Polish Army doing work...pics via Poland In NATO Twitter Page...

The loss of our RQ-4...Combatant Commander failure, not understanding enemy intent or a misuse of an asset for a mission it wasn't designed for?

The U.S. military lost one of its most advanced intelligence drones to a mediocre radar and missile. That reflects a lack of suitable next-generation drones to carry out missions against adversaries with actual air defenses. https://t.co/LbfWxDqn5P

— Bruno J. Navarro (@Bruno_J_Navarro) June 21, 2019

The title might be seen as a bit of click bait to some but we really need to talk about the failure here.  Let's knock down the two items off the top and see what the RQ-4 BAMS was designed to do...

* via Wikipedia...

Together with its associated ground control station, it is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS). Developed under the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, the system is intended to provide real-time intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions (ISR) over vast ocean and coastal regions, continuous maritime surveillance, conduct search and rescue missions, and to complement the Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.[3][4][5] Triton builds on elements of the RQ-4 Global Hawk; changes include reinforcements to the air frame and wing, de-icing systems, and lightning protection systems. These capabilities allow the aircraft to descend through cloud layers to gain a closer view of ships and other targets at sea when needed. The sensor suites allow ships to be tracked by gathering information on their speed, location, and classification.[6]

Ok.  We have our overview in a matchbox.

We can assume that the Combatant Commander wanted to get eyes on the sea lane in an attempt to protect the global commons.  Additionally we can see that this airplane was doing what the Navy intended.  Ocean and coastal maritime surveillance.

So with about 5 seconds into a Google search we can see that the Combatant Commander is "on his way" to being vindicated AND we know that the asset was conducting a mission IT WAS designed to do.

That leaves us with enemy intent...or rather anticipating enemy action.  I'm not a fan of the Combatant Commander concept, but check this out...

 "Intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB). IPB must include likely enemy courses of action once the attack is initiated or discovered, and we must employ both human and electronic intelligence to gather the data we need."

Look.  I'm dancing in hindsight here.

None of us sitting on the outside have visibility on what the CC had as marching orders and we don't know if he was preparing the battlefield for future offensive options to be presented to the President.

But I think that's exactly what he was doing.

If that's the case (and I believe it is) then whoever this bubba is, he can't be blamed.

So where does that leave us.

1.  The asset being used was used properly.  BAMS is built to do this.  I'm reasonably sure the thought was to gather intel along the Iranian shoreline AND to maintain coverage of shipping thru the Persian Gulf.  Additionally these are long endurance, high flying missions over water.  There is no other platform that we could use that would fulfill this mission better than the
BAMS.

2.  Who would have thought that the Iranians would shoot down a drone over INTERNATIONAL waters!  I didn't see it coming and neither did any of you.  There just wasn't a way to properly anticipate this development.  Trump almost gave away (well he actually did) the thinking inside the Pentagon. Check this out. via Fox News (story here).

“They made a very big mistake,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, alongside Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I find it hard to believe it was intentional, and it could have been someone who was loose and stupid,” he added.

I continue to marvel at how we avoided serious incidents (meaning the start of hostilities) when we were nose to nose with the USSR on borders across Europe.

All it takes for one trigger happy Company Commander to lose his shit and suddenly you're in a massive war because someone got cocky, nervous, or both.

So in summary?

Murphy always wins.  Mistakes happen, enemy activity often can't be predicted and losing high dollar hardware is just part of the price to playing in the big leagues.

1.  The Combatant Commander DID NOT fail.

2.  No way we could anticipate tactical enemy activity on this type of battlefield...the strategic calculation was spot on...the tactical calculation was foggy as hell and no one is to blame for that. 

3.  We used the right tool for the right job.

Our boys did it right.  Perfection is what we strive for even though it isn't possible.  In this situation it shouldn't be expected.  Sometimes shit happens, you say "fuck me", you take your lumps and you move on.  This is one of those times.

BALTOPS 2019: Unity, Interoperability

China Thinks the F-35 Would Get Trashed by Russia's New Su-57 Fighter

via National Interest.

