First F-35C Night Flight

Merkava Mark IV speedpaint by galanpang

Marine Personnel Carrier. Do we still have a valid reason for it?

Lane and I have been take a solid look at the Marine Personnel Carrier program and he stated this in one of his comments....

I'd suggest the whole thing hasn't been properly conceptualized. The present AAV is an APC as is the MPC. The AAV replacement (EFV) was supposed to be an IFV, carry 17 Marines, and meet a very high water speed requirement that required it water plane and thus have a 2,700hp engine. The MPC as compared to EFV was seen as an infantry carrier (APC) to complement EFV.

Until we see what the new ACV looks like it's not at all clear MPC is required. How about a comparative analysis of two MPC's vs one ACV equipped as an APC not an IFV?

The entire original notion of having a heavy, medium, and light infantry carrier (EFV, MPC, and JLTV) seemed odd and entirely as a response to not being able to afford enough EFVs.

The thing that actually concerns me the most is the natural pressure when operating a 9 man infantry carrier to go to a 9 man squad. MPC carrying 9 makes a lot less sense for the Corp than other organizations that use a 9 man squad. In the US Army's case moving to the 9 man squad in a new IFV is a big improvement from the current Bradley platoon.

I'd rather see ACV finalized before decisions are made on MPC. Otherwise there's going to be too much pressure to just cut ACV and use the "cheaper" MPC, even though twice as many are needed.

Just a quick trip down memory lane for everyone.

1.  The EFV was suppose to replace the AAV on a one for one basis as the primary Marine Corps IFV/personnel carrier.
2.  During development the cost of the EFV ballooned to such an extent that the full buy of EFV could not be made.
3.  As a solution to the problem of the EFV not being affordable enough to replace the AAV on a one for one basis, the MPC concept was born.
4.  The EFV was cancelled and the MPC concept continued.
5.  The Marine Corps has revived the EFV in a new supposedly affordable form named the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.  Initial impressions make it out to be the EFV but without the high water speed requirement.
6.  The Marine Corps has also decided to approach industry for information on how an update to the legacy AAV would work.

That's the procurement history in a nutshell.  The question remains.  Are we correct in continuing with the MPC?

Does it make sense?

If we are to continue with the MPC then do we shelve the AAV upgrades?  Do we shelve the ACV?  If the answer to either one of those questions is to continue with the MPC then justification must be made for the AAV upgrade/ACV procurement.

If the answer is no then we should cancel the MPC NOW and circle our wagons around the AAV and ACV.

To continue with all three of these programs makes no sense.  Either the AAV upgrade, ACV or MPC should go.  We cannot afford all three.

USS Wasp. What's the deal?

Thanks for the article Jonathan.

via Defense News.

So what is up with Wasp?
“USS Wasp is currently configured to serve as the Navy’s Joint Strike Fighter test platform,” Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command, wrote in an email. “As a result of Wasp’s assignment as the JSF test platform, she is not currently in the rotation of amphibious assault ships participating in scheduled routine overseas deployments. USS Wasp remains available for operational tasking; however, she will remain the test platform for JSF for the foreseeable future.”
But the JSF testing mission began only last year. A Marine Corps F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing aircraft — a model that eventually will operate from all assault ships — made the first JSF landing on the ship Oct. 3, the first day of about two weeks of tests that month. No more JSF flights have since taken place from the ship, and none is scheduled this year. Flight tests of the new jet aren’t scheduled to resume until the summer of 2013.
The dedicated JSF mission might explain why Wasp hasn’t deployed recently. But why didn’t Wasp deploy between 2005 and the advent of the JSF tests in 2011?

Read the whole thing but the thought of it is shocking.

The Marine Corps is crying for more amphibs and yet we have one sitting on the sidelines?

It just doesn't make sense.  Mark my words...this is a scandal in the makings...and don't you dare believe the trash that the Navy is tossing around about it being designated for F-35 workups.

Blog news....

Sorry guys, but I got hit with a mail virus (Huron Serenity...you got some explaining to do) so if you're on my list you might have gotten hit.  My bad.

This is my life...

Subtle, well done Marine propaganda.

Airborne HUMVEE drop...

Airborne forces foot mobile?  Not necessarily.  In this vid you get a chance to see the USAF in action doing a drop of a couple (or three) of HUMVEEs from what I assume is a C-17.  A Division Ready Brigade from the 82nd might not have the hitting power of a Stryker Brigade but they can get there much faster, has much greater strategic mobility and will be much easier to support once they get in the field. 

The 82nd Airborne and Light Infantry Divisions should lead the Army's Pacific policy.

The 82nd Airborne Division.

An Elite outfit.

Trained in rapid deployment,  and historically operated in "Little Groups of Paratroops" (LGOP)...they were doing distributed operations before distributed operations were cool.  If the question is who should lead the charge into the Pacific then the answer is the the 82nd Airborne Division.

Why?  Because they would fit in perfectly with the "Air" in Air-Sea Battle.  Because they would bring something to the table that the Marine Corps does not which is what the Joint Service concept is truly suppose to be about.  Because it would put one of our three forms of forcible entry into a region that has been deemed of national importance.

Alot of the benefits that the 82nd would bring are obvious -- besides being rapidly deployable they are co-located with USAF transport at the nearby Pope AFB and they train jointly with the USMC and foreign militaries.

My suggestion is simple.  The US Army should provide heavy forces for the Pacific under the umbrella of US Army Forces Korea and it should have Light Fighters led by the 82nd having a forward deployed Brigade colocated with USAF transports in Guam.

If this suggestion is followed then you would have a medium weight force capable of responding to crisis in the USMC MEU's....a light weight force that could arrive within hours of that crisis in the form of battalions from the 82nd and if it goes all crazy then you have forward deployed Army units out of Korea.

This makes sense, its builds on the capabilities already in the region, it allows the Army to plug one of its units into the Air Sea Battle concept and it gives the Army skin in the game.  Below is an old video on the 82nd.  Gone are the light tanks...and I don't know if the USAF still does LAPES but it gives a primer on their capabilities.