstream and its right.  Time to protect US industry.

Modest proposal. SHUT down US European (all) Commands.

Modest proposal to piggy back on the SecDef's words to NATO...Shut down the European Commands and bring every service member home and shutter every base.

Shut down. 

US European Command.

US Army Europe.

US Air Force Europe.

US Navy Europe.

USMC Europe.


Why am I so convinced that this is the proper course of action?  Check out this chart from Wikipedia just covering USAF bases in Europe.  While you're looking at it consider the economic activity that could be generated from bringing just the USAF home, building housing for them and the extra business that would be generated in whatever base they're sent to.

Operating bases via Wikipedia.

The command has five main operating bases along with 80 geographically separated locations. These are:

United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath (48 FW) F-15E Strike Eagle (492 & 494 FS) F-15C/D Eagle (493 FS) HH-60G PaveHawk (56 RQS) RAF Mildenhall (100 ARW) KC-135 Stratotanker (351 ARS) 352d Special Operations Group (AFSOC tenant unit) MC-130P Combat Shadow (352 SOG) MC-130H Combat Talon II (352 SOG) RAF Alconbury

Italy Aviano AB (31 FW) F-16CG/DG (Block 40) (510 & 555 FS) Germany Spangdahlem AB (52 FW) F-16CJ/DJ (Block 50) Fighting Falcon (480 FS) A-10A/OA-10A Thunderbolt II (81 FS) Ramstein AB (86 AW) C-130J Hercules (37 AS) C-20H (76 AS) C-21A (76 AS) C-40B (76 AS)

Secondary and Support Facilities:

Belgium Chièvres Air Base (86 AW) C-37 Gulfstream V (309 AS) Bosnia-Herzegovina Tuzla Air Base (Det. 401 AEG) Cyprus RAF Akrotiri U-2S (part of deployed tenant unit from 9 RW of ACC) Germany Stuttgart-Echterdingen Airport (86 AW) C-21A (HQ USEUCOM) Hungary Taszar Air Base Italy San Vito dei Normanni Air Station Norway Sola Sea Air Station (426 ABS) Stavanger Air Station (Det. 426 ABS)

Portugal Lajes Air Station (65 ABW) Spain Morón Air Base (86 AW, 496 ABS) Turkey İzmir Air Base Ankara Air Station Incirlik Air Base (39 ABW) United Kingdom 501st Combat Support Wing RAF Alconbury RAF Alconbury (423 ABG) RAF Croughton (422 ABG) RAF Molesworth (423 ABG) RAF Upwood (423 ABG) RAF Welford (424 ABS) RAF Menwith Hill (421 ABG) RAF Fairford (420 ABG) Operated as surge base, particularly for U.S. based B-52s and B-1Bs

That my friends is just the USAF!

Bring all our forces home.  Let Europe be responsible for Europe and lets get some common sense back into our defense spending.

UPDATE:
Don't think that I would stop at shutting down bases in Europe.  I'm talking about a global re-alignment.  Shut down bases in S. Korea (they can handle N. Korea just fine thank you)...Shut down bases in Japan.  Guam is fine.  The only new base I would seek is one in the Northern Territories of Australia.  Northern Australia is lightly populated and I would ask the Australians if they would look kindly on a joint base housing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Units on it.  I would also seek to make use of the vast terrain for training opportunities.

EFV replacement...another view.

DOD Buzz has a different take on the EFV replacement program that has to looked at...

In an ideal world, then, the Marines would be able to take the things they know worked well about the EFV, including its weapons, for example, or engine and other components, and graft them onto a new, more reliable swimming hull. But that goal of reliability may mean the new vehicle doesn’t have the transforming bow ramp that the EFV had, and as such may not be able to skim over the water at its same high speeds.
What’ll be interesting is whether the Navy and Marines update their amphibious doctrines to make room for their new vehicle, or whether they’ll keep the same assumptions and try to somehow get a cheaper EFV Lite. The Navy and Marines believe that in tomorrow’s amphibious operations, the proliferation of guided anti-ship missiles will make it too dangerous for Navy assault ships to stand very close to the coast. So the Marines needed the high-speed EFV to get to shore quickly on the assumption the fleet would take station over the horizon, far away from the beach.

