Philippine Air Force to start air combat training on FA-50s.

via Philippine Star.

MANILA, Philippines - Light role aircraft FA-50 Golden Eagle from Korea will polish Philippine Air Force pilots' maneuvering skills, Department of Defense spokesperson Peter Paul Galvez said Thursday.
Galvez said once the 1.5-Mach capable aircraft have been purchased, pilots' air command maneuvering abilities will be enhanced, giving them a rare chance to operate modern fighter planes.
"The FA-50 will help our pilots regain their ACM skills. The aircraft is very ideal for this training as it is modeled very closely in with F-16 Fighting Falcon' one of the most successful jet fighter designs in the world," Galvez told a state news agency.
The government has been negotiating for the purchase of the 12 light attack trainers for 18.9 billion pesos since 2012.
The country's fighter pilots have long needed maneuvering training since the retirement of Northrop F-5 Tiger fleet from the Air Force in 2005, he said.
The defense official added that the pilots will have a "fast mover" experience using the Korea Aerospace Industries-issued aircrafts.
"The F/A-50 will be the PAF's interim fighter jet aircraft for the moment and it will teach our pilots the skills needed in piloting high performance jet aircraft," he said.
Golden Eagle aircraft, also known as the KAI T-50, are supersonic fighters jointly developed by the Korean firm and American company Lockheed Martin. - Camille Diola

A couple of things.

Going unnoticed is the small fighters that are gaining traction.  Even smaller than the Gripen.  If you consider potential sales of this S. Korean fighter along with the L-15 and JF-17 out of China, the  Alenia Aermacchi M-346 and the Russian YAK-130, it all points to extremely high end fighters like the F-35, Rafale and Typhoon competing with these smaller offerings in budget conscious countries.

The second is that I chose this story over the controversy with Philippine Rescue Helicopters. I still don't think that the Philippine military is unique in having those type problems but the helicopter controversy is an eye opener.

Chinese Hospital Ship in Mumbai. via IDRW.org.

via IDRW.org.

China has intensified its military diplomacy with India with a 300-bed Navy hospital, ‘Peace Ark’ of the People’s Liberation Army, which arrived at the Mumbai port on Tuesday afternoon. The ship will provide six days of medical treatment after handling 1,800 patients during a seven-day stay at the Karachi port.
The decision to send the hospital ship, which has been touring the world since 2007, was finalized during the recent visit of defense minister AK Antony to Beijing. India had earlier tried its brand of military diplomacy when an aircraft laden with medical goods reached the earthquake affected area of Sichuan province in China in 2008.
The ‘Peace Ark’ ship will also help connect the Chinese government with its citizens by providing medical services to Chinese people working in India besides carrying out exchanges and cooperation with Indian counterparts.
The hospital ship, which has eight operation theatres and 20 intensive care units, is an emergency medical support platform independently designed and built by China, official sources said. It is capable of providing treatment and evacuation to injured and sick personnel on the sea, and medical support for troops stationed at islands.

The Chinese are playing chess while we play checkers.

Did you know that India suffered tremendously from heavy flooding recently?  Did you know that Indian Troops died while trying to provide assistance to their stranded victims?  Did you know that it occurred during one of their holy times and that they even activated some of their Engineer Corps to put in place bridges so that their pilgrims could make it to their holy sites?

Additionally did you know that China recently was engaged in a border clash with India?

What does all this have to do with the US?

To my knowledge we didn't assist with any of those issues.  Yet China, which has an ongoing dispute with India, a dispute that is causing India to start gearing up to defend itself against Chinese aggression is now on the receiving end of their aid.

More importantly that aid is not going through the Indian government and then to the people but directly from the Chinese military to the population.

Simply brilliant.

Sgt Richards via Gruntworks.

Hold your head high Sgt. Richards. You're still a stud to your warrior brothers. Congratulations, time to move on.

-Chop

Note:  Some guy keeps attempting to post comments that are negative in regards to this Marine and myself.  Personal challenge.  My blog address is to the right.  Hit me up.  I'll send you my number and we can talk about.