Earlier this month, Chinese defense news outlet Mil.news.sina published an analytical piece on the state of Russia’s arsenal. The article looked to the Su-57, Russia’s upcoming fifth generation stealth fighter, as a case study in the failures and successes of Russia’s ambitious, decades-long campaign to modernize its armed forces.

Whereas other fifth-generation fighters—most prominently, the US F-35—are strategic weapons, the author argues that the Su-57 was designed for an entirely different purpose that makes sense within the broader context of Russian military doctrine: “The Russians have a very simple idea. Nuclear weapons will defend Russia against the aggression of great powers. Jet fighters, military vessels, and other tactical weapons will guarantee Russia’s victory in small, local conflicts.”

The publication then turns to an in-depth treatment of what they consider to be the Su-57’s trump card against American military hardware: its “stealth-killing” radio-photonic radar. Mil.news lavishes the Su-57’s radar system with an impressive features list, including a “theoretical” maximum detection distance of 500 kilometers, imaging resolution and bandwith dozens of times greater than the “traditional” radar, and the ability to seamlessly switch between multiple frequencies without compromising performance. The article’s baseline standard for “traditional” radar specifications remains unclear.

The latter assertion figures prominently into their conclusion that the Su-57’s radar “trashes” even the “powerful electronic jammers” found on the F-35; whereas Russia was previously “helpless” against US jamming, “the new radar will directly ignore electronic interference.” Considering that the F-35 is supposed to make up what it lacks in the Su-57’s raw speed, maneuverability, and power with superior avionics and ECM (electronic counter measures) tools, Mil.news’ analysis seems to strip the F-35 of its primary advantage over its Russian counterpart.

Story here. 

I look forward to comments from all parties but even if the Chinese are wrong about Russian Radio-Photonic Radar (and I can't even begin to touch on that subject...maybe my regulars can educate me) then I think they're spot on with the Russian thinking behind the SU-57 and spot on when comparing it to the F-35.

The SU-57 isn't built for peer vs peer combat.  The Russians aren't thinking that way.  By contrast the F-35 is designed for offensive warfare...its original title belied its design philosophy...a JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER!

Can we take it a step further and say that the whole scheme was built around the idea of coalition warfare based on a Desert Storm type scenario?

Opinions please!

Open Comment Post. 22 June 2019

Awesome Military & Gear Magazine from Poland...FRAG OUT!

Thanks to Gerard for the link!

I know my audience and I know some of you guys are gear junkies just like I am.  If you're not actually buying the latest and greatest then you're at least wanting to keep up with the trends in the industry.

Everyone has a "favorite" go-to but you might want to add FRAG OUT! to your list.

Check it out here.

When you get back you can thank me!

Mountaintop Apaches...Pics by Chief Warrant Officer Cameron Roxberry (Massive Pic Thread!)...

Iron V's dream come true!

pic.twitter.com/JDS4zUXXJG

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019

Sorry guys.

Had to poke a bit of fun after all the comments on whether or not we should retaliate against Iran for them knocking down one of our drones.

Don't get mad...we can take a position and have fun with it at the same time...I promise, this was just fun, no animosity.

Sidenote...I bet Iron V's head is exploding while reading this!

F-35 News. More proof the Air Force is looking for a plan B...

Meet the AIM-260, the Air Force and Navy's future long-range air-to-air missile:https://t.co/lfPNwgy4Rw

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) June 22, 2019

Follow the link and read the article.  

One thing is obvious to me.  In my opinion the powers that be have finally globbed onto the idea that the F-35 just ain't gonna get it done.

Therefore they can't wait on lasers or hypersonics.

An ace in the hole needs to be part of our deck of cards and that's the old reliable missile.  Unfortunately we've lagged on development so now they're pulling out all stops to catch up.  The AIM-260 will do that.

About time too.

Did you catch the wording Trump used in the explanation of why he denied the strike....

via CNN.

"We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights (sic) when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General," Trump tweeted. "10 minutes before the strike I stopped it."

