Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The Mainstream Media Gets It! Build More AMPHIBS!

I got this from NRAINSTRUCTOR (thanks buddy!  welcome aboard!)
via The Atlantic...(follow the link and read the whole thing)
Of the 11 commissioned U.S. warships ships en route to Japan, almost half are big Cold War-era amphibious assault vessels purpose-built to land Marines on hostile shores. But while these unglamorous transport ships dispatch helicopters and critical aid to a grateful ally, they're being marginalized by a Navy that tends to fixate on the capabilities to wage a high-tech, blue-water war, while underestimating the importance of mundane disaster-response work in maintaining our global power and influence.

The Navy's amphibious forces have carried out the lion's share of America's disaster-response work, responding to 114 crises and contingencies over the past 20 years. Yet this enviable record means little inside the beltway. With the recent cancellation of the pricey $25-million dollar Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a specialized floating tank meant to speed Marines from sea to shore, defense leaders are signaling that troop transporters, helicopter carriers, and other old-school "charge the beach" tools of amphibious warfare are obsolete and not worth full funding. The EFV deserved cancellation for a number of reasons, not the least of which was its price tag, but skeptics of amphibious warfare are using the EFV's demise to claim that the amphibious fleet as a whole has lost its reason for being and should be cut.

But even as Washington cuts, more countries are investing in amphibious warfare platforms than ever before.
Not the story big Navy wants out.

Not a story about the glorious aircraft carriers.

Not a story about the exotic and powerful destroyers.

Not a story about a "Global Force for Good".

A story about the busiest ships in the fleet. 


Two articles, Two different views of an Israeli V-22.

FlightGlobal has two articles.

The first (here) indicates that the Israeli Air Force is again looking at the V-22 for Special Forces use.  The second (an earlier piece found here) shows that they studied it for two years and decided on the CH-53K.

No doubt the instability in the Middle East has caused a re-examination of capabilities.  Make no doubt about it.  Israel is slowing but surely getting back on a war time footing and making/planning buys to address current shortfalls.
But in a rare statement to the air force magazine, Maj Gen David Barki, head of the helicopter air division, said that the air force is considering future procurement of the V-22. "It is not included in the multi-year plan that will terminate next year. But one option that we consider for the future, is the V-22. This aircraft can give us operational capabilities that we don't have today."
Israeli experts say that the new interest in the V-22 is for fast deployment of Special Forces troops and medical evacuation.

A movie review by Terminal Lance.

This guy is crazy!...in a very good way...oh and the review is of the movie "Battle:LA" so get your mind outta the gutter when you see the cartoon below.

Terminal Lance #113 “Battle: LA”

By Max on March 15th, 2011
I will tell you, as I told my wife when we exited the theater on Sunday after seeing the new film Battle: Los Angeles, that this film was “moto-boner food”. Yes, a delectable snack for your moto-boner to feast off of and gain energy greater than even the largest BFC Monster could offer.
I read no reviews going into the film, I knew they would be resoundingly negative–as most high-budget sci-fi films are. Ebert was rather harsh, I felt, giving said film only half a star. As he put it:
“Battle: Los Angeles” is noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its makers, who don’t even try to make it more than senseless chaos. Here’s a science-fiction film that’s an insult to the words “science” and “fiction,” and the hyphen in between them. You want to cut it up to clean under your fingernails.
And that’s just the first paragraph!
My feelings toward the film weren’t nearly as biting. I feel like as Marines, we automatically appreciate any film that does us some good light, and Battle: Los Angeles does this well. This is where I felt Battle: Los Angeles succeeds–it’s relatively realistic portrayal of modern Marines. Aaron Eckhart was a good choice to play a typical hard-ass hollywood Marine–though I didn’t quite get how he was retiring as a Staff Sergeant (he said he’d been in for 20 years). He was apparently awarded for whatever awful incident happened in Afghanistan, so we had no reason to believe he had been busted down.
Outside of this though, I had two main small gripes–the fact that they kept referring to the FOB (Forward Operating Base) as the “F.O.B.” (eff-oh-bee). I suppose there may have been some kind of Asian misunderstanding–but in real life, we say “fob”. The second being their dispersion in the beginning alley scene, which any infantry Marine can testify was beyond absurd.
Otherwise, the film was really what I expected a movie called “Battle: Los Angeles” to be. It was a battle, and it took place in Los Angeles. There were aliens, there were Marines, things got fucked up. I actually appreciated the complete lack of a coherent story–I mean come on, why waste our time? No one needed to fall in love, no kids needed to kick a velociraptor out a window with her gymnastics skills, and no one needed to explain why the aliens were there. If you were going into Battle: Los Angeles expecting something thought provoking, I encourage you to learn to read movie titles.
That said, the film was complete boner-food. Food for your boner. Specifically, your moto-boner. It will get you hard, jerk you off, and even cup the balls. Oorah?
A quick reminder, I will be at WonderCon April 1st through the 3rd in San Francisco, CA. For those of you who don’t follow these things, WonderCon is the Bay Area’s big comic convention, run by the same people that put on Comic Con every year in San Diego. I’ll be there with the Concord Vet Center, giving out some post cards and a few T-shirts, as well as signing whatever you put in front of me.
Lastly, but certainly not least, be sure to check out Terminal Lance weekly in the Marine Corps Times on newsstands every Monday (Tuesday for Hawaii).


via Wikipedia...
Bollocks [ˈbɒləks] is a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, meaning "testicles". The word is often used figuratively in English, as a noun to mean "nonsense", an expletive following a minor accident or misfortune, or an adjective to mean "poor quality" or "useless". Similarly, the common phrases "Bollocks to this!" or "That's a load of old bollocks " generally indicate contempt for a certain task, subject or opinion. 

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos signed a memorandum of understanding on Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft integration on March 14, 2011. Under the memorandum, the Marine Corps will provide five fixed-wing squadrons to the carrier air wing. The Marine Corps will purchase 80 F-35C aircraft, the carrier-based variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, and 340 F-35B aircraft, the short take-off vertical landing variant. The decision to purchase F-35Cs is a representative of the Marine Corps’ commitment to tactical aircraft integration with the Navy. The continued development of the F-35B remains the centerpiece of the Corps' fixed-wing modernization program., Andy Wolfe, Lockheed Martin, 2/26/2011 8:13 AM
Via ARES Blog...
The arranged marriage between the USMC and Navy is official on F-35. CNO Adm. Gary Roughead and Marine Corps Commandant James Amos today signed a "tactical aviation integration" agreement whereby the Marines will purchase some F-35Cs to operate from Navy aircraft carriers. The plan is for the Marines to buy 80 F-35C carrier versions and another 340 F-35B Stovl aircraft.