Note 1:  Still waiting.  You make claims and talk bravely behind the veil of anonymity.  Lets have a simple phone call to hash this out.  You brag about your time in the Corps yet this causes you pause?  Why?

Amos tries to complete his coverup.

via Press Release.

Sergeant Robert Richards Reaches Deal with the Marine Corps
Guy L. Womack & Associates, P.C. is pleased to announce that their client, Sgt. Robert Richards, has been able to reach a deal with the Marine Corps that will protect his retirement benefits.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) - Jul. 31, 2013 - HOUSTON -- Guy L. Womack & Associates is pleased to announce that their client, Sgt. Robert Richards, has reached a deal with the Marine Corps that will allow him to medically retire from the service with full benefits. Richards, along with seven other Marines, faced disciplinary action after being implicated in a controversial video that depicted a group of soldiers urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban. The incident sparked international controversy after the video was uploaded to the Internet in January of 2012. The media frenzy surrounding this case has yet to subside, but the scout sniper’s attorney, retired Lt. Col. Guy Womack, is satisfied that the Marine Corps was willing to negotiate a deal. Richards will face the least form of court-martial—which is most commonly used to resolve minor military offenses.
This means that he could be demoted one rank and asked to forfeit two-thirds of his pay for one month. Aside from this, however, he will still be allowed to medically retire with full benefits. The Marine Corps’willingness to negotiate an agreement may have something to do with the fact that Gen. Jim Amos is now facing allegations that he exerted unlawful command influence. According to an inspector general complaint, Amos attempted to manipulate the legal proceedings and ensure that the eight Marines were served stricter punishment than what was due. He even went as far as to remove the prosecutor, Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, from the case after he refused to have them tossed out of the Marine Corps. In his Amos’ words, he wanted each of the video’s participants “crushed.”
When asked why Sgt. Robert Richards chose to accept the summary court-martial, rather than take the chance to clear his name, his wife explained that they just want to “close this chapter and move on with [their] lives.” She feels as though the incident has already put the Marine Corps in a negative light and she, along with her husband, would like to avoid dragging it out any longer. Not only does this arrangement guarantee his medical benefits, but it allows Richards to finally put an end to the case. For this reason, all parties involved—including his Houston military defense attorney, Guy Womack—are pleased with the manner in which this case has been resolved. Richards will go before a summary court-martial on August 7, 2013 at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where his punishment will be decided.

I understand why Sgt Richards accepted the deal.

I still wish he hadn't though.  Amos is on the rocks right now.  Light is being shined into an area of the Marine Corps that needs serious disinfection.  If Amos is able to claim that all of the cases have been settled to the benefit of both the Marines and the accused then the issue is one step closer to going away.

Amos is a disease and should resign for the good of the Corps.

He's court martialed people for much less than he's being accused of and his continued service is a blemish on the face of the Corps, confusing for young Marines who are spoon fed honor-courage-commitment, and detrimental to the morale of the institution. 

Will Boeing's Tanker Destroy Lockheed Martin's F-35?

via Daily Finance.com

In a world where sequestration is the norm, and defense spending exists in a proverbial vice, one thing a company doesn't want to do is have a product that's too expensive. And $10 billion above budget is way, way too expensive. Unfortunately for Boeing's KC-46A tanker, that's exactly what's happening. But in a surprising twist, this actually may be bad news for Lockheed Martin's F-35, not the tanker. Here's what you need to know.


The KC-46A will replace the aging KC-135, seen here refueling an F-15. Photo source: DefenseImagery/Wikimedia Commons

The $10 billion breach
In a report given to Congress in May, the Air Force estimated that over the five decades of planned service, the support costs for the KC-46A tankers would be $103 billion. That's 11% more than the previous estimate of $92.7 billion. More pointedly, it breaches a key component of the program's acquisition baseline plan.


The good news is that this breach isn't something Boeing is liable for -- which is especially good considering Boeing's already liable for an estimated $700 million in cost overruns during the development phase. In fact, this breach is due to the fact that the Air Force intends to increase flying hours on the tanker, as well as assigning 3.5 aircrews to the aircraft, instead of 2.5. What's even better news for taxpayers is that the Air Force stated that it's committed to staying within its budget, and will not seek additional funding for the KC-46A. But that, right there, is bad news for Lockheed.

