Thursday, May 23, 2019

Circling back to an old chestnut. Does it matter that our Navy's ships look like trash?





Check out the above pic.

We're part of that task force and our steed looks like warmed over shit.  I've seen barnyard finds (vehicles found in barns) that have less rust on them.  This is a state of the art warship and it looks like trash...but does it matter?

Should we equate performance with appearance?  

Does it matter that our European partners see our ships in this condition?

Is this a result of over deployment syndrome that has swept the Pentagon?

I don't know.  What I do know is that this is a terrible look...

Thurs Funny...


Is this proof that China is actually a bit more than worried about the trade war?

via China Daily.
Refuting US concerns that China is forcing American enterprises to transfer technologies to Chinese businesses, Lin said such claims are not based on facts and ignore the basic tenets of economics.

US companies have chosen to adopt advanced technologies in their production process in China not because anyone has forced them to do so, but because they want to survive and stand out in market competition, he said.

Commenting on concerns that Sino-US trade friction is a clash of civilizations, Lin said different civilizations can actually coexist and learn from each other. The US is ignoring this positive aspect as it wants to "exclusively dominate the world." Many of the allegations made against China are just excuses for restricting China's development, Lin said.
------------------------------

According to Liu, the US is trying to suppress China's growing technology strength by using its state powers to impose curbs on Chinese companies like Huawei. As China's economic strength keeps growing, the contradictions between the two countries are also aggravated, he said.

Liu, a former deputy head of the Development Research Center of the State Council, expects trade friction to have a limited influence on the Chinese economy as its export sector is not that dependent on the US market and is diversified enough to withstand the shocks and challenges.
Story here. 

We're winning and they're scared.

Open Comment Post. 23 May 2019


Defense Media's Special Ops Outlook...


Definitely worth a look-see.  Check it out here.

US teams with Japan on advanced amphibious vehicle...


via Shepard Media.
The Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency announced on 13 May that the Japanese MoD and US DoD had signed an agreement to jointly research next-generation amphibious technology.

In this project, Japan and the US will examine the feasibility of amphibious technology using a simulator based on a digital model of an amphibious vehicle.

Japan has been developing a domestic amphibious vehicle since 2016, and it is thought the Mitsubishi Amphibious Vehicle (MAV) will provide the base technology for this development.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries developed the MAV with its own budget. Mitsubishi has also been developing its 12MB engine that generates up to 3,000hp. The 12MB is designed to be just one-seventh the size of similar existing engines.

The MAV will also adopt integrated hydropneumatic suspension, which will place the tracks closer to the hull and thus reduce water resistance. The MAV aims to achieve a maximum speed of 35-46km/h in water.
Story here. 

I'm a pic collector.  A big time armored vehicle pic collector in particular.  Because of that hobby and an interest in amphibious operations I'm aware of one thing that many have forgotten.

The Japanese were probably at the forefront of amphibious vehicle design during WW2.

The Pacific is thought of as an "all infantry" affair (with regard to land warfare) but in several campaigns/battles, armored vehicles played an important role for all forces involved.

So what does all that have to do with the story above?

Just because they "haven't" developed amphibious armored vehicles lately doesn't mean that they can't build a world winning design.

The idea of the US DoD teaming with the Japanese could be seen as a huge slap in the face of our domestic corporations but I don't think so.  The specs of the vehicle they're attempting to build EASILY rival the EFV that failed years ago.

If they can make it work then we should be right there with them.

I consider this smart.

For better or worse, amphibious vehicle development has lagged.  Squaring the circle on this is hard.  If the Japanese succeed then we're partnered and good to go.  If they don't then we have the ACV.

It's a win win.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Blast from the past. "It's not just Greenert, it's across the naval aviation community: They're just not that into the F-35,"


via Navy Times (Feb 9, 2015).
The top officer of one of three services projected to spend tens of billions of dollars on stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, now says "stealth may be overrated."

During a speech last week to a Washington audience, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert described what he's looking for in the next generation of strike aircraft — and it doesn't look like the controversial F-35.

"What does that next strike fighter look like?" Greenert asked the packed forum. "I'm not sure it's manned, don't know that it is. You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated. ... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable. You get my point."

Greenert was speaking about the next generation of fighter aircraft, but his comments could just as easily be applied to Lockheed Martin's F-35C, the carrier-based version of the joint strike fighter. Aviation analysts who watch the F-35 program closely say Greenert's comments reflect ambivalence among naval aviators about the F-35 as a strike fighter, especially compared to the tried-and-true F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.

"It's not just Greenert, it's across the naval aviation community: They're just not that into the F-35," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at the Teal Group.
Story here.

The story speaks for itself but I want to touch on something else.

Greenert was the right leader at the right time for the US Navy.  His "payloads over platforms" mantra was set during his tenure and it is the philosophy that is leading the US Navy into the future.

