Tuesday, July 30, 2019
National Guard Live Fires Hawkeye
Dang that's a slow firing weapon system. Just a 105 too. I've seen bubbas rock on that thing.
What gives?
Forget Russian interference our election, China has been hard at work since the mid-terms!
via Free Beacon.
According to Guo, who has known current Chinese President Xi Jinping for more than 10 years, the anti-Trump influence operation is being directed by Xi and Wang through the Communist Party of China (CCP) National Security Commission, a high-level body created in 2013 that since then has tightened control over all other security organs.Story here.
"For the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the security committee has given very clear instructions that it is not permissible for Trump to win the 2020 election," Guo said speaking through an interpreter.
By deploying its intelligence and influence resources in the United States, the CCP is working to exploit the harsh political divisions between Democrats and Republicans in seeking to unseat the Trump administration.
"President Trump has already caused a lot of damage to the CCP, so they have declared he will not be allowed to have another four years in power," the dissident said.
Chinese interference into American politics was first disclosed by Trump in September and a month later in a speech by Vice President Mike Pence.
Pence stated that the Beijing political interference employs a whole-of-government approach involving
political, economic, military tools, and propaganda to interfere in both policy and politics.
"To put it bluntly, President Trump’s leadership is working; and China wants a different American president," Pence said in a speech Oct. 4.
China's technology theft, estimated by the White House to be as much as $600 billion annually, along with other practices and behaviors by China have emerged as a key issue in the coming presidential campaign with Democrats voicing increasing opposition to past conciliatory policies toward Beijing.
Guo said interference during the mid-term elections targeted farms states in the Midwest and sought to turn them against Trump's tougher trade policies toward Beijing.
Ya know what I find interesting? In any other age but the one we live in, war would have already been declared if a nation had acted in the way China has.
Do you think Chinese actions would have been tolerated at anytime before the 1970's?
Our China policy has been a failure since the mid 70's. Why it continued is something that future historians will rage about.
German KSK Commandos practice hostage rescue...
Story here.
Make no mistake this is propaganda at its best but it gives a "limited" view of their force.
It does raise a question though. Rummy believed (or seemed to) that Special Ops would be the force of the future. That super power competition might return but that we would be involved in small wars and those would be dominated by SOCOM.
Germany for all intents and purposes seems to be following that view.
While cost effective (despite lavish spending in comparison to conventional infantry) in the overall scheme of things it does appear to limit "wars of choice".
Is that the secret sauce of special operations? Engagement with limited risk? Being able to participate in actions with a limited footprint?
If that's the thinking then Special Ops is doing it wrong!
The pull on conventional forces to support their operations is the weakness in that argument (if its being made). For SOCOM to achieve its goal then it must not become a drain on resources. To achieve the vision I briefly spelled out then they must cut the tail dramatically. From headquarters to support to the pull on conventional forces.
Its a theme I've been pounding lately but they must get back to one canteen, a grease gun and a K-bar between the teeth in swimmers shorts type operations.
They need to cut the gucci and get back to being snake eaters.
But I don't see that happening. My guess is that we see SOCOM dramatically cut in the near future. I have yet to see a role carved out for them in peer vs peer conflict. I see the public and the Pentagon tiring of wars in the Middle East/North Africa.
A smaller more focused SOCOM is in the cards. Having given up missions to conventional forces I don't see how they claw them back.
Munitions handling on the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers via Save The Royal Navy Blog...
Interesting story and worth a read here.
What has me spinning isn't the subject of the story but rather the limited munitions carried by the F-35B...and how long it will STILL TAKE in order to get full clearance to carry them.
The dates seem to vary (just for the weapons you see above) but Block 4 is the fly in the ointment and we're looking at 2025 before we see the Brits with even a limited standoff attack potential.
Despite the happy talk, things are not good in the land of the F-35. Seems like it will take till around 2030 before we see real progress...and a real weapons carriage ability from this airplane.
Do we have that much time for a plane that is suppose to have Western air power?
Monday, July 29, 2019
Turkey being kicked out of the F-35 program is illegal by the letter of the contract...
via Defense News.
There are two tiers of participation in the F-35 program. The first-tier members are considered “partners” in the program, which comes with direct involvement in the joint program office. That includes having national representatives stationed in the JPO, weighing in on decisions about future capabilities, and deciding what future industrial participation looks like.Story here.
And that industrial participation is important — building parts of the jet that go into the global supply chain is expected to net the partner nations billions in revenue over the lifetime of the program. The partners are made up of the first nine nations to sign onto the program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The second tier consists of “customers” for the jet, comprising nations that came later to the program. Those nations command less industrial participation, lack voting power on what future development of the jet looks like, and do not have officials assigned to the JPO. That tier is made up of Israel, South Korea, Belgium and Japan, but could expand in the future with Finland, Singapore and other nations.
