Flight Operations by Sgt. Jennifer J. Pirante

Lockheed Martin's Final JLTV Development Vehicle Rolls Off Assembly Line

via Lockheed Martin Press Release.

The Lockheed Martin team produced a total of 22 JLTV test vehicles, which were manufactured at BAE Systems' Sealy, Texas, manufacturing facility, a world leader in the production of military and severe-duty wheeled vehicles. Delivery to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps for long-term testing and evaluation is scheduled for August 22.
"Lockheed Martin is committed to providing our soldiers and Marines with a vehicle of unequalled capability and dependability, and one that is affordable both to buy and to operate," said Scott Greene, vice president of ground vehicles for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "We are excited to get these vehicles into the hands of the customer. Early break-in testing is under way, and we are confident that our JLTV design will serve our servicemen and women well."
Following successes in the program's Technology Development phase, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps awarded Lockheed Martin a $65 million contract in August 2012 to continue developing JLTV through the EMD phase. Initial tests demonstrated that the Lockheed Martin design provided blast protection equivalent to much larger mine-resistant vehicles in service today.
The Lockheed Martin Joint Light Tactical Vehicle balances the "iron triangle" of protection, performance and payload while maintaining affordability. Compared to general-purpose vehicles currently in service, the Lockheed Martin JLTV will provide greatly improved crew protection and mobility, lower logistical support costs, superior fuel efficiency and state-of-the-art connectivity with other platforms and systems. The team's current JLTV design maintains the proven force protection, transportability and reliability of the earlier Technology Development model, while significantly reducing weight and cost.

Sorry.

I can't get excited about this concept.

It doesn't thrill me and if I can't get the MPC then we don't need this.  The Commandant signed onto this to placate the US Army and everyone in the Corps is screaming to just upgrade the existing Humvees.

Lets see exactly how far his "jointness" goes.  If he continues with the JLTV then we know that its not about whats best for the Corps but rather what can he do to please another branch.  Our armor house is in shambles.  The AAV is elderly, the M1A1 is in need of upgrading, the MTVR has been rode hard and the only thing that is new is the EFSS, whose mission I still have to figure out.

We'll see what we'll see but confidence is not high.

Lebanon & Jordanian deployments?

I'm listening with one ear to FoxNews and I believe I heard them say that 1000 Marines would be staying in Jordan and that F-16's and Patriot Missile batteries would also.

Additionally I heard that trainers would be going to Lebanon.

Uh Wow!

Hezbollah just struck Lebanese Army Checkpoints killing a couple of officers and wounding several soldiers.

Yeah.

We're going to play cute and get drug into another war.  Sidenote.  If those Marines are from the 26th MEU then that is now an understrength unit.  If they're not going straight home then they're on a restricted footing when it comes to mission capability.

Marine Personnel Carrier. An opportunity lost.

I think we missed out on a great opportunity with the cancellation of the MPC.

Not only were we going to be able to select a wheeled amphibious personnel carrier that was either proven in combat or in testing but additionally, we missed the chance to standardize with the Army and become fully digitized.

Yeah.

We could finally do something joint that has teeth.  We could leverage off Army architecture in the Stryker and fully integrate ourselves into mechanized combat.

Additionally, we missed out on savings for maintenance and could have finally gotten our infantry into proper armored protection.

Instead we're faced with continued vacillation and doubt about whether or not the Amphibious Combat Vehicle will be a high water speed variant or a product improved version of what we have now.

Bad times don't last and neither do design teams.  The people from BAE and Lockheed Martin will soon go on to other projects.  All the work done on these vehicles will be lost and even if we're able to afford them 10 years from now the institutional knowledge will be lost in those shops.

Are we so wedded to tracks that we couldn't see another way?

Are we so wedded to over the horizon assault that we can't see the gold sitting right in front of our faces?

It would appear we are.  That's a shame.  The EFV/ACV is now historic in its failure and in its length of development without product.

Chesty would be ashamed.

8000 Boat spaces gone. USMC about to be decimated.

via National Defense Blog.

