1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (1st RPIMa)

Bambari exercise. Retrieving commandos 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (1st RPIMa) by Caracal the 4th Special Forces Helicopter Regiment (4th HRTS). In the course of the program: 

- Recovery of a pilot in hostile terrain 

- release of hostages in the hands of insurgents 

- launches tactical UAV 

- Helicopter Rope Suspension Technique workouts.

This exercise was used to validate the training of commando forces Special. 

Photo: GG / army of

General Glueck's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee...

Zero deficit thinking is now mainstream...What if OU took a different course?

via OU website...

Everyone is outraged by the video of the fraternity engaged in singing racists chants.  I'm on board with that.  We should be pissed.

Where I part company with the OU administration though is the punishment.  Aren't universities suppose to be places of higher learning?  Aren't they suppose to be places where outrageous speech is tolerated, even if not agreed with?

But I digress.  My main point is that we're looking at zero deficit thinking infecting the university system.  A better move would have been to sanction these young people, force community service of some type and to educate rather than expel them.

Punish?  Yes!  Continue to mentor?  ABSOLUTELY!

The Marine Corps should take note.  Young people make stupid mistakes.  Those mistakes are amplified in an era of smart phones and electronic surveillance.  Instead of casting off a potentially promising individual because of one mistake, every effort should be made to evaluate them, and if found worthy, mentor as well as punish.  The next Congressman from OU might have just been kicked out and what we'll get in return is the next local leader of the KKK because we weren't willing to punish, forgive and mentor.

China's new spacecraft....

The Chinese are drinking our milkshake!

Its past time we wake up to the fact that they are modernizing at an alarming rate in every important military category.  The latest is in Space Technology.  Normalcy Bias will have you saying that this is no big deal.  Sorry but you're wrong.  My prediction?  Unless we get our space program back on track, we will see a Chinese base on the moon while we struggle to simply get back into earth orbit.

Senate Armed Services Committee, Dept of the Navy Posture Hearing...Definitely worth a watch.

China's VN12 Armored Fighting Vehicle News.

via WantChinaTimes

China's new VN12 armored infantry fighting vehicle has a similar design to Western armored vehicles as opposed to Russian models, according to the Kanwa Defense Review, a Chinese-language military magazine based in Canada.
Designed originally based on the Soviet-built BMP-3, the VN12 is the export version of China's ZBD-97 armored infantry fighting vehicle. The vehicle nonetheless looks very different from the ZBD-97, which was produced for domestic consumers. The original Russian-designed vehicle was not popular among foreign buyers, according to the report.
To attract more overseas consumers, Beijing-based China North Industries Corporation redeveloped the vehicle to fit a more Western look.

Read the article here.

It appears that we're finally seeing Chinese armor development evolve away from Russian design influence.

I hope someone is keeping book on the different types of armor that the Chinese are putting into service.  The advancement in aviation tech has been stunning.  I contend that their advancements in armor tech has been even more stunning....and ignored.

Textron AirLand - Scorpion Light Strike/ISR Fighter Combat Simulation

Dunford testified yesterday but Glueck is up today...that's the one to watch!

via Defense News.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., questioned the Marine Corps' strategy for one of its key acquisitions priorities, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. Calling it an "interesting and tortured path" from the canceled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) to an ACV that Marines consider off-the-shelf, Reed asked Dunford, "What are you trying to accomplish by this?"
The Marine Corps, Dunford said, sought in vain to develop a platform to replace its 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) that could balance protection and ship-to-shore self-deploying capability at the right price.
"The reason we are where we are is we simply couldn't reconcile those three things — the cost, the capability and the protection required against the current threat," Dunford said.

Uh wow.

We definitely have a different breed of Congress Critter in office now.  Some of these people seemed to ask questions that hit close to the mark.  I'm still waiting to get a copy of Dunford's testimony and when I do it'll get posted poste haste.

But today is the day when we get a birds eye view of Marine Corps Ground Modernization.  According to the Senate Armed Services calendar Glueck is up today and visibility should be given on a whole range of programs.

Subcommittee: SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWERDate:Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Add to my Calendar Time: 09:30 AM       Location: Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building
Agenda
To receive testimony on Marine Corps ground modernization in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program.
WitnessesMr. Thomas P. DeeDeputy Assistant Secretary Of The Navy (Expeditionary Programs And Logistics Management) Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of The Navy (Research, Development, And Acquisition)
Lieutenant General Kenneth J. Glueck, Jr., USMCDeputy Commandant, Combat Development And Integration Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command

We're up to speed on the ACV issues thanks to General Mullen giving us a bit of his time but the other programs are so low profile that they might as well reside in the classified budget.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like C-Span will be broadcasting the testimony so we'll have to wait for the transcript to see if any news is made.

