More Confusion on Marine Doctrine/Organizational Tables from the Commandant.

via USNI News.

Marines on two amphibious warships in the Red Sea have not been given tasking to respond to the growing unrest in Egypt, Navy and Marine Corps officials told USNI News on Friday.
“There hasn’t been an official tasking,” Marine Capt. Eric Flanagan at the Pentagon told USNI News.
“They’re not getting ready to go into Egypt.”
On Thursday, Reuters quoted Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos saying the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) were on station in case the situation devolved.
“Egypt is (in) a crisis right now,” Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos told the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “When that happens, what we owe the senior leadership of our nation are some options.”

Go to USNI News to read the entire article but the question must be asked.  Who does the Embassy Reinforcement/Non-Combat Evacuation/Crisis Response for the United States Marine Corps.

Is it the Marine Expeditionary Unit?

Is it the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force/Crisis Response?

Is it the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Africa?

This is a simple thing but worth conversation.  We just established SPMAGTF/CR to respond to the type of thing we're seeing in Egypt.  The SecDef testified that we did not have the forces to respond to aid in Benghazi, but now we're seeing three different Marine Corps units that are all training up (and rightfully so) to respond to a situation in Egypt.

For the Crisis Response and Africa units its all new.  For the MEU its old hat.  The question is simple.

Do we have excess forces to devote to these type missions?  If we don't then which of them should be cut?

Quite honestly it should be the CR but thats a decision for Marine Planners.  Long story short?  We have confused our organizational tables and are developing specialized units at an alarming rate.  Its not the Marine Corps way.  The way the Marine Corps does business is to take a well trained, highly disciplined Marine Infantry Battalion and task them with a mission.  They accomplish that mission and then return to regular training.

That's the Marine Corps way.  Hopefully HQMC will remember that.

S. Africa to build a new Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

Thanks for the article Jonathan.

via Defense Web.

DENEL Land Systems (DLS) is preparing to ramp up production of new infantry fighting vehicles for the South African National Defence Force.
Armscor, the procurement agency for the defence force, is expected to place the order in the next few months for about 230 of five variants of the Badger.
The government undertook in 2005 to buy at least 264 new infantry vehicles for the army to replace its Ratel combat vehicles, which are more than 30 years old. Unlike the navy and the air force, the army did not benefit from the multibillion-rand arms deal. The navy received submarines and frigates, and the air force helicopters, Hawks and Gripen fighter jets.
The Hoefyster programme, which includes the Badger production contract, aims to design and build an eight-wheel-drive vehicle in the 25-ton class. It is to carry between four and 12 men and will be equipped with various turret and on-board options to provide infantry with motorised transport and protection. The "8x8" configuration will give the vehicles optimal mobility over the roughest terrain, ensuring the infantry can enter and withdraw from conflict areas with minimum exposure and maximum survivability.
Defence secretary Dr Sam Gulube told journalists last month that the Badger production contract under Project Hoefyster had been revised and approved in February this year. The paperwork is with Armscor, which would soon send it out to the main contractor in the defence industry, DLS.

Wow.

First the Brazilians and now S. Africa...not to mention Malaysia, Indonesia, S. Korea, Japan, and practically every small country in Europe now has or is developing a Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

They're succeeding where the Marine Corps failed.

Amazing. 

Old Skool Recruiting Posters.

Everyone always talks about this poster and the mythology is that the Marine shown got a BCD...don't know if that's true or not but that's always the talking point whenever it shows up.

Note:  If you have a reader and you see posts appearing and disappearing its that I've been fumbling posts between this blog and my other one.  Sorry bout that.

A 16 hour flight from Alaska ending with a "Jump" into Australia. Paratroopers demonstrating global reach.

4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division

American Mercenary says that the Global Response Force is simply the Army doing its part for our nation's defense.

I said we were being put on notice.

After a 16 hour flight, ending with a parachute drop into Talisman Sabre 2013, I'd say that the US Army just put the US Marine Corps, the US Navy and parts of the USAF on notice (with a big "how ya like us now to the SecDef") that they not only have a role to play in Air Sea Battle but that they're damn near demanding a seat at the table.