What's good for Boeing is bad for Lockheed
There have been a number of defense budgets bouncing back and forth between the House and the Senate. But the latest 2014 Defense Appropriations proposal that passed last week in a Senate committee includes funding for the KC-46A development. It also cuts funding for Lockheed's advanced F-35 procurement funding for 2015.

As Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, the Air Force military deputy for acquisition, said earlier this year, the Air Force would likely "protect the tanker no matter what" which could mean scaling back on F-35 procurements.

Moreover, Senate subcommittee chairman Sen. Dick Durbin said about the recently passed measure, "We are crafting this support in a highly uncertain and tumultuous budget environment. We cannot continue like this. Across-the-board sequestration cuts are forcing us to play Whac-a-Mole with the defense budget."

The fact of the matter is that sequestration is reality, and the Air Force has to operate under a reduced budget. So, if something costs more than it is budgeted, then the extra money spent on one program has to come from another program.

This is just too damn juicy.

What people aren't realizing is that the long knives are going to come out for the F-35.  Everyone has a priority and the F-35 only covers a few of them.

Sequestration is here to stay.  Deal with it.  Additionally this was going to happen anyway.  Remember the talk when Hagel was appointed SecDef?  It was with the idea that he was going to dramatically cut the Pentagon.

All the Republicans have done is give him cover to do what the Administration wanted done anyway.

The biggest juiciest easiest target to hit is the F-35.

This is gonna be good. Read the whole thing here.

Gripen at RIAT 2013

Canadian TAPV Program Starts Pre-Production Vehicle Testing and Training

via Press Release.

OTTAWA, ON – Textron Systems Canada Inc., a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, today announced that Textron Marine & Land Systems (TM&LS) has completed and shipped four pre-production Canadian Forces Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV) to locations in the United States and Canada for a series of testing and training activities.
The Textron TAPV Team, led by Textron Systems Canada, was selected in June 2012 to manufacture 500 Canadian Forces Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles with options for up to 100 more. The TAPV contract, with options, has a value of $603.4 million CAD, with an additional five-year in-service support contract of $105.4 million CAD.
In early July, the first pre-production vehicle (PPV) was sent to Aberdeen Test Center, a U.S. Army test facility in Maryland, for qualification testing; a process scheduled to take five months. The second PPV arrived at Rheinmetall Canada in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec in mid July. Rheinmetall completed Land Communication Information System training with this vehicle, which was followed by electro optical technical training performed by Kongsberg Protech Systems Canada and vehicle technician training by TM&LS.
The third and fourth TAPV PPVs also are at Rheinmetall Canada, where vehicle integration activities are taking place. Over the next several weeks, TM&LS is scheduled to finish work on two additional PPVs. At that point, five of the six PPVs will be sent to Canadian Forces Base Valcartier in Quebec for two weeks of Operator and Gunner Operator Training starting in late August. Immediately following, these pre-production TAPVs will begin Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Durability (RAMD) testing at Valcartier. RAMD testing is expected to continue for eight months.
“Our pre-production vehicle assembly, testing and training is on schedule and moving us toward the start of full-rate production planned for January of 2014,” said Neil Rutter, general manager of Textron Systems Canada. “We remain committed to working with our Department of National Defense customer and our partners here in Canada to build and support a fleet of TAPVs that provide Canadian soldiers with unmatched performance and protection for decades.”

That my friends is how you run a vehicle program.  Selection was in June...full rate production will start in January...Well done Textron and Canadian Army.  If only we could be that efficient.

What the hell is going on with the Philippine Coast Guard?

via PhilStar.