SOF- USMC MEU Integration? What's in it for us?

pic via USNI News.

via USNI

The SOFLE enabled the MEU’s Recon Company, a robust group of about 75 Recon Marines and support personnel, to do more, Trollinger said. The liaisons “advertised capability and said, ‘Here’s what we can do for you. We have Reconnaissance Marines – they’re not SOF – but they do have some similar capabilities. Let’s look at leveraging those capabilities.’ So the SOFLE did a lot of work identifying, and then actually planning, coordinating different activities that my reconnaissance Marines were able to do with different SOF entities while we were deployed.”
“If we did not have the SOFLE, we would not have been able to do, in my opinion, the different activities that we were ultimately able to do,” he said.

Read it all here.

I understand why Special Ops is so hungry for this teaming.  Check this out from FM71-3..

Limitations of SOF:

*Depend on the resources of the theater Army to support and sustain operations.

*Cannot conduct conventional combined arms operations on a unilateral basis.

*Their capabilities are limited to advising or directing indigenous military forces conducting this type of operation.

*Do not have organic combined arms capability. They habitually require support or attachment of other combat, CS, and CSS assets.

*Cannot provide security for operational bases without severely degrading operational and support capabilities.

What I don't understand is this.  What's in it for the MEU?  The article is laced with a massive pile of bullshit.  Each Combatant Commander has an inhouse Special Ops Liaison Team.  Deconflicting areas and making sure that the MEU is informed of what a particular SOCOM Unit is doing (assuming its not classified) should already be covered. There simply is NO need for a team led by an 0-5 to compete for limited berthing aboard our amphibs (oh and make no mistake about it...for every person added, another person is left on the beach...the same applies to equipment).  If advertising that we have Recon Company aboard ship is the best that we can offer a Combatant Commander, then we need to totally rethink the briefings that we give on the capabilities of the MEU.

My take on this?  The counter insurgency zealots in the Corps have won.  Maritime Raid Force move over.  You're no longer the "master" of the MEU. There is a new element in town...and they come from Tampa.

Blast from the past. Chesty Puller Quote...

“Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!”
- Lt. Gen. Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC

And with that I'm off to the gym to lift....

173rd Airborne Brigade & Heavy Armor headed to Estonia for drills.

via Sputnik News.

US Abrams tanks with personnel, as well as two groups of US paratroopers will arrive in the Estonian town of Tapa at the end of this week to participate in the Siil 2015 (the Hedgehog 2015) international military exercises, the General Staff of the country's Defense Forces said Tuesday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Siil 2015 military training will be held in Estonia from May 4 — 15. A total of 13,000 US and Estonian soldiers will take part in the drills.
"In addition to Abrams tanks, support equipment and other auto vehicles, as well as two groups of US paratroopers will arrive in Tapa," Estonia's General Staff said in a statement.
Vehicles and equipment will arrive in Tapa by rail.
The presence of US soldiers in Tapa is part of operation Atlantic Resolve, which demonstrates US efforts in support of its NATO allies and partners in Europe.

Read it all here.

I've always been curious about stationing an Airborne Brigade in Europe.  It seems like a weird place to put a unit that specializes in out of area operations....especially while Stryker Brigades are sitting in Kansas and Colorado begging for missions.

Having said all that is anyone in the Pentagon taking a look at the taskings lately?

I might be seeing things incorrectly but it really seems like op-tempo is starting to rival what we saw at the height of the War on Terror.  Of course these aren't combat missions but the active force is doing more and more it seems.

If this is the new normal then our military...especially our ground combat forces..are waaaaaay too small.

China building 2nd aircraft carrier.

Thanks to William for the link!

via The National Interest.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is building its second aircraft carrier, several senior Chinese military officials have confirmed, a Hong Kong daily is reporting.
On Monday, Taiwan Focus News Channel cited the Chinese-language The Hong Kong Commercial Daily in reporting that China has begun work on its second aircraft carrier, which will have a more advanced launch system the one currently used on China’s only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.
According to Taiwan Focus News Channel, the initial report cited Liu Xiaojiang, the former political commissioner of the PLA Navy, as saying that the “government's industrial and manufacturing agencies are now in charge of the ship's construction.” The report also cited Ding Haichun, who was promoted to the position of deputy political commissioner of the PLA Navy back in January, as confirming that China’s second aircraft carrier is under construction.
Taiwan Focus News Channel went on to paraphrase Ding as saying that “after the completion of the ship's construction, it will be turned over to the Navy for training maneuvers.”
Want China Times, which is also based in Taiwan, also carried a story about the original report on Monday.