Nicely done "Sparta Brigade" (I believe that's their nickname...either that or "Sparta Lives"...I can't be sure).

SHOALWATER BAY TRAINING AREA, Australia (July 17, 2011) Australian Privates Matthew Sherring and Jeffery Gambell, both from the 1st Combat Service Support Battalion, 1st Brigade watch their first military parachute drop during Talisman Sabre 2011 (TS11), at Kapyong Drop Zone, Queensland, Australia, July 17, 2011. Approximately 300 paratroopers, including Australian jumpmasters, made the 16-hour flight from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska in preparation for the unit’s deployment to Afghanistan. TS11 is a biennial joint international training exercise aimed at improving and validating the Australian Defense Force and United States combat readiness and interoperability as a combined joint task force. (U.S. Army Photo by Specialist Marcus Fichtl Talisman Saber Public Affairs)

Brazil to announce wheeled 8x8 program later this year via InfoDefensa Blog.

It seems that all the work done on the SuperAV (USMC Version) by BAE and IVeco might yet be put to good use.

via Infodefensa Blog.

Sao Paulo - Following the Strategic Program Coll (Operational Capacity Recovery), the Brazilian Army held at the premises of the School of Sergeants Weapons (ESA) , located in the city of Três Corações, interior of the state of Minas Gerais,technical test firing 90mm cannon of 22 armored reconnaissance vehicles EE-9 Cascavel, manufactured by the disappeared Engesa and completely modernized by the War Arsenal of Sao Paulo, this force military organization responsible to update such material.
The modernization of Cascavel tanks armed with Defense CMI Cockerill Mk2 barrel 90 mm, involves a complete dismantling of vehicles, structural revision, repair and replacement of components, improved Detroit Diesel 6V-53N 6 cylinder with 212 HP power, and change radio wiring and systems obsolete by more modern and reliable.
The Brazilian Army also aligns its ranks 243 vehicles of this type, which must be completely replaced by 2025. Despite its relatively light armor, the Cascavel became a sales success by combining ease of maintenance and operation with its high mobility, speed and firepower provided by the Cockerill 90mm cannon. Besides Brazil, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Paraguay, Suriname, Togo, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe also used different versions of Cascabel .
At present, the company IMC Brazil , local subsidiary of CMI Defence (Belgium) participates in the talks for the definition of the configuration of the new VBR weaponry Brazilian Army 8x8, program to be announced this year. According to sources Infodefensa.com Brazil, the new VBR 8x8 tower shall be equipped with armored with 105 mm cannon. CMI Defense offers to meet this requirement the tower CT-CV ™ with 105 mm cannon CV-Gun.
CMI Defence and integrated, answered, so proved and obtained independent certification for the CT-CV ™ on various platforms, including Piranha III vehicles Pandur II and General Dynamics European Land Systems, Patria AMV 8x8 vehicles and WZM Rosomak and vehicle Anders Bumar chain.
rc / avs

Just plain wow.

Brazil not only has a 6x6 going to its Army and Marine Corps but is about to put into service an 8x8 that will probably be armed with a 105mm cannon.  A complete family of vehicles that shares components, electronics and weapon systems and its available in either a 6 or 8 wheeled version.

Quite honestly the story is really suppose to be about the modernization effort undertaken for the EE-9 Cascavel.

In my opinion the info on the 8x8 is much more compelling.

Well done Brazilian Military (Army and Marine Corps)...Very well done. 

Should we consider enlarging the Tank Detachment assigned to the MEU?

Modest proposal.

We should consider enlarging the Tank Detachment assigned to the MEU from 4 to perhaps 6 and as many as 8 tanks.

Why?  In light of the decisions made regarding our Infantry transports its essential that they have on call fire power and even ad hoc,  in extremis route proving ability.  Additionally the armored threat is increasing in the Pacific region, anti-armor weapon flourishing and since we won't have a vehicle mounting a 30mm cannon (as planned for with the canceled EFV), fire support will be at a premium.

Aviation assets will not always be there, whether its because of weather, supporting SOCOM or duties with the Naval Air Forces, which makes attached firepower that is under the direct command of the GCE and can't be yanked away essential.

Increasing the number of tanks assigned to each MEU would go a long way in making up for an obvious gap in firepower.  