Mattis pushed forward a "lethality" mantra that has been embraced across the force.

Think about the last two Marine Commandants.

What are they remembered for?  What was their guiding light that continues to shine, leading towards the Marine Corps future?

I don't want to throw stones but what will Neller be remembered for?  I thought long and hard and the only thing that comes to mind is when he lowered his head while a female Congress Critter talked to him like he had a tail.

Do you remember anything from Dunford's tenure?  Not throwing stones but what was the big thing that came from his time in office?

Before him was Amos.  Won't even go into that except to say that he had a rocky time.  I don't know if he deserved all the hate in hindsight (and I was tossing it at him full bore), but I don't remember any enduring ideas that worked.  He pushed the aviation centric Marine Corps but that is AT BEST incomplete and trending negatively.

Before those guys we had EXCELLENCE in action....from PX Kelly to James Conway we had studs at the top.

Am I wrong and we actually had visionaries over the last 12 years or am I onto something?

Raytheon's Deep Strike Missile exceed US Army requirements...




Awesome.  Hope the USMC buys several dozen...can't beat a surface to surface missile when it comes to all weather strike.

Polaris Infantry Squad Vehicle



via Army Times.
Polaris, with their partner SAIC, responded to the Army’s April request for proposal for its new Infantry Squad Vehicle, McCormick said.

The DAGOR is the largest of the Polaris family of military vehicles, which includes the smaller MRZRs already fielded by the Army and Marine Corps.

The vehicle can be sling loaded by the Army’s UH-60 Black Hawks, or internally transported by CH-47, and it can be airdropped by C-130 or C-17, McCormick told Army Times.

Variations of the DAGOR can be configured to haul smaller four to five man special operations teams on a multi-day mission, or carry a nine-man infantry squad, according to McCormick.

The vehicle is designed with high clearance that aids the vehicle in operating in austere environments, McCormick explained.

The DAGOR already matches much of the requirements the Army detailed in its Sept. 2018 market questionnaire for industry leaders. That questionnaire was posted to the government’s business opportunities site known as FedBizOpps.

“The ISV is envisioned as a lightweight, highly mobile open cab vehicle,” the posting reads. “Survivability will be achieved through high mobility, a roll cage and occupant restraints.”
Story here. 

So this is a race between General Dynamics and Polaris/SAIC.  I don't know details but the Polaris/SAIC seems like a real solid rig.

Bell V-280 Valor -- Low-Speed Agility (vid)

CH-47D's sling loading Army Ground Mobility Vehicles (AGMV).....pics by Pvt. Laurie Ellen Schubert & Staff Sgt. Austin Berner



BLT 3/5 Kilo Company Range...pics by Lance Cpl. Dalton Swanbeck (are they still the "experimental" Battalion?)

Note.  Are these bubbas still the experimental Battalion or has that ended?  Anyone know what the findings were and what recommendations they came up with?  It totally slipped my mind till I saw these pics over at DVIDS.











Maritime Raid Force free fall jump operations... by Cpl. Matthew Teutsch






2nd AABn MCLIC Training....pics by Lance Cpl. Tyler M. Solak




Canadian Navy HMCS TORONTO during VERTREP....pics by Cpl Daan Meijerman





Canadian Army Battery Commander Course Field Training Exercise...pics by Cpl Nicolas Alonso

Soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery School (RCAS), 2nd Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (2 RCHA) and 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada (5 RALC) conduct M777 Howitzer training as part of The Battery Commander's Exercise course at CFB Gagetown in Oromocto, New Brunswick, April 5, 2019.





Open Comment Post. 22 May 2019









Tuesday, May 21, 2019

V-280 proves it has equal low speed-low altitude agility equal to the UH-60 Black Hawk...


via Breaking Defense.
 Bell says it’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor has met the Army’s requirement for low-speed, low-altitude agility, at least equaling the UH-60 Black Hawk it’s contending to replace. That’s the last major objective Bell set for itself in its test program, which is a year ahead of its archrival for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft contract, the Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 Defiant.

Agility in particular is a critical criterion for an aircraft which must land troops quickly and precisely in tight quarters, even in high winds or under enemy fire, and swiftly zoom off again. Detractors of Bell’s trademark tiltrotor technology — such as Sikorsky — have argued that these wide-winged aircraft with their huge dual rotors sacrifice helicopter-style agility in the landing zone in their pursuit of airplane-like range and speed. While this test isn’t fine-grained enough to settle whether Bell’s V-280 is more or less maneuverable than the SB>1 Defiant, it does show that the tiltrotor at least meets the Army’s minimum standard, itself a high bar.
Story here. 

Wow.  I think the USMC just found its AH-1Z/UH-1Y replacement.  Add some pylons for weapons and gas and away we go.

Wonder how far along they are on a navalized variant.  I can see this being a nice ASW and rescue platform...


Open Comment Post. 21 May 2019