To absorb its share of a $500 billion spending cut that will hit the Defense Department over the next decade, the Marine Corps would shed 8,000 troops and forgo purchases of new armored vehicles, trucks, tactical aircraft and helicopters.
The Marine Corps is prepared to shoulder its portion of the sequester, said Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Under current law, the Defense Department would have to slice 10 percent off its future planned spending between now and 2021. Secretary Chuck Hagel recently completed a “strategic choices and management review” that will inform future budgets. The leaders of each branch of the military were asked to offer alternative scenarios for how they would absorb the cuts. The review is expected to shape the fiscal year 2014 budget and beyond. The administration’s spending request for the Defense Department that was submitted to Congress in April ignores the sequester. A revised 2014 budget that reflects the 10 percent sequester is in the works, and is expected to arrive on Capitol Hill July 1.
Amos said the Marine Corps already had been conducting what-if budget drills even before the sequester went into effect March 1.

“We studied what the force would look like,” Amos said June 26 during a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C.
The Marine Corps completed an extensive “force structure review” in 2011 that called for post-war reductions of 20,000 active-duty troops, from 202,000 to 182,000 by 2017. “That’s acceptable risk,” said Amos. The Corps currently is at 194,000, losing about 5,000 Marines per year.
If sequester cuts continue beyond 2013, the Corps will have to cut 8,000 more Marines, resulting in a force of 174,000. “I have articulated the risk [of this reduction] to the secretary of the Navy and the secretary of defense,” Amos said. With a force of 174,000, for instance, the Corps would not be able to support rotational deployments as it has for the past 12 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. “We would go to war and come back”, Amos said.
“I don’t want this to happen,” he said of the sequester-related cuts. But as soon as sequester became law, Corps leaders decided to begin drawing up options for how to cope with the reductions.
The centerpiece of Marine combat forces is the infantry battalion. From a peak of 27, the Corps is down to 23. Amos would not specify how many more battalions could be eliminated as a result of sequester. But if 8,000 Marines have to go, “there will be battalions in there,” he said. Each battalion is made up of 800 to 1,000 Marines, and is supported by logistics, aviation and other specialized units.
Part of the 8,000-troop reduction would include fixed-wing aviation squadrons that currently fly F/A-18 fighters and Harrier vertical takeoff attack jets. Future F-35B squadrons would be affected, too, said Amos, as well as attack helicopter units that operate Cobra and Huey aircraft. Some V-22 Osprey cutbacks might also be in the mix.
Ground vehicles also would be axed if sequester cuts continue. The Corps already nixed a new armored personnel carrier. “You can’t have everything,” said Amos. The joint light tactical vehicle — a truck that the Marine Corps and the Army are developing to replace the Humvee — would be on the chopping block as well. “I keep telling everyone, ‘You have to get the cost down or I’m not going to buy it,” said Amos. “Under sequestration, it’s questionable.” The fallback plan is to fix older Humvees and seven-ton trucks. “I like JLTV but I’m not going to die in a ditch for it,” he said.
Amos is not willing, however, to give up a new amphibious combat vehicle — which operates on land and in water — that has been in the works for nearly three years, following the cancellation of the troubled expeditionary fighting vehicle. The Pentagon supports the ACV, said Amos. Now the issue is “how to build it so that it is affordable.” Two concepts are being considered: one high-seed hydroplaning design and a lower speed displacement vehicle. “They’ll tell me in the fall what is the art of the possible,” he said. “I need a good solid Ford F-150. I don’t need a Cadillac Escalade.”
If the Marine Corps has to give up 10 percent of its budget, whatever size force it can afford at that reduced level of spending has to be “equipped and ready,” said Amos. A smaller but well prepared force is better than a larger one that lacks proper training and equipment, he said. “What I said to the secretary is, ‘If you’ll tell me how much my portion of the bill is, allow me the flexibility to build the best Marine Corps America can afford."

Gentlemen.

This is only the beginning.

Make plans now for a forced exit if you're a first term infantryman or a careerist that has been in trouble. This ain't Chesty's Marine Corps anymore.

The trust has been broken.  Its now everyman for himself.  Take care of yourself and plan accordingly.

As far as vehicles are concerned, the MPC is officially dead, the APC is really on life support and I expect a modified AAV to be renamed.

Expect Amos to go to the mat to protect the V-22.

Yeah.  This is going to get alot worse.

