Sunday, July 11, 2010
Blast from the past. USSR thought on fighting Landing Forces.
The CIA has released formerly classified documents (Top Secret at the time) that give an indication of how the Soviet Union would respond to different scenarios on the battlefield. The documents range from the use of Border Guards during the initial stages of war to how they would fight Landing Forces. Its a fascinating read and these and other documents can be found here.
1978-11-16
Blast from the past. Sikorsky S-72.
Ashton Carter has decried the current state of the US helicopter industry.
He's wrong. A quick look at past experiments, test beds and flying prototypes reveal that even old US ideas would be relevant even today. A great example of that is the Sikorsky S-72. Imagine the flexibility one of these aircraft would have in the attack role! Stats from Aviastar.
Technical data for Sikorsky S-72 RSRA Crew: 2-3, engine: 2 x General Electric T-58-GE-5 turboshaft, rated at 1045kW and 2 x General Electric TF-34-GE-400A turbofans, 4180kg of thrust each, main rotor diameter: 18.90m, wingspan: 13.74m, fuselage length: 21.50m, height: 4.42m, take-off weight without auxiliary jets: 8300kg, empty weight without auxiliary jets: 6535kg, take-off weight with auxiliary jets: 11815kg, empty weight with auxiliary jets: 9480kg, max speed without auxiliary jets: 296km/h, cruising speed with auxiliary jets: 258km/h, max speed without auxiliary jets: 581km/h, cruising speed with auxiliary jets: 370km/h, ceiling: 3050m
Australian Marines????
Cpl. Blake Kirkham, assigned to 2nd Royal Australian Regiment, 5th
platoon, secures the beach head for an amphibious assault vehicle during
a mechanized raid rehearsal on Pyramid Rock Beach at Marine Corps Base
Hawaii during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 exercises. RIMPAC is a
biennial, multinational exercise designed to strengthen regional
partnerships and improve multinational interoperability. (U.S. Marine
Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Jody Lee Smith/Released)
Strategypage has the above photo listed as "Australian Marines invading Hawaii"...Is the 2nd Royal Australian Regiment now listed as a Marine unit? Are there plans to re-designate an Australian Regiment as Marines? It would make sense from the equipment sets that Australia is soon to field...Google searches turned up nothing so if anyone knows please send the info this way.
Strategypage has the above photo listed as "Australian Marines invading Hawaii"...Is the 2nd Royal Australian Regiment now listed as a Marine unit? Are there plans to re-designate an Australian Regiment as Marines? It would make sense from the equipment sets that Australia is soon to field...Google searches turned up nothing so if anyone knows please send the info this way.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Joe Stremph and a historical perspective on VMFA-122.
The photo and narrative are from Joe Stremph's Flickr Page.
Mine eyes have seen the glory...
For those not familiar with the story
of VMFA-122, they're a Marine Corps F/A-18 squadron that was known for
decades as the "Crusaders." A few years back, they deployed to Iraq,
and it was felt that, given the sensitivity of our Muslim hosts in that
country, it might not be good to conjure up images of knights of
Christendom if we're serious about all that hearts-and-minds stuff that
is so essential to nation-building and counterinsurgency. So they
changed the name to the "Werewolves," which was actually what -122 was
called during WWII, so there a legacy there worth preserving. While I'm
not as upset about the name change as many others, it is kind of a
bummer, as I loved the old shield/cross emblem they used to wear on
their tails. While I've photographed several Werewolves' F/A-18s since
the change, I never noticed until today that the eyes of the Werewolf on
the tail have crosses for pupils, discretely keeping the Crusader
legacy alive.
Bravo Zulu,
Semper Fi, etc. etc.
Oh, and
for the Brits and the Dutch, this was BuNo 164268/DC-14 @ Phoenix-Mesa
Gateway.
Silence when it comes to the next Commandant.
Have you noticed the complete silence from our next Commandant?
We've heard nothing.
No agenda.
No plans for the future of the Marine Corps.
No comment on the recently released Marine Operating Concepts.
No guidance to or expectations of the lower ranks.
No articles in the Gazette.
No interviews with the news media.
Complete and utter silence.
This is not good. General Conway came in with a vision and a plan. General Gray had an road map and warrior spirit. General Krulak saw the future.
This guy has nothing. I hope I'm wrong, but this feels so wrong...and at a time when strong leadership is needed from the man who sits in that chair, it appears that we're about to get a 'coalition builder' instead of a warrior.