Seen at Knots Berry Farms via Terminal Lance Blog.

Gotta be an "impersonator"....Gotta be....But considering the "new" Corps it might be real....

Amos emphasizes need for ACV?

via Defense Daily.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos stressed Thursday the unavoidable need his service has for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), indicating he would shield it from budget cuts during fiscal belt-tightening in the Pentagon.
Amos and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert discussed how their services would fare if the $500 billion in longterm sequestration cuts, which started in March, continue as scheduled for a decade. Addressing the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank in Washington, Greenert expressed a desire to have more control over the across-the-board budget cuts as well as concern about their impact on the nuclear industrial base. Amos, sitting alongside Greenert, emphasized the need he sees for two programs: the F-35B variant of Lockheed Martin’s [LMT] Joint Strike Fighter and, in particular, the ACV.
The ACV planning effort is intended to replace the long-troubled and now-defunct program to develop an Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The Marine Corps has budgeted research and development monies in its five-year budget for the ACV, conducted an Analysis of Alternatives for it, and may release a request for proposals to industry around the beginning of next year (Defense Daily, May 30). The amphibious troop transporter would replace the service’s aging Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs).
Facing sequestration cuts, Amos said his task is to “prioritize” the “top programs,” which are the ACV and F-35.
“And I’ve been very strident about that,” he said. The AAV, he noted, is more than 40 years old, and the ACV would come online when the older amphibious vehicle has been around for more than 50 years.
“So it has to be replaced,” he said. “So that’s a sense of, you know, I don’t have choice.” But he said he does “have a choice in some of the other vehicles, and some of the other things.”
“And in this case I’m willing to make hard calls and say, ‘OK we’re not going to get that. We’ll live with what we have,’” Amos said.
The only other weapons program he said the Marine Corps “absolutely” needs is the F-35B, he said. Equipment coming out of Afghanistan will be refurbished, he said, calling that setup “good enough.”
Greenert said sequestration wouldn’t negatively impact “almost all” of the ships under contract or delivered that he highlighted at the Thursday event--a grouping of vessels that includes the Littoral Combat Ship and Joint High Speed Vessel. Those programs are somewhat shielded by sequestration, he said, because the Navy would lose money trying to change the contracts with industry for them.
Greenert lamented that sequestration does not give the Navy control over the cuts, because under law the funding reductions they are designed to take a set percentage off of budget accounts. If the Navy had more control it could prioritize, he said.
“You have to prioritize, and my concern (is with) the industrial base,” he said. “When you whittle down aircraft and ship and other things, and what point do you undo the industrial base?”
He said he worries about the nuclear industrial base in particular, noting all the smaller--and thus vulnerable--firms within it that are the Pentagon’s only source of “discrete and very important” components.

Some will see this as good news.

I see it as another lie and another waffle.  Why?  Because the only reason why he kept delaying the request for proposals on the ACV (3 times he sent the numbers back to the program office) is because he was building in breathing space for the precious F-35..

Second.  He acknowledges that the AAV is soon to be over 50 years old but he doesn't seek to put into production a vehicle that can be ready now.  Its simple.  If Lockheed can't put the vehicle into production in year then BAE gets the contract and vice versa.  I don't think either company would have a problem.  It might be difficult but it could be doable (note, our first few vehicles might come from overseas plants but we did that with the Harrier so many years ago).

Last, his embracing of the ACV in a public setting is just a tip of the iceberg of trouble in Marine Land.  The Devil Dogs are restless, and you don't want to be around a bunch of pissed off Marines (its for many reasons to include the short shift being given the GCE).

The Marine Corps has a habit of ignoring (historically) its failed leadership.  Pace was the first Marine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but you barely hear his name mentioned.  The same will happen with Amos once he leaves.  This will be considered a dark time in Marine history.  One we would all rather forget.  

The F-35 vs. The Marine Personnel Carrier.

This thing is reaching critical mass so let me take a comment from one of my readers to make myself clearer.

Anonymous said.
Whether someone is a an avid fan of the F-35, or a rabid hater, everyone would agree that it can't afford to be rescheduled or put off any longer. it can't be delayed without killing it.