MANILA, Philippines - The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended that homicide charges be filed against eight Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) personnel involved in the Balintang Channel shooting.
Revealing results of the June investigation, NBI Director Nonnatus Rojas said on Wednesday that all eight PCG crewmen on board surveillance vessel MCS 3001 were found to have fired at the Taiwanese boat, killing 65-year-old Hung Shih-cheng on May 9.
Rojas added that the investigation report also showed that the shooting was within Philippine territory in the waterway off Batanes Islands.
He said that PCG personnel can only use firearms when there is an existing fatal threat, which was not established in the investigation.
Rojas also said that four other PCG personnel will be charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly tampering with the video evidence submitted to the investigators.
"These PCG officers and personnel falsified a gunnery report which reduced the rounds of ammunition used in the incident. They also spliced the video taken of the incident cutting off vital portions, which they then presented to NBI investigators," the NBI official said.

Uh wow.

This sounds more like the North Korean Coast Guard, not the Philippines.  Read the whole story here, but this is not good.  Everyone is focusing on strategic resources when it comes to the disputed areas in the Pacific, but a bigger flashpoint will probably surround illegal fishing.  The Japanese, Chinese, both Koreas, the Philippines...practically all the Pacific countries (to include the US) are jealously guarding their waters.

The future fight might not be over specks of land...or oil on the ocean bottoms.

It might be about fish.

A-10's save the day...

via AF.mil.

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (AFNS) --
Two A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots assigned to the 74th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, provided close-air support to 60 U.S. Soldiers July 24.
The Soldiers were part of a routine clearance patrol that was ambushed after their lead vehicle in a convoy of 12 turned over during a patrol of an Afghanistan highway. The situation forced the Soldiers to establish an overnight base while they pulled the vehicle out of a ravine. As the sun rose, the unit began to receive heavy fire from a nearby tree line. The members were pinned behind their vehicles and three of the Soldiers suffered injuries. The unit was under fire and the wounded members needed a casualty evacuation so they called for close-air support.
However, there was one problem; the ground unit didn't have a way to confirm the enemy's position. The unit did have a joint fire observer who was able to communicate an estimated location to the A-10 pilots who arrived on scene shortly after receiving the call from a local base's joint terminal air controller responsible for coordinating aerial engagements.
"I flew over to provide a show of force while my wingman was looking for gunfire below," said the flight lead of the two-ship A-10 mission. "Our goal with the show of force was to break the contact and let the enemy know we were there, but they didn't stop. I think that day the enemy knew they were going to die, so they pushed even harder and began moving closer to our ground forces."
When the enemy combatants didn't flee after the show of force, the A-10 pilots decided to deliver air-to-surface munitions to protect the friendly ground forces.
"Even with all our (top-of-the-line) tools today, we still rely on visual references," said the lead pilot, who is on his first deployment from Moody Air Force Base, Ga. "Once we received general location of the enemy's position, I rolled in as lead aircraft and fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke. Then my wingman rolled in to shoot the enemy with his 30 millimeter rounds."
According to the pilots, that really stirred up the attacking force. The enemy moved even closer to the friendlies in an attempt to prevent the A-10 from attacking again. The ground forces were now taking on a large amount of fire from the trees and surrounding high terrain.
"We just kept putting down more 30 mm rounds," said the second A-10 pilot, also deployed from Moody AFB. "The bad guys were closing in and according to the muzzle flashes there were a lot of them, but because people were shooting all over the place, the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel."
The pilots said usually after the first or second pass, the enemy runs away, but this enemy force was large and willing to fight. The pilots continued to fire 30 mm rounds, but the enemy force refused to fall back. Now, the enemy force was close enough to engage the unit with grenades, so the convoy's commander approved the pilots to engage "danger-close." The term is meant to clearly communicate to the ground and air forces that the need for support is so grave the ground commander is willing to accept the potential risk to the friendly unit for the life-saving employment from the air.
"We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk," the second A-10 pilot said. "We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy's position and used the 30-mm gun -- 50 meters parallel to ground forces -- ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn't hurt the friendlies.
The engagement lasted two hours that day, and in that time, the A-10s completed 15 gun passes, fired nearly all their 2,300, 30-mm rounds, and dropped three 500-pound bombs on the enemy force.
"That last gun runs must have made them give up," the two pilots agreed "because the firing stopped."
Shortly after the engagement was complete, an MC-12 aircraft specializing in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance arrived and began scanning the area for enemy forces that might be regrouping. Sometimes when close-air support leaves, enemy forces will attack again, so the A-10s remained on-station until all the Soldiers were safe.
"We wanted to make sure the area was safe because we had the pararescuemen from the 83rd Expeditionary Rescue Squadron coming to transport the injured to Bagram's hospital," said the second pilot. "The flight doctor assigned to our squadron treated the wounded in the emergency room. It was an example of a successful mission with contributions from all assets of our base."
After the pilots landed and debriefed, they went to the hospital to see the wounded Soldier.
"He was laying there and next to him was a picture of his high-school girlfriend," the lead pilot said. "We were glad knowing we helped get him home alive. He said, 'Thank you for shooting those bad guys'. Luckily we were only a few minutes away and all the friendlies made it out that day."
Providing close-air support is the squadron's main mission here, and is the specialty of the aircraft they fly, the A-10 Thunderbolt II nicknamed the "Warthog."
"This was one of the most intense sorties our squadron has come into contact with in the last four months in theater," the lead pilot said. "Afterward the Afghan National Army said they found 18 enemy dead, so I can only imagine how many were out there. This was close-air support and this is what we train for."