Read it all here.

ACV News. The Official Marine Corps Website...

SAIC Terrex 2 (pictured above)

Remember my previous post where I talked about the Marine Corps appearing to be in a crouch, waiting to take blows on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) instead of mounting a full throated defense of the project?

Well little did I know that Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) has a website up devoted to getting the word out on the vehicle.

Check it out here.

ACV News and a Sunday conversation with General Mullen. UPDATED & Corrected.

As many of you know I've been a critic of not only the ACV, but also the timetable for its entry into service.  Ignoring all that and assuming it moves forward I've questioned its weapons fit, mobility claims, swim ability, the idea of launching from FAR beyond the horizon etc...

After a short (45 min) conversation with General William F. Mullen its become obvious that a few things are going on.  First is that the USMC has worked this issue.  Yeah.  That caught me by surprise too.  I guess the picture of the calm duck on the surface but paddling furiously underwater applies to this project.  The second is that we're finally seeing a full throated defense of the course being taken.

Read Mullen's bio here.  I won't give a full recap of the conversation but I will give you a rundown of the points that were hit.

Mobility.  
I planned to put him on his back foot with this from the jump.  A wheeled vehicle that has equal mobility to the M1 Abrams?  Bullshit.  Mullen countered that he saw it with his own eyes at the Nevada Automotive Test Center.  Ok.  Fair enough but the challenge was given to talk to a person at that facility to verify the results.  I'll do that this week but how do they explain the superior mobility?  High ground clearance, improved wheeled vehicle tech and the ability of wheels to act in a track like manner in rough terrain.  When pushed on the subject about the different terrain that Marines encounter whether desert, snow, ice, marsh, deep beach sand etc...the defense was made that testing had occurred in all conditions and the results were the same.  The ability to continue after battle damage was also stressed with the idea that wheels can keep going if one is blow off where you would have a mobility kill on a tracked vehicle.

Weapons Fit.  
With the proposed ACV we're looking at a "legacy" setup.  50 cal machine guns with 40mm grenade launchers on the ACV.  I asked why.  The ability to meet current worldwide standards of having at least a 30mm cannon seems like a no brainer.  I also pointed out that work had already been done on the BushMaster 30 mounted in the turret for the EFV and that should be a simple plug and play for manufacturers.  So why aren't they moving forward with more firepower for the vehicles.  Turns out the discussions are being had to do just that.  The Corps seems determined to go with a RWS setup with a large caliber weapon in the future...but in true Marine Corps fashion it will be on an upgrade path rather than entering service with the chosen weapon system.  The old adage of get it first then make it perfect seems to apply.

Family of vehicles.
I asked if any consideration was made to neck down the number of vehicles operated by the Marine Corps by moving LAR Battalions to the ACV.  I was told that there is.  NOTE:  The ramifications of this could be pretty intense in hindsight though.  We would be moving those units back to essentially Light Armored Infantry instead of "quasi" Cav.  I get the impression after this talk that the USMC is slowly moving toward the "Combat Assault Battalion" concept for the mechanized side of the house.  Necking down to the ACV platform for the current AAV, LAR, Engineer (assuming a vehicle with plow, MCLIC charges, maybe demolition gun can be made) seems like a no brainer.
Even more surprising was  that the idea of replacing the M1 Abrams with an "assault gun" or "mobile gun system" is also being discussed.  I was told that the LAR Battalion was engaged by T-72's and lost no vehicles to direct gun fire.  How did they accomplish this feat?  Different tactics.  While the ability to do "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" will no longer be possible, different tactics should make the vehicles just as effective.

Concept of Operations.  US Navy vs. USMC.  Is there confusion?
This was another of those points that I expected hemming and hawing on.  The CNO has been recorded as saying that they will be able to close the distance to about 12 miles off shore and launch amphibious assaults.  The USMC continues to talk about launching from 65 miles plus offshore.  What gives?  It was explained that there is no confusion.  The views are complementary.  How?  The CNO is right.  The Navy will be working hard to roll back defenses and setup corridors for our people to get to shore.  The extreme launch distance is being called for to work with those efforts to help defeat the A2/AD complexes on shore.  The example given was the SCUD hunt during the first Gulf War.  Finding those missiles from the air was problematic.  Eventually the allies turned to units on the ground to locate them.  The same thinking applies to anti-ship missiles that are truck mounted.  Launching Company Landing Teams from distance to help with the A2/AD fight ashore is where they're going with the concept.

