Une nouvelle photo du Scarabée, blindé léger de reconnaissance et d’aide à l’engagement développé par Arquus. Possible successeur du VBL pic.twitter.com/AyQh7bUxx9— Vincent Lamigeon (@VincentLamigeon) May 22, 2019
Friday, May 24, 2019
New photo of the Scarab, light armored reconnaissance and engagement aid developed by Arquus...via Vincent lamigeon Twitter...
I guess we have to debate the Trump "potential" pardons...
BREAKING: Former Marine Commandant tells Trump that pardoning troops accused of war crimes 'relinquishes the moral high ground' https://t.co/IPHx6anxup— Paul Szoldra (@PaulSzoldra) May 21, 2019
Hmm.
We have no choice but to dive into this muddy water, but I'm unsettled by the whole thing.
I have questions.
Is it wrong for the President to pardon men that risked it all for this nation? That fought when few others would for this land of ours? That did the hard thing instead of expecting others to do it instead?
Are we a people that aren't capable of giving such men a second chance?
I don't buy the "moral high ground" bit for one minute.
We've launched air strikes and killed family members of terrorists because they were considered a high value target and the people around them were listed as collateral damage.
We've traded terrorists for a deserter that got his fellow soldiers killed.
I'm not sure but I'd bet we've even paid money to terrorist in the vain hope that we could advance our goals.
So spare me the moral high ground.
This is murky at best and a pardon isn't exoneration. Let their God judge them.
Friday Funny. You made the challenge and they accepted!
Don't advertise the goods?
Well said!
You made the challenge and they accepted. It's 2019 folks. You can be targeted for political views, skin color, sexual preference etc....be smart!
Don't tell the world where you stand on the back of your vehicle. Oh and for the smart asses, yeah this is America and you have freedom of speech but people also have the freedom to be idiots.
So just save yourself the headache and take it to the voting booth.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Raids and drone strikes on High Value Targets hasn't worked so why do we continue?
I was talking to John F about MARSOC and its future when something dawned on me.
One of the hallmarks of SOCOM when it comes to mission sets is raids on High Value Targets. As a matter of fact SOCOM has become just one HUGE raid force.
The Rangers should be pissed. That was their claim to fame and now everyone is doing it.
Add in drone strikes against HVTs and you have almost our entire Middle East anti-terror strategy built around this one concept.
But why?
Why are we continuing to focus on this portion of the fight when its failed since the capture of Saddam and his execution all the way up to the killing of Bin Laden and even today with activity in Africa.
Is it me or does this have a whiff of the bad ole' days...sorta like body counts except much less effective than even that discredited butchers bill approach.
Am I wrong?
Don't rage. Hit me with facts and tell me where I've gone off the rails.
What exactly is the role of SOCOM in a peer vs peer fight? If you tell me building partnerships then you have no role!
Marine Times posted an article that discusses the future of Marine Raiders and their role in a peer vs peer fight. At the end I'll point out my issues with the General's talk.
Maj. Gen. Daniel D. Yoo, the commander of Marine Forces Special Operations Command, or MARSOC, was responding to a question from an audience member at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in Tampa, Florida, regarding worries from industry leaders about making equipment for the Raiders, especially if the unit was on the chopping block.Once again the tail wags the dog? Even more support is going to be drawn from the conventional side of the house to enable MARSOC?
“I don’t think so," Yoo said, noting there may even be “potential” for growth. “In our short history we’ve come a long ways.”
That growth may come from Raider enablers known as special operations capability specialists, who are cut to MARSOC for a tour of duty and eventually return to their primary occupation within the Marine Corps, Yoo told Marine Corps Times in an interview.
Sorry but that sounds like a non-starter! But wait...it gets even more curious...
“I think the special operations community is uniquely suited to build networks of partners and allies around the globe to put us in a position, first of all, to compete for that influence and legitimacy in peacetime,” Clarke told lawmakers.The only part about this talk that's a bit refreshing is that the General's eye are focused firmly on China.
What disturbs is that he hasn't laid out a rationale for the expanded force he foresees.
Are we seriously back to the "building partnerships and relationships" talking point?
What I want to know is how MARSOC will support the Marine Corps in a rough and tough rumble with China. Where do they see themselves on the battlefield.
The answer is simple.
In a conventional fight there simply isn't a real role for SOCOM/MARSOC! In Desert Storm they made their hay hunting Scuds but that was a loss in the effectiveness column...a mission fail if you like.
In Syria they were the supported entity and that was at best inconclusive. Same goes for Afghanistan if we're being generous (although that's looking like a loss).
McRaven fought for and won SOCOM being a supported force. But have they delivered?
Not so sure.
I know their are SOCOM boosters in my readership so I simply ask this. Fill General Yoo's shoes and tell me what the role is for MARSOC in a future fight. Take it one step further and tell me where you see SOCOM in a peer vs peer conflict with China or Russia!
I'm dragging on but do you remember the talk about possible conflict with N. Korea? Do you remember some of the talk about raids to recover nukes from that country? That shit sounded like something out of a Tom Clancy novel. If that alternate history actually came to pass then you'd probably see entire Ranger/MARSOC Battalions destroyed!
The only major conflict on the horizon that I can see SOCOM playing a role in is against Iran and I believe the casualty figures for a raid on one of their nuke facilities to be the same as N. Korea. Whole battalions destroyed with numerous aircraft shot down.
If that's true then how would they fare against China/Russia.
Long short? SOCOM has had its time in the sun. They fought hard and did the deed but it just didn't work out. For better or worse they should return to their traditional role, the role they had before the war on terror. They should be a supporting, not supported element.
Circling back to an old chestnut. Does it matter that our Navy's ships look like trash?
Look at the absolute state of USS Gravely on deployment with SNMG1 in the Baltic. pic.twitter.com/189dF9T7Of— The Brit (@TheBrit96) May 22, 2019
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...
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.Story here.
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.
We're winning and they're scared.
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.Story here.
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.
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."Story here.
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.
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...
New DeepStrike surface-to-surface missile exceeds @USArmy requirements in latest test: https://t.co/EKEf5F9bhS pic.twitter.com/OykDNZpeJb— Raytheon (@Raytheon) May 23, 2019
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.Story here.
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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)