Long story short, the Marines have to stick to their plan, they can't abandon decades of support for a massive international program that is the biggest defense program in history because you want swimming APCs now, when they are still in the development phase anyway.

I say.

You're telling me that delaying the purchase of 18 F-35's would kill the program?  I say you're being reactionary.  I make no apologies.  The AV-8B can hold the line for supporting Marine forces.  It performed admirably in Libya and will continue to do so for the near term.  If the F-35 program is so shaky that a 3 or 4 year delay of Marine purchases (which I'm led to believe will equal 18 to 24 aircraft) will kill it, then perhaps it needs to be sent to the grave.  The fact that the program has been in development for a long time tells you why its so important to get a vehicle to the fleet.  When the F-35 was threatened with cancellation, Amos stated that he would get monthly reports on it.  He also said that he was basically moving his office down to the Joint Program Office to make sure it stayed on track.  He hasn't made any statement approaching that type of dedication to a Marine Corps specific program that will benefit the Ground Combat Element.  Don't you wonder why?

Anonymous said.

take a good look at the entire fiasco of replacing the AAV-7, and try honestly telling me, that this time would work because there is no F-35 in the picture, even though its been a failure that predates the JSF. What happens if the marines delayed the F-35, and it still took 10 years to procure an aav-7 replacement? who does that help? And don't give me some bull crap about how the "MPC is ready now!" 
No its not. the MPC is about as "ready now" after its trials as the X-35 was after its contest. 2015 seems to be the number I am reading. so no you can't pay 10 million dollars now and get X many for the price of Y. 

I say.

Lets give the two vehicles that I have my eye on a chance (the Lockheed Martin/Patria Havoc and the BAE/Iveco SuperAv). If we make a selection and the manufacturers can't get production up and running then we continue with the F-35. My bets are that both companies would jump through hoops and fight Satan himself to make sure they could meet that requirement. So no, the issue isn't the manufacturers, the issue is a vacillating, indecisive, seemingly confused HQMC.

Anonymous says.

Why would we risk killing the JSF now to save money for an APC that won't be available for another 3 years? For as much as you bash Amos he has put "everything but readiness and the ACV" on the table for cuts. cuts for the F-35, V-22 and the H-1.

I say.

The MPC could be ready before then, but what needs to be addressed is your comment that I bash Amos.  Guilty as charged.  I have never seen such a weak Commandant in my life.  You talk about him putting everything on the table but its quite obvious that the only thing he's put on the table so far is the ACV (by constant delays...from his office sending the number for the vehicle back to the program office not once, not twice but three times), the MPC (by coming up with the fiction that he's simply delaying it for 10 years while he gets everyone of his precious aviation programs across the finish line), and by a DEEP cut in Marine Corps spear by slashing Infantry Battalions in general and Marine Infantrymen in particular.  I have it on good authority that cuts to 174,000 is also a fiction...the real number is closer to 150,000.  So no.  I've lost every ounce of my once considerable respect for Marine Leadership.  The lies have been flowing like water.  The lack of moral courage (on a variety of issues) has been stunning.  The lack of decisiveness shows me that he is not fit for command.  So yeah.  I have a hard on for current Marine Corps leadership.  In particular, this failed Commandant.

Which is more likely.

A Marine Infantry Unit will deploy Marines either in peacekeeping, disaster relief etc...and those forces will face the continued threat of IEDs....or...the USMC will be facing an opponent with high tech aircraft that requires the F-35 to defend our forces.

If you believe that we might face an advanced fighter threat then I'm wrong and we need to continue the procurement plan as is.  If you believe that the possibility of an MEU landing on a foreign shore and facing an IED threat is more likely then you have to agree with me.  Switch up the procurement plan and buy MPCs now.

Turkey is developing a satellite launch system. Can manned spaceflight be far behind?

T-11 parachute

The Division’s newest toy, the T-11 parachute is now being fielded across the Division. The new chute, which can carry up to 400 lbs., replaces the T-10 which was first introduced in 1955.

Garner replaces Moore at AAV/ACV program office.

Heads up gents.

A little birdy informed me that a change of command was held at the AAV/ACV program office yesterday and that Colonel Moore was replaced by Colonel Garner.