Company Landing Teams.
Why the company landing team?  I viewed them as too small to survive in a hostile battle space and easy for the enemy to destroy once located.  The thinking is that the firepower found in the modern Marine Corps Infantry company far outstrips what we had during the 60's and 70's.  Supporting fires are much more effective and soon to become even more lethal (the General pointed to the rail gun specifically on this) with the added reality that a smaller Marine Corps would need to maximize its lethality versus foes that will outnumber us.

Ship to shore connectors.
Did you know that 80% of Marine Corps equipment arrives by LCAC or LCU?  I did but failed to properly assess the importance of this fact.  Getting grunts ashore is the easy part.  Keeping them sustained is hard.  With the STOM Triad "modified" (I refuse to say its broken) with the MV-22, F-35, and ACV instead of the EFV, the importance of the SSC becomes even more important.  Several concepts are under consideration.  They'll be covered in future blog posts.  As a sidenote, the idea of using JHSVs to do instream launches of AAVs was talked about.  I asked if experiments had been done and was surprised to learn that they had but it was low speed.  Modifications are being done to enable the ships to do high speed, instream launches.  This will bear watching.

Why no improvement on water speed since 1940.
I pointed out that we're looking at a vehicle that while it MIGHT prove superior to the AAV on land, will still give us the same water speed as the WW2 LVT.  The answer was illuminating.  All my readers that have emphasized that physics was the determining factor and that making a brick swim faster just couldn't be overcome with horsepower alone were correct.  Additionally the General named more offices then I will tell you about that are working this problem.  The results are the same.  High water speed remains important but the trade-offs at this time just aren't worth it.

A complimentary vehicle becomes primary.
Why would the Marine Personnel Carrier morph from a complimentary vehicle into a primary carrier for Marine Infantry?  Technology, mobility, firepower potential of the MPC vs. cost, unbearable tradeoffs in protection on land for the EFV.  A full assessment revealed that the MPC...which became the ACV will give greatly improved land performance while keeping amphibious assault from the sea viable.

The future.
Work will continue with the ACV once it enters service and we can expect changes to the vehicle that come from user experience and evolving threat profiles.  You will see improved weapons, the promise of a Trophy-like anti-missile system and MANY initiatives to improve water performance.  Some of those I will cover in blog posts down the line.  I was given several examples of where the thinking is going and while some sound almost out of this world, they all seemed within the realm of the possible today.  We're seeing a return to evolutionary development instead of attempts at leap ahead tech.

What about the bear in the room.  Sequestration?
I asked him about the threat of sequestration and if it returned, would we see additional delays in getting the vehicle into service.  He stated that funding was protected within a five year time period (as far out as Marine Corps budgeting goes) and that sequestration would NOT have an affect on this program.  The ACV is being touted as a MUST DO for the Marine Corps.

My thoughts.
I'm not sure that the answer they have to the ACV issues are correct, but they are working it.  Additionally we're finally seeing a Marine Corps type pushback to the critics (myself included).  No more crouching, waiting for blows to be struck but getting out and defending the work that is being done.  That alone makes me cheer.  Do I have doubts?  Yeah.  The mobility part alone will have me burning up the phone this morning.  I'll also try and touch base with some of the offices mentioned.  Verification?  Yep.  Confirmation?  You betcha.  Oh and I have to add this.  At the start of the conversation I asked if he was shaping the battlefield because news of the ACV was coming out this month...he said he wasn't.  We'll see how this plays out.  Confidence isn't high, but I am "chilled out".

UPDATE!  I need to make several corrections.  First.  The talk about a family of vehicles is EXTREMELY preliminary.  The primary consideration is simply getting the ACV into service.  My musing on the possibility of fitting a large caliber gun to the "track" (will we still call the ACV a track?) is MANY years down the road IF it happens at all.  Consider that personal enthusiasm for the idea.  Second.  The instream testing was done with LCACs NOT JHSVs.  Comms got jumbled and I apologize for the error.

The war over the disputed islands has begun...not with weapons but construction equipment.

The above pic is via China Defense Blog (there are many more pics over at their house ).   One thing has become apparent.  The Chinese have started the war over the disputed islands...not with weapons but construction equipment.

Why is a diplomatic dispute of interest to a defense blog?

Simple.  The Chinese are killing two birds with one stone.  They gain territory...constructed territory...they have "pickets" out at sea to establish forward aircraft refueling points that can never be sunk plus they have the option of placing powerful radar that can extend "over the horizon" coverage for their forces.

I don't have the coordinates for these man made islands but if they're close enough to the Japanese mainland and/or the radars are powerful enough, then they could be close to having 24/7 coverage of every plane and ship that sorties out of their...to include US aircraft.