Hush Kit lists its top 10 Beyond Visual Range Fighter....

Hush Kit puts together a list of its top ten beyond visual range fighters and the Mighty F-15 is number 6?  The Eurofighter is ranked ahead of it at number 2 even though its slower and still uses a mechanically scanned radar?

I think Hush Kit screwed up this time but you can read it here.

Nick Kaloterakis' Concept Art...

Marines Conduct Beach Assault During Dawn Blitz 2013

Happy Birthday Chesty! Wherever you are!

Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller (June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) 

We need him so bad in the Commandant's chair!  Mattis would be a good second choice though.

Happy birthday Chesty!

NOTE:  Special Thanks goes out to GRUNTWORKS!  I can't believe I forgot his birthday.  

Pic of the day....

UK wargames the F-35. As predicted the results are favorable.

Ok.

Lets be honest.  If you script a wargame, 99 times out of 100 you'll find a way for the good guys to win.  For the one time where they lose its to get funding for a new toy.  So when I heard that the UK wargamed the F-35, the results were obvious to me before I even read the article.  The F-35 would be a war winner bringing untold capabilities to the end user.

What we need is General Van Ripper tossing some monkeys into the machinery.  Story via Royal Navy News.

Four F35 Joint Strike Fighters fended off an air attack against the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier battle group as destroyer HMS Dauntless and ‘eye in the sky’ Sea Kings helped form an aerial shield around the flagship.
Royal Navy air crew and ops rooms teams across the land linked up via simulators to test how they the Fleet of tomorrow would work together in battle.
FOUR F35 Joint Strike Fighters fended off an air attack against the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier battle group as destroyer HMS Dauntless and ‘eye in the sky’ Sea Kings helped form an aerial shield around the flagship.
For the first time aircrew, operations room teams, scientists and technicians tested how the technology of today’s and tomorrow’s Royal Navy will work together on the battlefield.
They used simulators to link up the Type 45 destroyer, a Sea King, the 65,000-tonne leviathan, and a quartet of the stealth fighters to see how they can share information to defend the Fleet and to direct the F35s on to incoming targets.
Fleet Air Arm, RAF and US Navy pilots ‘flew’ F35s from simulators at BAE’s site in Samlesbury in Lancashire, while two ‘bagger’ aircrew in Culdrose simulated a mission in an Airborne Surveillance and Control Sea King.
On the Isle of Wight, air warfare officers from HMS Duncan were at the controls of the Queen Elizabeth carrier lab, while on Portsdown Hill their counterparts, and fighter controllers, from sister ship HMS Dauntless were doing the same in the Type 45 lab.
The idea was to see whether the reams of data and information the Sea King, Type 45, carrier and four fighters could be passed from helicopter to F35 to ship in real time so decisions could be made and threats eliminated – exactly as would be expected were the Queen Elizabeth battle group on front-line operations.
“Not only does this help the UK customer get their heads around how the F-35 will integrate into operations, but it can also save a lot of time and money,” explained Tony Hall, the BAE F35 programme manager overseeing the trials. “We can identify issues early and fix things at this stage far easier than when the aircraft are built and in operation.”
The simulated link-up was, said Lt Cdr Mark Humphries of the RAF Air Warfare Centre at Waddington, “something we have never been able to do before” and it proved to be “extremely valuable”.


Lt Cdr Jim Blythe, air warfare officer on HMS Dauntless, said the link-up with the other ships and aircraft had really tested the Type 45’s combat system and given the destroyer’s fighter controllers much better understanding of directing the jets; it’s the job of fighter controllers to help guide an aircraft on to a target. “We are in a far better place for working with the F35 when it comes into service,” he said.
Three real F35 evaluation models are currently in UK hands and are being tested in the USA right now. The front-line versions aren’t due to begin trials aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is launched next year, until 2018.
The jump jet – also known as the Lightning II – is the world’s first fifth-generation fighter jet (the Harrier, which it replaces, was third generation) and gives the pilot unparalleled understanding of the world around them.
As for the Type 45s, they can track aircraft up to 250 miles away – one parked in Portsmouth can watch aircraft landing and taking off from Charles de Gaulle, Manchester, or on final approach at Schiphol in Amsterdam. And courtesy of its Sea Viper missile it can take out incoming enemy aircraft or missiles up to 70 miles away.