------------------------------------------
"I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead, and I didn't like it, I didn't think, I didn't think it was proportionate," he said.
"Nothing was green lighted until the very end because things change," Trump added. "We had something ready to go subject to my approval," he added, saying planes were not in the air when he ordered the pull back, but "would have been pretty soon," Trump said.

Story here. 

A few things...

*  Did you notice what Trump said?  I'm not gonna try and dig deep because he often uses imprecise wording.  But the highlighted quote is telling.  150 dead people within an half an hour after I said go ahead.  Does that mean this was going to be a much larger strike than anyone on this blog (in the comments) has talked about?

*  I notice that Trump is taking heat from both sides.  Curiously there is a wing of the Party that is still wanting to strike at Iran.  Despite us being involved all over the region he is taking heat from this wing for not launching punitive strikes now.  He's also getting heat from Pelosi and company who are complaining that they weren't briefed about a strike before it happened.

*  For those that want immediate air strikes, what is the end game?  Do you think we've prepared for a larger conflict if Iran suddenly activates all its proxies in the region?  Do you think our allies in the region are prepared for the sudden flare up in attacks?

*  For those that don't want strikes what is your end game?  How much pain do we take before we decide that enough is enough?  Iran is obviously seeking to provoke a strike.  When do we say that we absorbed enough nonsense and its time to deter further aggression?

So many questions....so few answers...

82nd Airborne snipers jump, testing new Compact Sniper rifle system

via Army Press Release.

Operational testing of the Army's newest precision rifle, the Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) began recently, marking one of the final hurdles this system will face prior to fielding.

Snipers assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division recently participated in airborne infiltration test trials of what could potentially be the Army's newest sniper system.

"The compact nature of the CSASS is appealing to airborne forces and particularly Snipers who are typically armed with long barreled precision rifles," said Sgt. 1st Class Ross Martin, a Test NCO with the U.S. Army Operational Test Command's Airborne and Special Operations Test Directorate (ABNSOTD).

"Current sniper systems are equipped with 20-inch barrels, sound suppression systems and full length stocks that provide accuracy and a stable firing platform required of any precision rifle," said David Parris, a CSASS New Equipment Training (NET) trainer from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command's Soldier Weapons Support.

Being a product of battlefield evolution, the CSASS is more geared toward operations in urban environments and operating in and around armored vehicles where traditional length sniper systems can be cumbersome.

"The CSASS will feature a reduction in overall length (with the suppression system attached) and an adjustable stock that provides maneuverability and promotes a stable firing position," said Victor Yarosh of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.

This will provide airborne snipers a more compact load during airborne infiltration operations and provide a precision rifle platform more conducive to their combat environment without reducing their lethality.

Spec. Nicholas Farmer of Orlando, Florida, a Sniper in C Troop, 1st Battalion, 73rd Cavalry Regiment immediately identified the attributes of a more compact precision rifle.

"The CSASS is much shorter and lighter than our current system which will make long dismounted movements and reaction to contact more efficient," he said.

Spc. William Holland from Sylacauga, Alabama, a sniper with 2nd Battalion 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment echoed his fellow snipers assessment as, "lightweight and compact makes for a more manageable load during post drop operations."

Prior to testing, Snipers participated in a NET which included familiarization with the system, maintenance, target engagement and zeroing procedures.

The critical task in testing any small arms platform intended for use by airborne forces is ensuring zero retention of the primary optic subsequent to airborne insertion. This is a critical gauge of the paratrooper's lethality during airfield seizure and other follow on operations.

"This process establishes a baseline for site reticle locations prior to and post airborne insertion," said Lacretia Cook, an instrumentation technician with the ABNSOTD.

"Testers can monitor any 'shift' in the weapons sight reticle."

To evaluate this performance measure of the CSASS, the ABNSOTD test team employed the organization's mobile weapons boresight collimator to ensure the snipers' "pre-mission" zero was not degraded by shock associated with parachute infiltration.

Once this data was collected, snipers conducted a known distance live fire exercise to gauge lethality subsequent to static line and military free fall operations.

For Sgt. Christopher Landrum of Delano, California, the target audience of trained snipers was perfect.

"It's vital that operational troops are the ones testing the system as they are best suited to recognize system requirements and mission capabilities," he explained.