This is smart.  Real smart.  Plus I don't see how it can be credibly disputed.

Russia's Northern Fleet is getting new vehicles for its Arctic Brigades (Naval Infantry).

via Russia Times.

The Arctic brigades of the Russian Northern Fleet are getting an off-road vehicle destined for the rough conditions of deep snow and freezing temperatures, while also being able to float in the water.
The first snow-and swamp truck for the Russian navy can deal with obstacles of up to 1.8 meters in height. The full-track vehicle is equipped with a starting preheater for both the motor and propeller, according to RIA Novosti.
The vehicle has been designed as a chain of modules – with the front power module able to hold six people and the back module ten people. The back can easily be transformed from a passenger car into a sleeping area, a medical block, or a command center.

Manufacturers website.

The Russians seem to be taking this move to the Arctic seriously and (using open source) are light years ahead of the allies.  This vehicle is just another piece in the puzzle and while it appears to be an enlarged BV206 Hagglund, its really an evolution of Russian thinking in the field.

DT-30

What is mystifying is the fact that the Russians already have the above vehicle and several others that fulfill this role nicely.  My only thought is that perhaps they're getting a troop carrier and will relegate larger all terrain vehicles to logistics work?

Either way, they're going to have excellent ground mobility in Arctic snow, ice, mud, marshes and across water.

Back to the A-16 future...

Pic and background on the failed A-16 experiment via F-16.net.

via F-16.net

The Block 60 did not go into production and the A-16 became wrapped up in the debate about close air support. The supporters of the A-16 project wanted the USAF to replace its A-10A Thunderbolt IIs with A-16's, arguing that the A-10 was too slow to survive above a high-tech battlefield. Detractors argued that the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire.
The Army argued that the Key West agreement of 1948 (under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft) was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10's should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A's and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.
However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CASmission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed.

And fast forward to today...via Washington Post...

Close-air support (CAS) is carried out by a variety of aircraft, including helicopters, the A-10 and fighter jets like the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-16 Fighting Falcon. As the A-10 is retired, the Air Force will tap some fighter squadrons to primarily be close-air support units, and move A-10 pilots to them.
“We’re going to take those aviators, and we’re going to have designated predominantly CAS squadrons in the F-15s and the F-16s, and eventually in the F-35,” Carlisle said. “We want those CAS expertise to go to those squadrons that are dedicated to CAS to keep that expertise, that knowledge base, that culture alive.”

Read the entire story here.

Just wow.

We've tried this non-sense before but it seems like institutionally the USAF and the Army/Marines just don't remember.

Sad.  Real sad.

F-35 will provide substandard Close Air Support initially says USAF general.

“In many ways, it won’t have the some of the capabilities of our current platforms,” Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, head of the service’s Air Combat Command, acknowledged during a briefing with reporters on Friday at the Pentagon.

via Defense Tech.org

Carlisle said the F-35A won’t initially be able to perform “advanced” close air support “because those are systems that are going to be coming onto the airplane in later blocks.”
The technologies the aircraft will initially lack include the large area, high-definition synthetic aperture radar known as “BIG SAR,” which is needed to get the best functionality out of the electro-optical targeting system, as well as a pinpoint glide bomb known as the Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB-II, the general said.
Carlisle said the systems are slated to be integrated into the aircraft as part of a Block 4 software upgrade, the first version of which isn’t scheduled to arrive until 2021. “All of those are things that are going to be coming on in Block 4,” he said.
Even the F-35’s 25mm, four-barrel GAU-22 gun won’t be ready for at least a couple of more years.
So which weapons will the airplane initially carry? The Marine Corps’ F-35B will enter service with Block 2B software, which lets pilots fire a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles, AMRAAMs, or drop a pair of satellite-guided bombs or laser-guided weapons — not exactly the armament of choice for close-in missions.

The airplane is now being acknowledged to be less capable than the current version of the Harrier that its slated to replace and that the USMC is retiring early.

What is HQMC thinking?

Why are they so determined to get this airplane into service when it is so obviously substandard?

WHAT IS GOING ON!

Council on Foreign Relations eviscerates USAF arguments to retire the A-10

Read the entire article here.

I don't know who this Janine Davidson (she's has PHD in international affairs and is a milf too) is, but she's on my new watch list (for the brain, not the face).  I haven't read anyone take apart the USAF position the way she has.  Usually I'm not impressed by the so called "brains" at these think tanks.  What we usually get is processed groupthink, but this is different.

Add this to your weekend must read.

Ukrainian Army has a new helmet....via English Russia.

More pics at English Russia here.