"Nuff said. 

Hey Sferrin!

My idea of a meeting!

The F-35 must die....

No solid number on troop cuts but you're talking in excess of 150,000 people removed from the Army and Marines...not to mention an unknown number of Sailors and Airmen.

A reduction to 8 or 9 aircraft carriers.

Squadrons, and Infantry Battalions cut.

All so that the military can protect the F-35.

Its obvious to all that have eyes.  The F-35 must die.  One program is not worth betting the security of the nation on.  Has something like this ever been proposed before?  Somehow, someway the entire defense posture of the United States is wrapped up in one bloated, late, underperforming airplane.  When LeMay attempted his coup of the DoD at least he did it with the belief that nuclear weapons were the future...not one airplane.

We have to metaphorically nuke this program from orbit.  Its the only way to be sure.

Tokyo to consider pre-emptive strike strategy via RT.

via RT...

The potential threats Japan might face at the moment come from the Asian continent.
China not only has world’s largest army, but has been dramatically modernizing its military forces over the last decade. Pyongyang is an old adversary of Washington, rivaling American dominance in the Pacific. As for Japan, it has territorial disputes over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu in Chinese tradition) with China, meaning that Washington’s and Tokyo’s interests coincide.
On the other hand North Korea, that strives to achieve a nuclear power status, has been openly threatening Tokyo with destroying US military bases on Japanese territory.
To deal specifically with territorial disputes at remote islands, Japan reportedly plans to establish a Marines task force. Purchase of unmanned surveillance drones is also planned to monitor the country’s maritime borders.

Read it all here.

Ok.  This is an alarmist statement.

IF and I mean IF several of our adversaries decided to coordinate their actions then you would see the US having to pick between which allies to support.  With a force as small as the one that is being projected comes to pass then we won't even be able to fight a holding action in one theater while we win the war in the other.  It'll be a lose lose fight unless our allies are able to do it themselves.

Its almost as if we want to push countries into the nuclear weapons camp.  This is going to be an interesting time...we are truly cursed.

Either you have zero F-35s or an Army less than 400,000

via the Free Beacon.