And the baggers can track targets in the air or on the ground – as they’ve demonstrated over the past decade first in Iraq and today over Afghanistan, where the helicopters of 857 Naval Air Squadron continue to fly daily.

Note. You can bet that the next modification to the V-22 (after its converted to an aerial refueler) will be to act as an AEW platform. The Marines and the Royal Navy will be buyers and that will give Amos his greatest joy. Turning the Marine Corps into a junior Carrier Aviation business concern.

150 million dollars and 600 miles range? Just buy F-35's if that's the case!

Lockheed Martin Sea Ghost.

I'm getting pissed.

via USNI News.

The Navy aims to build a stealthy pilotless aircraft to patrol at a minimum range of 600 nautical miles around an aircraft carrier at a maximum cost of $150 million a copy, according to a May Navy requirements documents obtained by USNI News.

I mean seriously?  Really?  Why go unmanned if those are the parameters?  Why not just buy additional F-35's????  An unproven concept to augment the Triton UAVs that cost as much as F-35's?  And yet the Marine Corps can't buy Marine Personnel Carriers and Amphibious Combat Vehicles????

Time to punch a wall. 

A European Amphibious Ready Group???

Think Defense has an interesting article about a proposed European Amphibious Ready Group pulling together several different nations to equal the capability found in one of our MEU's.

We sometimes forget exactly how powerful our Carrier Battle Group and Amphibious Ready Groups actually are.

We also forget how others lust after those capabilities.

Read the article here, but consider this.  China, Russia, Europe and almost all of the rest of the world desire to equal what we do everyday.

This is one area where we lead.  We can't afford to give that up.

Russian Landing Craft. Current World Leaders.

Making a sweep around the internet, the subject of Landing Craft peaked my interest.  Who was the world's leader (what is the most popular model).  I really expected to see Navantia's LCM-1E or CNIM L-Cat but they weren't even close.

By sheer numbers, of course it'll go to the US LCAC, but I was looking to see who had the most users of what I would label as modern landing craft (a big problem is that so many countries are using Vietnam or earlier era models...and to great effect in some cases...it really depends on how highly you rate amphibious warfare).

The Russians won going away.  And they did it by designing vehicles that break the mold.  The ZUBR is listed as a landing craft but I would consider it an LST due to its range and ability to land a Battalion (-) along with vehicles on distant shores.  On to the pics...

ZUBR Landing Craft.  Used by Russia, the Ukraine, China and Greece.  Has extremely heavy lift, is heavily armed and has long legs.

Lebed LCAC.  Russia's version of a US Navy sized landing air cushion that entered service several years before the US boat.

Aist LCAC.  First of the large Russian LCACs, 6 continue in service.

The Russians have added a new dimension to what we commonly think of when we look at landing craft.  Quite honestly we're lucky that they didn't think about deploying these type boats to the Pacific during the cold war (they focused on using them to counter US Marines in Northern Europe...and US Marines practiced repelling their attacks).  In the Pacific such boats could easily and quickly move from island to island greatly complicating things.  If the Chinese ever get smart and develop an amphibious concept different from the US then these type boats would prove a major headache for planners...as it is they're trying to duplicate US capabilities.  In a strange way we're lucky that they are.

Eye Candy....Weds. Edition.

Did you work out today?

If you didn't get in that workout then the above pic should make you feel like the sorry little bitch that you are.

NO EXCUSES!

Port Seizures. Its on the list but we never practice it...why?

  I MEF MEU Common Capabilities Brief (1)

If you take a quick look at the MEU capabilities brief you'll see that airport and port seizures are listed as a capability.

That's right and wrong.

The MEU should specialize, practice and perfect port seizures.  The sad thing is I've never seen or heard leadership talking about it as a hallmark of Marine Expeditionary Unit operations.  We don't talk about it and we don't practice it.

That's a huge mistake.

Looking over this sheet you'll also notice that Embassy Reinforcement (which tells me that the Commandant told a flat out lie when he said that we needed a Special Purpose MAGTF to perform this mission...we have it already!!!!!  Oh and for the bozo's that said that the MEU didn't have this mission FUCK YOU!!!), and acting as a enabling force for the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (by conducting raids and shaping operations) entry into theater.