What has me spinning is that I thought the discussions were over.  That the threshold had been breached and that Navy ships would move closer to the beach.

That one requirement will make or break the EFV replacement.  This definitely bears watching.

USMC Sea Basing Docs.

The USMC Sea Basing Site is back up...but unfortunately its been scaled back to obscene proportions.  What drove this is beyond me but they did put up 3 new documents.  A Why, How and What in regards to the Sea Base.

What is Seabasing

Why We Seabase

How We Seabase

The beauty of the Sea Base is that it codifies the turn toward the Pacific and away from Europe/Middle East.  The bad thing about the Sea Base is that its still being promoted to allies that bring nothing to the table and will allow those same 'allies' to continue to sit on the sidelines with token forces...in this instance Naval Forces...while the US and its real partners will be engaging in real work---be it humanitarian assistance (Remember the Japanese Nuclear Crisis?  Who didn't you see there?  Many European countries!) to peace keeping and of course war.

UPDATE: 
USMC Seabasing Website.

Mid Rats.

Want to hear what military bloggers have to say about the mess that is NATO?  Listen to Blog Talk radio.

UPDATE:

What a disappointment!  Little talk about NATO...and when it was covered the 'guest' sounded like an apologist for Russia.

When does the US ever get someone to ever speak up for our own interests?  This 'guest' also talked in glowing terms about NATO and stated that they need to aim for small wars!  If Libya isn't a small war then what the fuck is!

Even more of a kick in the nuts is the fact that the hosts didn't sufficiently challenge this guys assertions.  To be honest I felt like I was listening to a college lecture.  No debate, just opinion.  And liberal opinion at that.

What a complete 180 degree difference from the hosts writing. 

Never again will I invest an hour listening.  Never again.

The US SecDef---and Bloggers telling Europe an uwelcome truth.

As usual the Euros (yes I know you consider it money on the other side of the Atlantic--I'm using it as a collective nickname for the pacifist set) over at Think Defense are blaming everyone and there mother for the lack of European 'guts' when it comes to fighting a 9th rate power like Libya and coming up short.

In a nut shell.  Europe needs to man the fuck up.

Well, its just not me saying this...others are too...of course they're alot more diplomatic but the results are the same.  

European Defense is an oxymoron. 

First up... CDR Salamander's Website...

We have been too polite for too long.

Read the whole thing----please read the whole thing and follow his links.  He makes the argument much better than I ever could. 

And then this from DOD Buzz...

The defense secretary was even harsher in his critique of NATO’s command of the Libya operation. After an initial bombing campaign run by the Americans, the alliance took over the air war and Mr. Gates warned that NATO may not be up to the task.

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only eleven weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.

While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.

“Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t,” Mr. Gates said. “The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”

NATO is a lost cause.  Its another of the many money pits that's draining the US treasury.  It's beyond time we put that old war horse out of its misery.

Assault Breacher Vehicle. Perfect except for one thing.

Above you see the Assault Breacher Vehicle. Perfect except for one thing. One pretty big thing I would imagine if I were a Combat Engineer. What is it you ask? For the answer lets look at what came before. The M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle (CEV) had a 165mm Assault Gun designed to knock out enemy fortifications. The ABV doesn't have that. Perhaps it isn't as important these days due to precision artillery, precision air strikes and guided anti-tank missiles that can be used in the bunker busting role. I'm not sure of the rationale for not including an assault gun on the ABV but it would be nice if it could be explained.

SEAL/SWCC Training.

Got this vid from their FaceBook page.




Navy SEAL Qualification Training [SQT] from Navy SEALs on Vimeo.

David's got awesome pics...check him out.

Plus he's in Southern Europe...they still like America down there and in the former Soviet States, so you won't have to read America bashing on his site!

Marine Corps Mechanized History Sites.

Marine Corps Mechanized Museum

Amtrac.Org

Both sites can give a quick over view of Marine Corps Vehicles through out the years.  I'm currently looking for the official history (the Marine Corps is usually very good about such things) of Marine Corps AAVs, Tanks, Artillery and other mechanized units.