Congressional trouble for Marine armor and the possible outcome.

Another view of the SUPERAV via Defensenews.com

THINK DEFENCE (you should check out his website if you have an interest in European defense issues in general and UK matters in particular...none better) sent me this pdf and its raises serious issues for Marine Corps vehicle procurement----and the people asking the questions are none other than the Congressional Research Office.


First this...

Legislative provisions in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act suggest despite Marine Corps testimony to the congressional defense committees in early 2012, Congress continues to  have questions regarding the ACV/MPC fleet mix. In the previously discussed RFIs for both  vehicles, the ACV must be able to self-deploy from amphibious shipping and deliver a reinforced Marine infantry squad (17 Marines) from a launch distance at or beyond 12 miles, while the MPC must have a “robust tactical swim capability (shore-to-shore) and be capable of operating at 6 knots in a fully developed sea.” Some analysts note the similarity in requirements and question whether, in an era of fiscal constraint, two different vehicles are needed.

Then...

 The ACV is scheduled to achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC)24 between FY2020 and FY2022, depending on the outcome of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)25 and final acquisition plans. The MPC is scheduled to achieve IOC in FY2022

These and a few other simple questions being asked by the eggheads in the CRO should concern anyone that has an interest in Marine Corps armored vehicles.

My issues are as follows...
1.  The MPC is up and running.  The requirements are set, testing will begin next summer and at least Lockheed Martin/Patria and BAE/Iveco are ready to go NOW.  The ACV is still vaporware.  Yet for some reason we're staging the introduction of the MPC AFTER the ACV.  From the outside looking in, it appears that we're going to have a winner of the MPC contest waiting and ready to go while we get the ACV sorted out and in production.  Correction, until we get it sorted out and production complete!  That just doesn't seem like a realistic plan.  Not for the Marine Corps or the manufacturer that wins.

2.  The requirements are so similar and I feel confident (at least right now) that both the HAVOC and the SUPERAV will crush it.  They'll perform up to standards and probably beyond.  How are we going to get the ACV into production (assuming this jacked production scheme actually passing Congressional muster) when the powers that be are going to be looking at vehicles that are "almost" as good as the ACV is suppose to be at lower cost?

Read the entire report for yourself though.  As it currently stands confidence is NOT high when it comes to believing that the Marine Corps will successfully navigate the current plan.

Unless leadership gets a handle on our amphibious vehicle issues and quick I'm afraid that we're going to see another EFV debacle.  Only this time not because of cost but because of a failed plan implemented poorly.

Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for ...

Don't fuck with a vet!

via CDR Salamander.  This is good stuff!  Like Sal says, West went nuclear.  This race is over.  I can't wait to watch Rachael Maddow's reaction to this commercial.

Futuristic Indonesian Patrol Boat goes up in flames!

NAVY RECOGNITION is reporting that Indonesia's futuristic patrol boat...yeah, the one they just put into service last month.  Went up in flames!  Amazing!  Go to his spot for details.

Royal Navy and Marines at Exercise Cougar.

 

“Cougar 12 provides us with a superb opportunity to rekindle our amphibious capability after a prolonged period when our focus has been on operations elsewhere. “

Commodore McAlpine

Participants in Cougar 12 are:
HMS Bulwark
HMS Illustrious
HMS Northumberland
HMS Montrose
RFA Mounts Bay
MV Hartland Point
Headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade
45 Commando (currently the UK’s on-call Royal Marines unit ready to respond to world events)
30 Commando IX Group
539 Assault Squadron Royal Marines
814 Naval Air Squadron (Merlins)
815 Naval Air Squadron (Lynx)
829 Naval Air Squadron (Merlins)
845 Naval Air Squadron (Commando-carrying Sea Kings)
846 Naval Air Squadron (Commando-carrying Sea Kings)
854 Naval Air Squadron (airborne surveillance and control Sea Kings)
656 Squadron Army Air Corps (Apache gunships)
659 Squadron Army Air Corps (Lynx)

107th lights up the sky

Photos by Senior Master Sgt. Raymond Lloyd

The LVTP-5. A warning for current Marine Corps vehicle procurement.