Wow. I've read the Turks complaints that as partners they can't be kicked out of the F-35 program.
After reading this article, at least on the surface it appears that they're correct.
Unless there is specific statements about buying Russian equipment then I don't see how kicking them out of the program is legal.
This is the stuff that makes lawyers millionaires but I don't see how the US will avoid paying the Turks back for their investment costs and potential business losses.
This is interesting.
The Japanese are seeking partnership and they're about to become the second biggest operator of the airplane but will be denied?
Simply amazing.
This scheme is really starting to fray at the edges. Lockheed Martin investors should be nervous.
The internal debate within the USMC misses the point. It's not about amphibs, being aviation centric, Marine Special Operations etc...its about the role of Marines into the future.
I've been chewing on the latest and greatest from our New Commandant and I think while he's heading down the right track, he's still missing the bigger picture.
We're all missing that bigger picture.
We've seen lurches from Ship To Objective Maneuver, being Aviation Centric, to needing a minimum of 38 amphibs, to NOT needing 38 amphibs, must being able to deploy two Marine Expeditionary Brigades simultaneously, to NOT needing to deploy two Marine Expeditionary Brigades and so on.
That's cute.
That's nice.
The real question is what is the role of the USMC in a major conflict.
Some want to revitalize the idea of Marines storming beaches in WW2. Others want to see the Marine Corps acting as outer perimeter security for SOCOM while hoping to encroach on 160th territory by providing rides. Others want to go a step further than even that and to turn over our MEUs not to Combatant Commanders but to SOCOM entirely with our air wing acting as their support and leaving our Ground Combat Element on the pier to be replaced by SOCOM shooters.
Some think that the future is to disband...disaggregate the MEU and use our LHDs as light carriers to fight the naval conflict and then to somehow get the fast movers back for support to the GCE once they land.
A few (very few) think that we should become small wars specialist. Size and shape the USMC to fight our nation's small wars and then support major conflicts by operating on the periphery. Sort of a return to the Cold War with the USMC supporting the Northern Flank of NATO while the US Army did the heavy lifting in the Fulda Gap.
The answer to the future lies with the vision laid out by General Conway in "Vision & Strategy 2025".
Our Nation faces challenges that are global in reachRead the blast from the past here.
and scope. While today’s Marines are performing
superbly in every clime and place, our institution must
also devote attention to tomorrow’s threats and
opportunities.
It is our obligation to subsequent generations of
Marines, and to our Nation, to always have an eye to the
future — to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges today.
This Vision and Strategy document confirms who we are,
what we believe, and what we do. It establishes the
foundation for our operational concepts and identifies the
critical steps needed to shape our Corps for an
increasingly volatile and uncertain future. It is grounded
firmly in our legislated role as the Nation’s “force in
readiness,” and it will guide our Service so that we are
properly organized, trained, equipped, and prepared for tomorrow’s challenges.
With little warning, our Nation calls its Corps of Marines front and center during its
most challenging times. Responding rapidly to crisis and strategic surprise is an integral
part of our history as a Corps. In the South Pacific after Pearl Harbor, in Korea after the
communist invasion in 1950, in the jungle outposts of Viet Nam, in the deserts of
Southwest Asia, and in the mountains of Afghanistan — Marines have distinguished
themselves as an expeditionary, multicapable force able to respond and win battles for
our Nation.
We have been prepared in the past because we understood that a force in readiness
must be well-trained, broadly educated, and properly equipped for employment across all
forms of warfare. We believe the individual Marine is the most formidable weapon on
today’s battlefield and will remain so tomorrow. Whatever the future holds, our emphasis
on making Marines will not change.
3
Expeditionary excellence requires Marines who are morally, physically, and mentally
tough. Marines must be agile, capable of transitioning seamlessly between fighting,
training, advising, and assisting — or performing all of these tasks simultaneously.
Though our Corps has recently proven itself in “sustained operations ashore,” future
operational environments will place a premium on agile expeditionary forces, able to act
with unprecedented speed and versatility in austere conditions against a wide range of
adversaries. We must be a two fisted fighter — able to destroy enemy formations with
our scalable air-ground-logistics teams in major contingencies, but equally able to employ
our hard earned irregular warfare skills honed over decades of conflict. Our Corps must
serve credibly as a persistently engaged and multicapable force, able to draw upon
contributions from our Total Force, in order to address the full range of contingencies the
future will undoubtedly present. In short, we must be prepared to move with speed, “live
hard,” and accomplish any mission.
My point?
We've seen recent Commandants reinventing the wheel. We've seen tilts and turns that are not part of the traditional Marine Corps practice.
Our charge is constant and unchanging.