I have no reason to believe that this is anything other than a long overdue replacement so that Colonel Moore can reacquaint himself with the fleet but it could also be seen by many that its finally dawned on HQMC that they've made a mess of Marine Corps armor.

I can hope but have less confidence that the new guy will re-examine the decision to "delay" the Marine Personnel Carrier program.  Its extremely doubtful but I can hope.

Note:  The Marine Corps is extremely publicity happy and image conscious.  So when you do a quick Google search to confirm a tip and can't even find the program office (and what you do find leads to months old articles) that tells you something.  The Marine Corps is basically hiding this office from public view.  The pressure must really be damn near unbearable.  Good!

More about that parity force. *UPDATE*

Thanks Bob for the info!  I had forgotten these studies.

Time to add another log on the fire with regards to whether or not we're building a parity force instead of one that is superior to all potential opponents.

I remember reading this study by Rand which studied a potential war with China over Taiwan.  The results of the study was rather chilling.  Their analysis revealed that Taiwan would be lost before the US could even respond militarily.  Quite honestly if Benghazi is any indication then it would be a fait accompli before they even made the decision to respond!

But if you actually look at things as they are today (not as we wish them to be) then the situation is actually much much worse.  The USAF is closing squadrons and casing their colors.  The Navy is going to have fewer aircraft carriers and is also losing squadrons.  The US Army and Marine Corps will also be smaller.

The point is this.  Even if China only modernizes it forces and does not enlarge them, the numerical advantage that they enjoy will still grow. The problem for the US is that not only is it cutting its forces while China is expanding, but that China is becoming extremely aggressive in its dealings with its neighbors.  China and India are involved in an ongoing border dispute that has flared off and on for several months.  A story on the latest border incursion by the Chinese can be read here.

If you read Chinese websites you'll make note of the nationalistic fever that sweeps that country.  If you study the region you'll note the hatred that stretches back centuries between these ancient countries.

A nationalistic China, with centuries old claims on land,  mixed with an economy that is getting an evolutionary boost by western companies seeking to take advantage of cheap labor and you have a country that is experiencing the US version of manifest destiny.

They are arming up, they will continue to seek technological equality (and in some cases superiority---look at their hacking efforts), will maintain their numerical superiority and when the times comes they will strike.

Update:  I found this article while doing a sweep through the internet.  You can read it here.

3rd Para gears up to perform the UK's version of the Global Response Force.

The Brits call their Global Response Force the Airborne Contingency Force and they basically perform the same missions.

What will be extremely interesting is how the different forces handle promoting individuals with and without combat experience.  More telling will be the relationship between the leaders without it and the led with it.  Friction will exist in all the allied forces between the groups until the next war (well it'll be magnified at the beginning of the war) or until the forces retire or kick out all the CAR wearing servicemembers.

CH-53K. The answer to Air Force Rescue Helicopter Problem.

The USAF has a problem.  It has found the HH-60 it flies too small and short legged for the air rescue mission and desperately needs a replacement.  To add to the services woes, AFSOC is making a play for the mission stating that its CV-22's can perform the mission better.

The Air Force is resisting the idea, I believe, because placing the mission in SOCOM hands would mean that at critical times the required assets might be off doing other missions.  They have a point.  That would mean that in the future long over water recovery would necessarily fall to Marine or Navy aircraft.  Over land recovery would be hampered by SOCOMs solution of having HH-60s in the reserves do the mission.

The fly in the ointment is that other helicopters also lack the range that the USAF requires.

The answer is to climb aboard the Marine Corps CH-53K program and sole source the selection.  Stats via Wikipedia.

