Sunday, May 26, 2019
Italian Cavour vs Trieste vs QE....the problem of the L-Class Carrier vs LHD...Cavour
 |
| Cavour |
I've been watching a few threads on Twitter regarding the Cavour vs Trieste vs QE.
In my opinion it boils down to the L-Class vs LHD debate, and how some are trying to upgun an LHD into the carrier class. Let me explain. First check this out....
A COMPARISON BETWEEN ITALY'S TRIESTE LHD & BRITAIN'S QUEEN ELIZABETH CVF (Thread)— Nicholas Drummond (@nicholadrummond) May 26, 2019
Yesterday, Italy launched its new Trieste LHD. It is 245 metres in length, displaces 33,000 tonnes and costs €1.1 billion. It will serve alongside the Cavour which is a similar type of ship.
1 pic.twitter.com/rp9YrhGge2
I love Nicholas. He's a solid dude. But on this subject I think he's off the mark. The reality is that the Trieste is should NOT be compared to the QE. It's a dedicated LHD. FULL BORE LHD and from what I've read it will be focused on traditional LHD mission sets. Getting Italian Marines (and Amphibious Army units) across the beach.
It retains the ability to do that thru vertical insertion and surface assault. It's not an America Class competitor. It's pure. No hybridization at all.
So why are we seeing this debate/comparison taken up? I think it has to do with only one thing. The layout of the islands. That simple innovation that the Brits carried out (good on them by the way) has inspired others to follow their lead and because it bears a striking similarity to the QE, many automatically assume that it's similar.
Displacement alone tells the tale. The QE is heavier than the America Class and MUCH heavier than the Trieste.
Aircraft carrying capacity is also an indication. The QE can in overflow carry over 30 F-35s. The Trieste only 15 during normal ops (and I imagine even that is pushing it) and supposedly up to 20 during overflow.
In short. The QE is a pocket carrier (in the American scheme), the America a hybrid and the Trieste a pure LHD that can flex.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Have to admit that the QE looks majestic sailing into port...
Welcome home @HMSQNLZ— Proud of Portsmouth (@PortsmouthProud) May 25, 2019
We’ll never tire of this magnificent sight!@RoyalNavy @VAdmNickHine @HMNBPortsmouth @MODPolice @SercoGroup @QHMPortsmouth @NavyLookout @PortsmthNewsHub @ShippingMag @BAES_Maritime @The_NFF @Navynewsnet @of_fleet @CaptDavidGeorge @hthjones @TugmasterRob pic.twitter.com/78VKN8XRFq
Have to admit that it's a majestic looking ship....
Blast from the past...F-111 was a beast!
If long take off runs are/were your bag, this is sure to appeal.— Chris Bolton (@CcibChris) May 25, 2019
Maximum bomb load - 51. 48 under the wings and 3 in the weapons bay. The only downside is that the wings cannot be swept in this configuration as the outer pylons do not swivel. pic.twitter.com/i0CffC7xwm
MC-130's down low between the hills...
USAF MC-130 pic.twitter.com/z0I2zaoQLM— peter lewis (@welshi233) May 22, 2019
Jesus! I must be jaded. Military Twitter(correction, military fanboy Twitter) is all abuzz about this short vid but I only give it a duh. I mean seriously, this is what they do right?
Blast from the past via DTR Magazine....
Follow DTR Magazine on Twitter folks...you'll get a chance to see some pretty interesting info/conversations. Tell him I sent ya!
Hands up who remembers the 120mm Armoured Mortar System demonstrator at Mt Bundey during Ex Phoenix 98?— DTR Magazine (@DTRmag) May 25, 2019
And hands up who was there on the day this image was taken?
Yes to both for me! 🙂@AustralianArmy pic.twitter.com/JpJLpBuDq5
Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) tested with a 40mm cannon...via Defense 24...
via Defense 24
The vehicles may also potentially use more armament than their predecessors. US media outlets recently announced that a 40 mm cannon is being tested on the ACV platform. The gun, over the course of the test programme, was being used against a myriad of different targets, from infantry (at longer ranges than usual), pick-up trucks, to heavier vehicles or UAVs. The cannon is to be able to hit and neutralize any of those threats. This would translate into creation of a set of better defensive abilities for the landing operations.Story here.
Northrop Grumman confirmed that ACV was being tested with the Bushmaster II Mk 44/S cannon in “stretch” configuration. The gun makes it possible to utilize the Mk 310 Programmable Air Bursting Munition (PABM) rounds. Mk 44/S is a 30 mm gun in its standard variant but it may be rapidly converted to the 40 mm calibre. ACV was tested with the “Stretch” 40 mm gun at least once, as reported by the US media. The tests took place during a recent conference gathering the Bushmaster cannon users. ACV is using the MCT-30 turret manufactured by Kongsberg.
Poland can also be find among the Bushmaster user group (Mk 44 Bushmaster II). The weapon is being utilized on the Rosomak APC. The “Stretch” variant is used on the WB Electronics/HSW ZSSW-30 turrets that are to become the armament on the newly delivered Rosomak APCs and Borsuk IFVs.
The available data suggests that USMC has not directly defined use of the 40 mm calibre as a requirement. The US Marines however, are interested in the Mk 44/S gun and the option of utilizing programmable rounds. Potential transition to the 40 mm ammunition is also being considered. The ability to maintain and manufacture the “Stretch” gun is to be established at the Polish HSW S.A. facility, within the scope of the offset arrangements made during phase I of the WisÅ‚a programme.
Missed this but I cheer.
HQMC is taking a look at a 40mm cannon.
Good God! The Marine Corps is getting its groove back! This would be a nice long term "interim" caliber. Effective for the foreseeable future and we can keep an eye on what the Army is doing with the 50mm.
Someone is working this problem to perfection. Love it!
Friday, May 24, 2019
First US Army brigade of M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks to be delivered "sometime this summer"....
First @USArmy brigade of M1A2 SEPv3 #Abrams main battle #tank|s to be delivered "sometime this summer":— Christian Pingel (@ct_pingel) May 22, 2019
https://t.co/fU4qjO4r9O
Marines conduct a notional raid on a Polaris MRZR 4 vehicle during exercise Northern Edge....photo by Cpl. Rhita Daniel
 |
| FORT GREELY, Alaska (May 22, 2019) - U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Juan Morales, front right, a platoon sergeant, with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 7, conducts a notional raid on a Polaris MRZR 4 vehicle during exercise Northern Edge (NE), May 22, 2019 at Fort Greely, Alaska. Approximately 10,000 U.S. military personnel participate in exercise NE 2019, a joint training exercise hosted by U.S. Pacific Air Forces that prepares joint forces to respond to crises in the Indo-Pacific region. |
Chinese 124th Amphibious Mechanized Infantry Division amphibious exercise via China Defense Blog...
They're training hard and aren't exhausting their men and material around the world defending the interests of others.
They're getting ready.
Are we?
New photo of the Scarab, light armored reconnaissance and engagement aid developed by Arquus...via Vincent lamigeon Twitter...
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)