Sgt. 1st Class Darin Pott, a senior sniper with the 1st Battalion, 73rd Armored Regiment said he would also like to see Soldiers added to the process earlier.

"The Army should involve the sniper community at the earliest possible milestone of development," he said.

"Operational Testing is about Soldiers. It is about making sure that the systems developed are effective in a Soldier's hands and suitable for the environments in which Soldiers train and fight," said Col. Brad Mock, Director of ABNSOTD.

"OTC is the U.S. Army's only independent operational test organization," said Lt. Col. David Dykema, deputy of ABNSOTD's Test Division.

"We test Army, Joint, and Multi-service airborne and airdrop related warfighting systems in realistic operational environments, using Soldiers to determine whether the systems are effective, suitable, and survivable.

"Any time Soldiers and their leaders get involved in operational testing," he added, "they have the opportunity to use, work with, and offer up their own suggestions on pieces of equipment that can impact development of systems that future Soldiers will use in combat."

Open Comment Post. 21 June 2019

Is the shoot down of our drone worth a retaliatory strike against Iran...

Is losing this airplane worth a retaliatory strike? 

We've seen several provocative acts so we can assume that the Iranians have a game plan.  What is it?

My guess, if the last intel estimate we received from the Pentagon is true, is that the Iranians are ready to use their proxies in a series of strikes against the Saudis, Israel and a few US installations.

Are we ready to repulse those attacks once we send a few hundred Tomahawks Iran's way?

Do we have a plan to limit the potential for a wider conflict erupting?

Have we determined a way to keep this from escalating IF we see a series of dramatic attack plastered all over the world's newspapers?

I don't know.  What do you think?

Arquus Scarabee via Daily Mail (Vid & Pics)...

StormBreaker takes another step toward IOC...

via Air Force Technology.

Raytheon has completed all operational test drops of its new StormBreaker smart weapon, bringing it one step closer to achieving initial operational capability.

Raytheon Air Warfare Systems vice-president Kim Ernzen said: “All operating modes of StormBreaker have been rigorously tested in operationally-relevant scenarios against real-world targets in environments that are similar to actual battlefield conditions.

“With its tri-mode seeker and datalink, this smart weapon will close a capability gap and make adverse weather irrelevant.”

In normal mode, the tri-mode seeker uses infrared imaging (mode one) and millimetre wave radar (mode two) to help fighter pilots hit moving targets from standoff ranges and in bad climatic conditions. A tertiary mode employs semi-active laser guidance technologies to hit targets.

Story here. 

How soon will some issues with the F-35 be fixed?

How soon will some issues with the F-35 be fixed?: After breaking a series of stories on problems with the F-35, Valerie Insinna asks Lockheed Martin's program head when they'll be fixed.

Consider this BONUS coverage on the F-35 by Valerie!

EU wants to shut US companies out from competing for their programs?

via Defense News.

The top Pentagon official attending the Paris Air Show this week made clear she would use the venue to make a declarative statement about a subset of European arms funding: Either give the United States the ability to compete for work, or risk retaliation.

The U.S. Defense Department is concerned about restrictions that would limit its ability to participate in the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative, otherwise known as PESCO — a group of projects spearheaded by the European Union, as well a €13 billion (U.S. $15 billion) pool of money for military programs known as the European Defence Fund.

“As we read the language right now, even European-based subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, with European facilities and European employees, would not be allowed to participate with intellectual property exchange and a number of other issues of programs that grow out of EDF and more importantly PESCO,” Ellen Lord, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said Monday during a roundtable with reporters at the air show.

Story here.

Wow.

I don't think I'm actually heated by the EU wanting to make this move.  We've been banging on them to increase their defense spending and this is a natural reaction to that news.

Their desire is purely rational.

If they're gonna spend their citizens tax money on military equipment,  then they should be building the equipment at home, not buying it overseas.

What do you guys think?  In my opinion this should have been a predicted response.

F-35 News. Jacked up supply chain...over 50% of the parts sent to bases are unusable...

via Bloomberg.