General characteristics

• Crew: 5: 2 pilots, 1 crew chief/right gunner, 1 left gunner, 1 tail gunner (combat crew)

• Capacity: 37 troops (55 with centerline seats installed)

• Payload: * 35,000 lb (15,900 kg)

• Length: 99 ft 1/2 in (30.2 m)

• Rotor diameter: 79 ft (24 m)

• Height: 27 ft 9 in (8.46 m)

• Disc area: 4,900 ft² (460 m²)

• Empty weight: 33,226 lb (15,071 kg)

• Loaded weight: 74,000 lb (33,600 kg)

• Max. takeoff weight: * 84,700 lb (38,400 kg)

• Powerplant: 3 × *General Electric GE38-1B turboshaft, * 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) each

• Rotor systems: 7 blades on main rotor, 4 blades on tail rotor

Performance

• Cruise speed: * 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h)

• Range: * 454 nmi (841 km) no reserves

• Combat radius: * 110 nmi (126 mi, 204 km)

• Service ceiling: * 14,400 ft (4,380 m)

• Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s)

Armament

• Guns: ** 2 window-mounted .50 BMG (12.7 mm) M3M/GAU-21 machine guns

• 1 ramp-mounted .50 BMG (12.7 mm) M3M/GAU-21 machine gun

• Other: Chaff and flare dispensers

Before you think I'm going soft on the Marine Corps aviation budget I haven't.  I have massive heartburn at the thought of a helicopter costing 84 million dollars each.  That's damn near the cost of a fighter!  But it will have the required range (and if it receives modifications like the enlarged sponsons on the MH-53E it could be extended further---and that's before you add in aerial refueling), will have 3 machineguns to provide area suppression and all the defensive aids the Air Force can stuff into it.  Quite honestly it'll add in a capability the Para-Rescue hasn't had since the MH-53J retired.

Filming the guy that kills you?

This story is pure dee craziness.

How are you taking pictures, filming whatever...and you see a guy pointing a gun at you and don't duck?

That type of detachment from reality explains so many things.  Read the story here.

The F-35 is gobbling up the Marine Corps budget.

The above charts are from ELP blog, but before you holler guess what?   He was the only one that had unit costs of the F-35 readily available.  If you have contrary figures I'll gladly hear you out.  The point is simple.  For the cost of one F-35 at 220 million dollars we could have 22 Marine Personnel Carriers if they came in at 10 million dollars each.  If you delayed the Marine Corps buy of the F-35 for 2 or 3 years you could complete your purchase of the vehicles and have them in service.

I seriously think we could pressure Lockheed Martin or BAE to come in substantially below 10 mill for their vehicles but that's just me.  Consider though that the Amphibious Combat Vehicle is thought to be wanted at the price of 13 million or below per copy and you get the idea.

To further my argument below you'll find a copy of the Marine Corps budget broken down by item.  Again, while the Marine Corps is extremely frugal you'll find one thing glaring at you like a whore in church.

Aviation expenditures.

I rest my case.  The Marine Corps is becoming unbalanced and biased at an alarming rate in favor of its aviation assets at the expense of providing its infantrymen (really all of the Ground Combat and Logistics Elements...unless its aviation related) with protected transport.  The only item that I could find that received what I consider out of balance funding was the Expeditionary Fire Support System...a system designed to fly in the back of the V-22.

The question must be asked.  Is one airplane worth 51 Billion Dollars of the Marine Corps budget?  How many Marine Personnel Carriers could that buy?  How many Marine Infantry Battalions could that save?  How many Marines would that allow to remain in service preserving combat experience in uniform?  Even if you think I'm off base that's something to consider!

  PMC_Book

US Marines vs Vietcong in Vietnam "Contact (Ambush)" 1966

Thanks for the vid ELP!  Many lessons here...



Yes.  There are many lessons that could have been applied to Afghanistan in this vid.

*  Notice the talk of Civic Action Programs?  We half assed it in Afghanistan.  While engaging (or attempting to) in CAP with our conventional forces, we went hog wild crazy with raids and drone strikes.  Can you say conflicting strategy?

*  We talk about IEDs as a new weapon.  Really its just a different type of the same dangers that we've been facing forever in a day.  Today's Marines say IED, Vietnam Vets say punji sticks, betty bombs, landmines and other booby traps.

*  Jungle fighting will seal the deal on the M27 (you say IAR, I say modern day Browning Automatic Rifle).  When you're in the bush and need to lay down suppressive fire so you can break contact, the paltry amount of fire from the M27 will cry out for a return to the SAW.

I look forward to reading the history of this current conflict as the Marine Corps Historical Branch assembles it.

F-35 visits Cherry Point

VBCI in Mali.