Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Exercise Sea Lion: Australia develops its amphibious force.

Australia once had amphibious ships.  

Now its developing an amphibious force.  

Below are pics of the HMAS Choules (former British Bay Class LPD) in action. 

The Afghan "Shooter" and multiple deployments.

Been catching bits and pieces of the news today and one thing they keep hitting on is multiple deployments.

This is a raw point.  Not for me but mainly for Soldiers.

A deployment is a different thing for different services, occupational specialties etc...

For a Special Ops member a deployment MIGHT be 3 months or less.

For a Marine it could be 6 to 9 months.

For a Soldier.

It could be a year...I've heard for some its been more than a year.

And then you have the style of your deployment.  Are you living in a war zone like you'd live if you were stateside?  Meaning are you on one of the big bases that have fast food restuaraunts, mall like PX's etc????

Or are you out in the boonies keeping fleas and ticks off your nut sack?  Ok, that might have been a little much but you get the idea.

So just a word to the news media.  Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start mouthing off.

Pic of the day.

1st Tank Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 6, M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks pass a Combat Logistics Battalion 4, 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward), AMK31 Refueler on a combat logistics patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, March 13. The combat logistics patrol supported counter-insurgency operations in the area.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Mark Stroud)


A thinly disguised hit piece.

I read an article this morning over at Information Dissemination and it touts the lethality of cruisers and destroyers over that of aircraft carriers.

Or so the author would like you to believe.

It is in essence an F-35 hit piece.  Read the whole thing but check this out.
Until I see a US Navy CVW with a fixed wing ASW platform or a legitimate carrier based tanker capability tested and fielded, I am going to find it very difficult to take the naval aviation community seriously when all threat analysis from every corner of the globe highlights submarines as the fastest growing threat to the maritime domain, and the tyranny of range as the greatest threat to naval forces in the Pacific. The Navy is spending about $50 million more on the JSF than the F-18 to get less range with a moderate increase in stealth. And the CVW will still be left with no fixed wing ASW and no organic tanking.
First.  Dude is wrong about the F-18 having better range than the F-35.  But he doesn't care because he's following the talking points of others who would play with numbers and juice such important details.  He talks about the F-35 having moderate stealth?  Exactly how the fuck did he arrive at that?

Second, he slams the carriers by stating that they're vulnerable to subs.  But if a carriers helicopter ASW's won't help out and he demands fixed wing ASW from carriers then his vaunted cruisers and destroyers are just as vulnerable.

Overall its a real hot debate the way that he framed it but it fails in so many areas its not even funny.  But this part has me scratching my head.
And btw, you'll still need the 4 major surface combatants to protect the carrier, just so the Navy can hit targets at greater cost and at a slower pace.
Don't they realize in that shop that if cruisers become the next capital ship then they'll be the ships in the fleet that need protecting.

Again, read the whole thing.  This is gonna be fun to watch...and laugh at.