The United States Marine Corps will be most ready when the nation is least ready.
The Marine Corps is identified by the individual Marine and our ethos. We will be honorable. We will live hard if necessary. We will move with speed and a sense of purpose.
We will fight and win our nation's battles.
Where have we gone wrong? We lost sight of those simple tropes. We began focusing on hardware and not on the basics.
We've become wedded to technology and eschewed the power of the individual Marine.
Since when has any weapon system (as a former Commandant stated) been worth dying in a ditch over? Historically the Marine Corps has operated older equipment than the US Army, Air Force and Navy and made it work with outstanding results.
Once we even took pride in it!
State of the Art facilities was once never seen on a Marine Corps installation. You would go to an Army, Air Force or Navy base to see such marvels.
Is this a cry to defund the Marines and to live hard for the sake of living hard?
Hell no!
But it is a call to return to the thinking that made the Marine Corps formidable. A return to the challenges of peer competition is an opportunity for the USMC to reorient itself for the future thru a return to the past.
Size the force based on the needs of the nation. Whether that's over 200K or we can shrink to 150K is irrelevant. What the nation needs we should provide.
Ditch concepts that some believe will make life easier but will have no reality in a future conflict. If our shipping can be threatened from far out at sea then so will our rotary aviation! Unless our defense budget becomes sizable beyond recognition then the constraints brought by enemy preparation should be accounted and planned for, not wished away by fanciful planning to conduct 1000 mile raids to knock out anti-air facilities with helo-borne raids via MV-22s.
Does an all stealth force actually make sense in current and projected budgets? Does it make sense to buy F/A-18E/F/Gs to conduct our carrier mission? Will it make more sense to fill our super carriers to full capability rather than attempt to disperse firepower to LHDs first?
The list goes on.
First we need to relearn who we are as Marines. Then we can plan for the future.
Commander Australian Fleet tweets more pics of the LCM-1E bringing a M1A1 Main Battle Tank from ship to shore...
 |
| Wonder how fast? What's the sea state? |
Lexington Institute pushes against dumping the 38 amphibious ship requirement!
via National Interest.
Regardless of the issue of overall fleet size, the amphibious warfare fleet is in serious need of modernization. The current size of the fleet, 31 ships, means that at any one time there are around 18 available for operations. This number is inadequate to meet current demands, much less respond to a high-end contingency.Story here.
In addition, there is a clear need for more capable ships. With the arrival of the F-35B, airpower is becoming ever more critical in future Marine Corps operations. But to take advantage of what the F-35B offers, means building more large-deck amphibs, particularly the new America-class amphibious assault ships (LHA).
In addition, the Marine Corps desperately needs the combination of capabilities provided by the Landing Ship Dock (LPD) 17. LPDs are survivable mobile expeditionary air and sea bases, hospitals, command and control centers, logistic and maintenance facilities. LPD-17 Flight IIs can support the full range of military operations and effectively enable distributed maritime operations through robust organic capability and extensive space, weight, power, and cooling margin to rapidly accommodate vertical launch, directed energy, and unmanned vehicle capabilities.
When the full range of evolving threats and missions is considered, it may turn out that the size of the future amphibious warfare fleet should be larger than the prior goal of 38 ships. But whatever number the Sea Services finally settle on, they must be the most capable ships available. This means increasing, not decreasing, the procurement of America-class LHAs and the new LPD-17 Flight II.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Protests in Hong Kong are getting more violent...
The clash between protesters and riot police is getting increasingly deadly and more violent. https://t.co/ce5QaLmtiB pic.twitter.com/EFa9xocvm0— Chungyan Chow (@ChungyanChow) July 28, 2019
An arrested protestor was kicked numerous times by police.#FreeHongKong pic.twitter.com/dpKksL9572— Nathan Law 羅冠聰 (@nathanlawkc) July 28, 2019
Riot Police stormed in to the railway station and attacked protestors that are leaving. (Part 1) pic.twitter.com/9HH7vZTort— Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 (@joshuawongcf) July 28, 2019
Zakaria: America's defense budget is out of control...Is he right???
Thanks to ArmChairGeneral for the link!
I'm a defense proponent and I can't disagree there. Is he right? But consider this. If he is right then what do we do? How do we get the Military Industrial Complex under control?
I keep circling back to the F-35.
It has jobs in many states and around the globe. The thing isn't built for efficiency, its built to provide program protection.
It's worked too.
By any estimation that plane should have been canceled.
Even circling back to my beloved Corps. What is the answer to modernization? We're about to shrink the Corps. Perhaps a necessary but hard thing but understandable. But with a smaller Corps have you seen any indication that we're looking at fewer weapon systems? Aircraft?
I haven't.
The weird thing is that I know this is all a buildup to what everyone knows is coming.