The recommendations in the Department of Defense’s latest strategic review would produce both a hollow and aging military unable to engage in simultaneous conflicts involving U.S. interests, defense budget experts said Tuesday.
The experts spoke at the Brookings Institution about the Pentagon’s efforts to prepare for $500 billion in spending cuts during the next decade due to budget sequestration.
Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that the sequestration cuts come on the heels of about $1 trillion in military spending reductions already enacted under President Barack Obama’s administration.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel discussed the so-called “Strategic Choices and Management Review,” the Pentagon’s options for responding to the cuts, at the end of last month.
Eaglen and Brookings research director Michael O’Hanlon said Hagel presented a bleak outlook for the future of the military, including smaller forces, delayed equipment upgrades, and minimal training sessions.
The Pentagon’s review envisions an Army with less than 400,000 troops, down from about 560,000 during the peak of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and substantially smaller than the 800,000 troops the United States maintained in the Cold War-era Army of the 1980s, O’Hanlon said.
The U.S. Air Force and the Navy also face declining forces. More than half of the Air Force’s bombers could be retired largely without newer replacements, and two or three aircraft carrier strike groups could be cut. Roughly 60 percent of Navy forces, ships, and capabilities are associated with a carrier, Eaglen said.
The result is a military that will struggle to complete both a plannedrebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region and contingency operations in a still turbulent Middle East, Eaglen and O’Hanlon said.
“You should remember from history that you don’t always get to decide when wars end,” O’Hanlon said. “You may get to decide when you start them.”
The planned downsizing of the military’s global reach also reflects a subtle shift from the longstanding U.S. defense strategy of being prepared to fight two conflicts at once, O’Hanlon said.
He added that while a U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region would deter territorial encroachments by China—which continues to bolster its military budget by $10 billion annually—the military should also be equipped to participate in future international stabilization or peacekeeping missions in Syria or Yemen, for example.
“All of these things combined means that any scenario is at a minimum bending the [two-war] strategy, if not breaking it,” Eaglen said.
O’Hanlon said the military could begin taking steps to avoid a tug-of-war situation for its resources by enacting needed reforms and working with Congress to decelerate the effects of sequestration.
Changes to the military’s compensation and benefit programs and efficiencies already identified by the Pentagon could save $125 billion in the next decade, he said.
Otherwise, the military will find itself in an untenable position, he said.
“Either you have zero F-35s or an Army less than 400,000—that’s the kind of choice you’re forced toward,” he said.
“I don’t think we should live with either of those choices.”

Comments? 

All aspect?

I didn't want to get pulled into this part of the F-35 debate.  Quite simply it costs too much and will cost the USMC too much for it to continue as is.  If Lockheed Martin Aviation showed the same sense of urgency it now has at the beginning of the program then things might have worked out differently.  As things now stand the MPC, the ACV, probably the JLTV will all vanish from Marine Corps procurement rolls because of this excessively expensive airplane.

The future isn't bright either.  Once retirees pull their heads up and realize that tricare costs will increase, the troops see prices rise at the Commissary etc you'll see retirees and vets go the way of the Republican party.  Screw the military.  They didn't keep their promises to us, so why should we support them now.

Additionally with the massive drawdown in troops (which is different this time because you're dealing with an all volunteer force, not a bunch of draftees that want out anyway) you're going to see Infantry Battalions, and Aviation Squadrons go away.  Which mean that in the end we're already headed into the death spiral with this airplane.  Anyway it goes fewer will be needed which means that they will cost more which means that the Pentagon will buy fewer...well you get the idea.

But back to the subject of this post.  Rear aspect.  I am by no means an expert but check this out....

Above you're looking at the various stealth aircraft that have been in service and the F-35.  Unless something wonderful and dramatic has happened in the world of stealth then either the term all aspect has been dumbed down or we're seeing an outlier.  

Yeah Amos. The story ain't going away...

The playbook works a little like this.  Bad news comes out.  Keep your head down.  Let the news cycle move on to new controversies.  Come out of hiding and everything is forgotten.

The playbook isn't working on this one.  Eventually the big news organizations are going to start sniffing around.  This is via the Business Insider.

Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos allegedly sought to have investigation documents classified that could have possibly incriminated him under article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for unlawfully influencing an investigation.
Now the Commandant is under investigation, Chuck Hagel’s top military advisor is caught in the middle of it, and one of the Marines court-martialed in the Taliban urination scandal says it’s why he should be exonerated.
In early 2012, after a video surfaced appearing to depict three U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses, Amos ordered a full investigation.
He appointed a tremendously well respected Marine general, Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, to head the inquiry. At the time, Waldhauser was the commanding general of both Marine Corps Forces Central Command and I Marine Expeditionary Force. He now serves as the senior military advisor to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
“Rest assured that the institution of the Marine Corps will not rest until the allegations and the events surrounding them have been resolved,” Amos said in a statement shortly after the incident came to light.