The lack of compliant parts is widespread. Of 74 spare parts delivered to Hill Air Force Base in Utah from Sept. 17 through Sept. 30 of last year, 59 of them, or 80%, weren’t ready to install. Of 263 parts delivered to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona in June of last year, 213, or 81%, didn’t meet requirements.

“Despite the Joint Program Office being aware of this problem, it did not resolve the issue or require the services to track the number” of non-compliant spare parts received, the report found.

A representative for Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The inspector general recommended that the Pentagon program office seek refunds or additional services free of charge from Lockheed to compensate the military for the chronic parts problems.

This is the hill on which the battle of the F-35 will be fought!  But I'll get into that later.  Check out this section from the same article...

 The lack of information “creates a life and safety concern for aircrews” if Pentagon personnel “make mistakes on the number of hours the spare part was flown.” it said.

Investigators found instances at two F‑35 sites where pilots had flown aircraft with non‑compliant spare parts, such as wheel, seat and window assemblies, as early as August 2017. That “unintentionally inflated aircraft availability hours,” which is one measure for incentive fees to Lockheed.

In writing policy and funding legislation, three of the four congressional defense committees have added F-35 jets beyond the 78 the Pentagon requested for fiscal 2020. Such increases have only exacerbated pressure on the supply chain and added to the F-35’s chronic failure to meet goals on its availability for missions.

But wait there's more!

 Lockheed Martin Corp. has failed to supply ready-to-install spare parts for its F-35 fighter -- from wheels and tire assemblies to seats -- and may have been overpaid as much as $10.6 million in bonuses, according to the Defense Department’s inspector general.

“We determined that the DoD did not receive ready-to-issue F‑35 spare parts in accordance with contract requirements and paid performance incentive fees on the sustainment contracts based on inflated and unverified” hours that Air Force and Marine Corps planes would be ready to fly, the Pentagon’s internal watchdog said in a report released Monday.

It happened because the Pentagon’s F-35 program office “did not conduct adequate oversight of contractor performance,” according to the report. It found the office hasn’t resolved “contractor non‑performance related to the delivery of non‑ready-to-issue spare parts since 2015.”

Story here. 

I'll make the call.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program should have been declared in breach of McMurdy-Nunn.

I'll now make an accusation.

Military leadership knows better.  They've so lusted after this plane that they've essentially aided and abetted a corporation in defrauding the American public.

Because they've been so desperate to get this vehicle into service they paid bonuses to LM that allowed them to ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE their performance and increase their stock price.

But it gets worse.

They risked pilots lives so that they could keep up the fiction of the F-35 being on a proper trajectory so that the program would escape Congressional scrutiny.

So what do we have?

We have an incestous, vile, and criminal procurement program that has been protected from necessary scrutiny by the public.

Who is involved in this travesty?

Every person that has sat in the seat of Chairman of the various services, the US Congress, a couple of President's of the United States and Lockheed Martin.

IFV " PUMA " / German Armed Forces...via Combat Camera Europe...

Note.  Interesting isn't it.  The Puma IFV is one of the German Army's newest vehicle but the builder of that vehicle is putting onto market a vehicle that most consider vastly superior...the KF-41 Lynx.  

The new Infantry Fighting Vehicle by the German Armed Forces. This infantry tank replaces the IFV Marder in the coming years. A total of 350 vehicles will be procured. Please follow on my sites for new Pictures and Informations:www.facebook.com/combatcameraeurope.pictures/ and specially the IFV PUMA Group : www.facebook.com/groups/1268976056548060/

Pic of the day. Assault Breacher Vehicle @ NTC..pic by Cpl. Alisha Grezlik

Soldiers from A Co, 116 Brigade Engineer Battalion, position their M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle during a live-fire training exercise at the National Training Center (NTC) in Fort Irwin, Calif., June 12, 2019. The M1150 is a U.S. military mine and explosives clearing vehicle, equipped with a mine-plough and line charges. NTC is a month-long rotation that provides more than 4,000 service members from 31 states, including units from 13 National Guard states and territories, with realistic training to enhance their combat, support and sustainment capabilities.