The terrible 20s is real and it doesn't matter who wins the next Presidential election, the defense budget is gonna get sliced.
My call is simple.
Let's get a start on this (and the new Commandant seems to be trying to get ahead of the curve) and do it smart. Better scapels than meat cleavers...and the accountants have meat cleavers!
"Lacking strategic coherence, utterly mismanaged, and ruinously wasteful..."
I'm a defense proponent and I can't disagree there. Is he right? But consider this. If he is right then what do we do? How do we get the Military Industrial Complex under control?
I keep circling back to the F-35.
It has jobs in many states and around the globe. The thing isn't built for efficiency, its built to provide program protection.
It's worked too.
By any estimation that plane should have been canceled.
Even circling back to my beloved Corps. What is the answer to modernization? We're about to shrink the Corps. Perhaps a necessary but hard thing but understandable. But with a smaller Corps have you seen any indication that we're looking at fewer weapon systems? Aircraft?
I haven't.
The weird thing is that I know this is all a buildup to what everyone knows is coming.
The terrible 20s is real and it doesn't matter who wins the next Presidential election, the defense budget is gonna get sliced.
My call is simple.
Let's get a start on this (and the new Commandant seems to be trying to get ahead of the curve) and do it smart. Better scapels than meat cleavers...and the accountants have meat cleavers!
1st Protolab 6x6 Protected Multi-Purpose Vehicles (PMPV) delivered to the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF).
via Press Release.
Protolab Oy is pleased to announce the delivery of the first Protolab 6x6 Protected Multi-Purpose Vehicles (PMPV) to the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF). Protolab is delivering four PMPVs to the FDF under a contract signed in 2018. The vehicles are being put through operational testing by the FDF as part of a wider modernisation programme to upgrade and enhance its armoured vehicle fleet.
The Protolab PMPV is exceptionally manoeuvrable and agile and can perform a range of mission roles including patrol, passenger and cargo transport, and command post. Amphibious and MEDIVAC variants are also available. The Protolab PMPV is a first of its kind 6x6 armoured personnel carrier developed to meet the mobility, protection and communication requirements of Special Operations Forces and paramilitary security forces.
The PMPV is designed from the ground up with integrated high level mine protection and ballistic protection according to customer-specified blast protection levels of STANAG 4569. The vehicle can be equipped with various customer required weapon systems.
The vehicle can carry two crew and ten fully-equipped troops, or a cargo payload of up to 10,000kg. Narrower than standard fighting vehicles, the vehicle’s 2.55m width makes it suitable for urban operations, with advanced mobility both on and off-road. Powered by a Cummins 6.7l multifuel engine and meeting Euro 3 emission levels, the vehicle meets EU truck road regulations qualifying it for registration as a N3G class truck (off-road).
These design features make it an ideal fit for the challenges being faced by modern armies.
“We designed the Protolab PMPV 6x6 to meet the requirements of today’s soldier and today’s asymmetric battlefield,” Juha Moisio, Business Development Director, Protolab Oy commented. “With a design approach based around the use of COTS parts with a small proportion of custom-made components, the Protolab PMPV is a cost-effective solution for the range of tasks faced by special operations, security and crisis management forces in the field.
“We are pleased to see the vehicle progressing well through field trials with the FDF and are getting positive feedback from the customer. We are confident that the Protolab PMPV will become the vehicle of choice for customers looking to replace their existing 6x6 vehicle fleets with a modern, protected and flexible solution.”
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Australian Navy LCM-1E transports an M1A1 from ship to shore...that myth is busted! (UPDATED with additional pics)
If you've been arounding military blogging for a bit you've heard that the Aussie Navy's landing craft supposedly couldn't transport an M1 ashore. The Chief of Australia's Navy was kind enough to bust that myth today.
Good on them. Instructive too. With a dispersed amphibious force aboard smaller ships then we can re-examine landing craft. Is it time to flex back toward a boat of this type? I'm thinking so. I'm a fan of the thing and believe that with properly designed smaller amphibs it could be a winner.
But let's think about this for a moment. If we're going with smaller amphibs while still being aviation centric but with credible forces to put ashore can you think of a better vessel than the Mistral? Pair this with some affordable LCM-1E's, and the dream can be realized.As we draw closer to achieving Final Operational Capability for Australia's Amphibious Task Group, Thursday marked the first time LHD Landing Craft embarked @AustralianArmy M1A1 Main Battle Tank. Our amphibious capability stands ready to defend Australia & our national interests pic.twitter.com/gR3EgOslPE— Chief of Navy Australia (@CN_Australia) July 27, 2019
UPDATE! Check out pics of the M1A1 coming off the ramp of the LCM-1E when it hits the beach. The weight of the tank is obvious! Consider this. The M1A2C weighs EVEN MORE!
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)