If you asked a Marine about tracked landing vehicles many could name the LVT1 through 4 that served during World War II.

Some could name the LVT(C)3 that served during the Korean War.

But I personally wonder how many know about the LVTP-5.  It was designed after the Korean War and the Marine Corps at the time was in the same spot that it finds itself in today.  The Marine Corps had just finished with a relatively long (at the time) war/police action that was somewhat controversial, not at all popular and lacking in total public support.  In other words the country was war weary after having just fought WWII and Korea.  The Marine Corps found itself under attack with many critics having called for its elimination and even more people calling it a second land army.

The greats of that time vowed to get the Marine Corps feet wet again and the push was on to make sure that the Marine Corps was viewed as an amphibious force first and foremost.  That would extend to its equipment, its doctrine and its vehicles.

From this muddle the LVTP-5 was born.  Check out these stats from Wikipedia.

Specifications
Weight	37.4 t
Length	9.04 m
Width	3.57 m
Height	2.92 m
Crew	3+34 passengers
Main armament	.30 caliber MG
Engine	Continental LV-1790-1 V-12 gasoline 704 hp
Power/weight	19 hp/tonne
Suspension	Torsilastic
Operational range	306 km (road), 92 km (water)
Speed	48 km/h, in water 11 km/h

Yeah you're reading that right.  34 fully equipped Combat Marines.  37 tons.  Almost 8mph in the water.  That has all the hallmarks of a winning amphibious vehicle right?

Wrong.

The specifications were for 50% water/50% land.  In other words it was estimated that the vehicle would spend at least half its time in the water.  During exercises and during the buildup to full fledged combat in Vietnam it served well.

Once the action heated up it didn't.

The problem.  The vehicle was OUTSTANDING in water.  On land its suspension broke, it couldn't handle its own weight and it was vulnerable to landmines...so vulnerable that Marines rode on top of the vehicle and risked being shot instead of inside where a landmine would cause flash fires to erupt.

The warning for the Marine Corps today is to make sure that the vehicles that are bought are robust enough for extended land combat.  Being good in the water is not enough.  Never forget the 2nd Gulf War and the march into Iraq.  Marine supply lines were stretched, our vehicles had trouble maintaing the momentum and it took will power and pure stubborness not to get left behind in the Army's dust.

We need amphibious vehicles that can make it to shore and THEN keep up with an M1 Abrams main battle tank cross country.  That is the measuring stick.  Anything else just won't do.  We must not repeat the LVTP-5 experience.

Dirty Secrets. Taiwan and Japan nose to nose...

One thing that amazes me about my fellow citizens is the lack of knowledge with regards to the Asian nations.  Few know that these nations have long standing animositiy towards each other and that the only thing thats kept them from heading towards all out warfare is trade AND the threat from first the Soviet Union and now China.

South Korea and Japan.  Mortal enemies.  Vietnam and China.  Mortal enemies.  China and Japan.  Mortal enemies.  The list goes on and suprisingly enough (at least its my impression) its a mix of racial pride, economic tension over resources and issues with immigration.  The latest two countries to go head to head?  Japan and Taiwan.  Check out this story and pics from China Smack.

In connection with the recent largest-in-history people’s protest for the protection of the Diaoyu Islands, Taiwan’s “Coast Guard” has dispatched over 10 naval ships in escort, including 100 ton, 500 ton, 1000 ton, and 2000 ton warships as well as established an emergency contingency center and command headquarters, to protect the fishing vessels.

With regards to the people protesting for the protection of the Diaoyu Islands, Taiwanese authorities have also given approval and support. Ma Ying-jeou expressed on the 24th that Taiwanese fishermen have been catching fish in the waters around the Diaoyu Islands for hundreds of years but now often suffer interference from Japan’s Coast Guard, which makes the fishermen extremely angry. He said, “If this problem can’t be resolved, it may also be very difficult to sit down and discuss other issues”. The Ma Administration emphasized on the 24th that the Yilan fishermen heading towards the waters of the Diaoyu Islands were sailing out on “legal/lawful” fishing operations and that the “Coast Guard” would definitely protect them, also dispatching multiple warships to escort them.