Its obvious if our leaders would accept it.

The Marine Expeditionary Unit IS the "glamour" force in the Corps.  Its forward deployed, its on scene or can arrive quickly and its the force that we should be highlighting.

Why the MEB is the darling of HQMC is beyond me, but if we're going to be serious about meeting the security needs of our nation then it should change today...right now!

82nd claims the title of Global Response Force (GRF). The Army is competing for a Marine mission set.

U.S. Army paratroopers assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, walk to a C-130J Super Hercules to prepare to jump during Joint Operational Access Exercise (JOAX) 13-03, Fort Bragg, N.C., June 24, 2013. JOAX is a
joint training exercise designed to prepare elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, along with its partners and enablers, to respond as part of the Global Response Force (GRF).

The old is new again.

These were once called Division Ready Brigades (DRB).  They had an entire concept from a Division Ready Company (DRC) being ready to go in 12 hours, the DRB in 18 and the Battalion (the Army has their Brigades and Battalions mixed up) in 36.  I'm not sure and don't want to find the DVD where I remember hearing this from out, but the entire Division was suppose to be ready in 72 hours.  Personally I'd love to see a readiness exercise for the whole Division.  That would be a cluster fuck from hell.

But they're reviving it but with a twist.  They also respond to disasters.

This is direct competition to our MEU's that we are not fully equipping to meet new challenges while our leadership is focused on the MEB and sea basing.  The Army and Air Force will drink our beer if we don't get serious real quick.  Photos below are from the JOAX going on now.  More to come once I find 'em.

US Army gets hit hard. 8000 fewer boatspaces. Goes from 45 to 33 Brigade Combat Teams.

via Army Press Release.

We will reduce the Active Army by 80,000 - decreasing the number of Brigade Combat teams from 45 to 33. As we inactivate BCTs, we will reinvest Soldiers, equipment, and support personnel into the remaining BCTs. The reduction of 8,000 Soldiers from the Army National Guard will be achieved without any force structure change. The Army Reserve will remain at 205,000. I want to emphasize that these reductions are the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and predate sequestration. Full sequestration could require another significant reduction that would include Active, Guard and Reserve force structure.

A couple of things.

1.  This is real combat strength that's being cut.
2.  This is real combat experience that is being cut.
3.  This is only the beginning for the US Army.
4.  Don't laugh Marines.  Our time is coming and it will be even more vicious (on scale) than what the Army is going through.

Drive a new car? It could get hacked....

Thanks Paralus.  I've been lusting after this truck but after this article I'll stick to my old Bronco.

via Huffington Post.

The peculiar circumstances of journalist Michael Hastings' death in Los Angeles last week have unleashed a wave of conspiracy theories.
Now there's another theory to contribute to the paranoia: According to a prominent security analyst, technology exists that could've allowed someone to hack his car. Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post that what is known about the single-vehicle crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack."
Clarke said, "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers" -- including the United States -- know how to remotely seize control of a car.
"What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it's relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn't want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn't want the brakes on, to launch an air bag," Clarke told The Huffington Post. "You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it's not that hard."
"So if there were a cyber attack on the car -- and I'm not saying there was," Clarke added, "I think whoever did it would probably get away with it."
Authorities have said that it may take weeks to determine a cause of death for Hastings, but that no foul play is suspected.
Hastings was driving a 2013 Mercedes C250 coupe when he crashed into a tree on Highland Ave. in Los Angeles at approximately 4:30 am on June 18. Video posted online showed the car in flames, and one neighbor told a local news crew she heard a sound like an explosion. Another eyewitness said the car's engine had been thrown 50 to 60 yards from the car. There were no other vehicles involved in the accident.


The fire was so all-consuming that it took the Los Angeles County coroner's office two days to identify Hastings' body, but Clarke said a cyber attack on the vehicle would have been nearly impossible to trace "even if the dozen or so computers on board hadn't melted."

Read it all here but HOLY SHIT!  I should have but didn't know that this was possible.  I'm paying close attention to the hackers conference this year.