Nothing new.  But the story has legs.  How long can he hang on when its obvious that he is morally bankrupt and incapable of holding the position he has?

The craziest part of this?  He is probably the biggest supporter of the F-35 in the Pentagon.  If he goes then so goes one of that program's biggest backers.   Will the next guy choose aircraft over armor?  Will he allow the issue with the AAV to fester the way Amos has?  Will the next Commandant choose an airplane over Infantry Battalions?

I'm not sure but I'm ready to find out.

In light of Amos' pending retirement I'd like to award him the BF with gold cluster....

The F-35 and RMA...a holdover from Rumsfeld.

The military concept of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a theory about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for change in the United States military...

What do the above airplanes all have in common?

Not one of them features all aspect stealth.

The Russians have moved toward retaining high agility with moderate stealth and the Chinese (reading from our playbook) appear to be trying for basically the same.

The Europeans have only gone down the stealth path when it comes to UAVs and are instead concentrating mostly on high speed air to air missiles along with tweaking their AESA arrays...only God knows what the Navy is up to, but they have some fully funded classified projects in the works that seek to keep the Super Hornet viable until a 6th gen fighter is developed.  The Air Force is probably teamed up on some of those projects which would explain the upgrades being pushed to the F-15/16.

Considering the price that the US military is paying for the F-35.  Thinking about the combat experience that is going to shoved out the door to get that airplane, the question must be asked.  Is stealth worth the price?  Are we going to trust the same leadership team that promised us an affordable fighter to get it right when they say that the F-35 will be competitive for the next 50 years when our enemies have produced stealth aircraft 10 years before their estimates?

This high tech force in lieu of retaining personnel is nothing but Rumsfeld's "Revolution in Military Affairs" just watered down.  Instead of cutting edge aircraft, armored vehicles and communication systems...all we get is an airplane.

New Alert. President to visit 1st MarDiv tomorrow.

1st Marine Division Public Affairs Office put out a news blast that the President is to appear at Camp Pendleton tomorrow at noon to thank the Marines and Sailors for their work.

What would be discussed is the fact that cutting the Marine Corps down to 150,000 boatspaces is in the works.

How is this different from previous drawdowns?

Those were conscription forces.  They didn't volunteer (well some did, the majority didn't) so the drawdown came largely from people that didn't want to remain in service.  This time it will be different.  Saddle up and get ready.  The Corps can place its needs ahead of yours but you can't put the Corps ahead of the needs of your family.  Get your house in order for any eventuality.

Russian BTR-Boomerang family of vehicles.

Information is spotty and so far all I've been able to find are artist concepts.  One is of a vehicle that look alot like a Patria AMV and the others are variations on the theme.

Is the F-35 worth the cost?

Sferrin wants to be a jerk about the F-35 and whether it brings value?

Ok.  I'll play. Via Military.com

The Army would shrink to 380,000 troops, the Marines Corps to 150,000. The Navy would lose three carriers, and the Air Force would begin mothballing its B-52 bomber fleet under a worst-case budget scenario outlined Wednesday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

&

The choice under the automatic budget cuts of sequestration came down to one between troops and new weapons systems, Hagel said. Defense leaders who led the review favored funding cyberwarfare, and such weapons systems as the F35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship over personnel.
"We did not find any particular capability that we could do away with" and still maintain overall combat power, a senior Pentagon official said at a later background briefing of the proposed new weapons systems.
Winnefeld said the review was the result of a "deep and very painful look into every corner of our institution."
"Nobody was very happy" with the outcome, he said

Combat experience is being sacrificed on the altar of technological superiority.  But even that is in doubt when you consider the fact that the F-35 Program Manager has been quoted as saying that the secrets to the F-35 have shown up in Chinese aircraft under development and that he isn't sure that the contractors have secured their information against further hacking.

So with an Army that needs a new Ground Combat Vehicle and Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle...A Marine Corps that needs a new Amphibious Combat Vehicle...A Navy that would like to maintain 12 carriers.

Is the F-35 worth the cost?

Kamaz 63969 via War Machine.