Long story short.  We need to make the turn to the Pacific just so we can keep our friends from starting a war with each other.  But even with a strong US presence in the area I wonder how long the lid can be kept on these long simmering tensions.

F-35B with AIM-9X

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Navy test pilot Lt. Christopher Tabert flies F-35B aircraft BF-3 with inert AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles Sept. 19 over the Atlantic Test Ranges. The test flight evaluated airplane structural loads and flying qualities during maneuvering flight. The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter designed for use by U.S. Marine Corps, as well as F-35 international partners in the United Kingdom and Italy. The F-35B is capable of short take-offs and vertical landings to enable air power projection from amphibious ships, ski-jump aircraft carriers and expeditionary airfields. The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River, Md., prior to delivery to the fleet.

F-35 test pilots Marine Corps Maj. C. R. Clift and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks fly two F-35B flight test aircraft (designated BF-2 and BF-4) during the first formation flying qualities test of the short takeoff/vertical landing variant of the F-35 over the Atlantic Test Range on 22 August 2012. The F-35B is one of the two F-35 variants that will be flown by US Marine Corps. The United Kingdom and Italy will also fly the F-35B.

USMC 3-gun.

I have a huge problem with the USMC running 3-gun.  First if you're gonna do it then they should stick with issue weapons...and I'm not talking about MARSOC issued weapons but those found in the Fleet.  Second, lets face it.  If this video is any example (and I'm not sure it is) then they're gonna get smoked cause even on the local level, guys come hard.  Race guns are all over, extended shotgun and speedloaders are all the norm.  And finally I just don't see how the sport of 3-gun (and it is a sport) increases combat effectiveness.  I mean seriously!  Some of the shooting positions that started in 3-gun that have been adopted by the "forward" thinking military shooters are just down right silly.  Contorted firing positions when its still possible to adopt a more conventional AND stable one to shoot from.  The idea of firing from your back...approaching a target while shooting?  Its all bullshit and most people know it but don't know why.  I do.  If you've ever been shot at then you know that you do it from cover.  If you've ever shot at someone then you know that you're not advancing on the target while doing it.  You take up a position that provides cover and you try to put them away.

The Marine Corps really needs to rethink its approach to the shooting sports.  Its gone from being combat based to something else.  

NOTE:
The photos below are from AR-15.net.  I didn't know it but they've been all over the "new" shooting positions and have had fiery debates on the subject.  To sum it up...no one could name one of the "new" shooting positions that was superior to the traditional ones.  As a matter of fact the debate ended with one of the commenters saying that the "new" positions were just more "ninja" looking.

 

Foxhounds put through their paces

British General kicks ass about firms hating the reserve!

Wow.  Different country, same issue.  Amazing.

BAE pulled a fast one. The Marine Personnel Carrier has been redesigned!

BAE is a slick company.  Slick as in smooth and for those that aren't paying attention they'll fail to notice simple little things.

Like the way they redesigned the vehicle.  Check this out.  The before Marine Day photo...

And now a pic of the vehicle as it was presented at Modern Day Marine (photo is courtesy of DefenseNews)...

Let me tell ya something boys and girls.  That's an entirely new vehicle.  Completely different than the one that they were modeling before.

Lets take it from the front back.  The front end has been totally redesigned.  I'm guessing but I'm betting that it has better water performance now.  Notice the lights have been moved, the front is more raked...now take a look at the suspension.  I don't know whats going on there but its been totally redesigned too.  Additionally and I can't tell because I haven't seen a photo of the top of the vehicle but I would bet its changed too.  Notice the RWS system?

We're looking at the VBTP on roids.  That means a high degree of automotive parts.  That also means they're gonna make this a price war.

The only real question left is this.  The Italian Marine Corps has a requirement for a MPC too.  Are they going to be offered the same vehicle as the USMC or is IVECO doing something unique for them?

Either way all the major defense writers missed the really big news.  BAE made an ass out of them and switched up vehicles and none of them noticed.

Note:
Below you see a pic of the Brazilian VBTP.  If I recall correctly, they are looking at producing an 8x8 version.  I think we're seeing a two-fer here.  IVECO/BAE get to leverage the USMC Marine Personnel Carrier Program with development of the VBTP 8x8.  Brilliant.  But a look at the current VBTP and the model on display indicates that they refined it.  Attention will now turn to the VBTP and see if we see a version 2.0.  This is getting good!

 

24th MEU. Aerial Refueling Training...over Djibouti City

Photos by Cpl. Michael Petersheim

NOTE:
24th MEU seems to be stuck this deployment at the Horn of Africa.  

The ships company form a T45 on the flight deck of HMS Dauntless

S-ATV Special Purpose All-Terrain vehicle

Thanks Xavier for sending me this.  I've been trying to get a look at this vehicle since last week!

Its from Oshkosh and just guessing but it looks like it has a narrow track so that means possibly V-22 internal transport.  The body style seems familiar but I can't place it.  With the gear stowed on the hood I'll also assume some type of mid-engine setup.  I can spot some type of pickup bed and since I'm also guessing that you have the driver seated in the middle with passengers on both sides and behind...maybe one driver with room for 3 others inside and maybe seats for two in the bed.  I can just make out a couple of machineguns from both windows, one up top and another in rear so we're looking at a typical SOCOM gun buggy.

Interesting.  Oshkosh needs to learn how to better advertise their stuff.  This should be on everyone's website by now and all I'm seeing is the announcements.  Only Army Recognition has the pic.

Time for new people in your public relations shop Oshkosh Defence!

Defeat facial recon.

So the government is coming out with facial id cameras?  Want to beat that little irritation if for no other reason than it pisses you off that someone is compiling this kind of database?  Then check out the vid below.

The attack aftermath. Questions must be asked.

Personnel of 51 Squadron RAF Regiment on a security patrol around the perimter of Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.
51 Squadron are the Resident Field Squadron at Camp Bastion who as part of 5 Force Protection Wing protect the troops and aircraft at Camp Bastion

51 Squadron (Sqn) Royal Air Force (RAF) Regiment carry out a routine foot patrol in their area of operation (AO) to the south of Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.
51 Sqn, based at RAF Lossiemouth in the UK are split up into various combat roles including quick reaction force (QRF) and guard posts around the perimeter fence, this particular unit are tasked with patrolling and engaging with local nationals in order to keep up to date with whats going on around Main Operating Base (MOB) Bastion, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

A few questions that must be asked about this attack...

1.  How did the enemy get close to the base without being detected.
2.  How were they able to breach walls without being engaged.
3.  How long did it take the Quick Reaction Force to respond to the incident.
4.  Why wasn't intel about an attack issued.


Why are we reading news stories about this incident before we have an official after action.  Why is the RAF Regiment is working so hard to state that this was a successful engagement of the enemy when it was anything but.  

The enemy penetrated the base and destroyed aircraft.  That means RAF Regiment had mission failure.

You can't dress it up any other way.

US Marines can't get away unscathed either.  We're the USMC, not the Army, not the Navy, not the Coast Guard or Air Force.  Since when do we depend on another force to provide security?  Where were our people that were charged with protecting these mission critical, high value aircraft?  You can have all the outer security you want but in my experience you always have internal security...especially if an unfamiliar unit is providing that security!

As much as I hate to say it we're being spun.  We need real answers to real questions.

NOTE:
I'm not hating on the RAF Regiment but geez.  Seriously?  Bragging after a successful enemy attack is just wrong.  If they had been caught outside the wire and repulsed then that would be one thing, but these bozos made it onto the base...over to the flightline and created chaos for over 4 hours.  Not good and nothing to be proud of. 

NOTE 1:
A unit that should get some kudos but is playing it low key are the Cannon Dudes from 2/10 (I call you gun bunnies but I'm trying to show love this one time).  They acted as infantry and added their firepower to the attack.  They're getting little mention while we're hearing about RAF Regiment and the Air Wing Marines doing their stuff everyone is ignoring how this unit stood to get the job done.