Think I'm wrong? Compare the fanfare that arrived with appointment of General Mattis to CENTCOM with that of this guy to be the next Commandant.
Long story short...I think we're screwed.
We've heard nothing.
No agenda.
No plans for the future of the Marine Corps.
No comment on the recently released Marine Operating Concepts.
No guidance to or expectations of the lower ranks.
No articles in the Gazette.
No interviews with the news media.
Complete and utter silence.
This is not good. General Conway came in with a vision and a plan. General Gray had an road map and warrior spirit. General Krulak saw the future.
This guy has nothing. I hope I'm wrong, but this feels so wrong...and at a time when strong leadership is needed from the man who sits in that chair, it appears that we're about to get a 'coalition builder' instead of a warrior.
Think I'm wrong? Compare the fanfare that arrived with appointment of General Mattis to CENTCOM with that of this guy to be the next Commandant.
Long story short...I think we're screwed.
Friday, July 09, 2010
The USMC must not repeat the mistake of the 80's.
Few people remember the reason for the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV-25) to enter Marine Corps service.
Flashback to the 1980's and its the time of the Rapid Deployment Force. Already their is concern that the Marines will be fighting in the Middle East as a foot mobile force.
No matter how rapidly Marine Forces could deploy to the war zone, they would be disadvantaged in a war against even a moderately competent foe that was mechanized.
That was when the experiment with the LAV-25 came around.
They were first designated as Light Armored Vehicle Battalions....then Light Armored Infantry Battalions...then Light Armored Reconnaissance...
The final designation indicates a realization that although the LAV-25 meets the requirements of being light wt, fast, strategically and tactically mobile and has decent firepower, it failed in the desire of the Marine Corps to have a motorized fist.
Light Armored Recon Battalions have reverted to the typical roles of wheeled vehicles...screening, recon and raids of limited duration.
That is why another wheeled vehicle for our Infantry Battalions just won't do. The Marine Personnel Carrier is not (as currently designed) the vehicle that our forces need.
What is?
I contend that the BVS-10 fits the bill. Its helicopter transportable. Its amphibious. It takes less space aboard ship. Its been redesigned to have IED protection. Its proven and its already in limited service with the Marines already.
Armoured All Terrain Vehicle
Flashback to the 1980's and its the time of the Rapid Deployment Force. Already their is concern that the Marines will be fighting in the Middle East as a foot mobile force.
No matter how rapidly Marine Forces could deploy to the war zone, they would be disadvantaged in a war against even a moderately competent foe that was mechanized.
That was when the experiment with the LAV-25 came around.
They were first designated as Light Armored Vehicle Battalions....then Light Armored Infantry Battalions...then Light Armored Reconnaissance...
The final designation indicates a realization that although the LAV-25 meets the requirements of being light wt, fast, strategically and tactically mobile and has decent firepower, it failed in the desire of the Marine Corps to have a motorized fist.
Light Armored Recon Battalions have reverted to the typical roles of wheeled vehicles...screening, recon and raids of limited duration.
That is why another wheeled vehicle for our Infantry Battalions just won't do. The Marine Personnel Carrier is not (as currently designed) the vehicle that our forces need.
What is?
I contend that the BVS-10 fits the bill. Its helicopter transportable. Its amphibious. It takes less space aboard ship. Its been redesigned to have IED protection. Its proven and its already in limited service with the Marines already.
Armoured All Terrain Vehicle
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Gates throws a bone to the Marine Corps.
Many in the circles that I run in were PISSED that General Mattis didn't get picked to be the next Commandant. Seems like Gates was paying attention (which means that my opinion was probably more widespread than I thought) and did the next best thing.
He's sending General Mattis to CENTCOM. Outstanding.
Read more at Defense Tech.
A little overblown.
Craig Hooper --of Defense Tech?!?!---(wow, God save us, the liberals have a foothold in Defense Tech) has a great article up that you must read here....but this caught my eye.
But what does it mean? Putting PGS into the VLS does something far more interesting than just “add capability”. It changes everything. PGS on a surface ship transforms the largely defensive nature of the U.S. surface combatant/carrier escort to, well, “offense”. And that shift from the “Missile Defense” destroyer or “Air Defense” cruiser of old to a “Global Strike Combatant” will pose a real conceptual challenge for everybody–from those walking Aegis deckplates to any potential adversaries. The idea that America’s 7,804 VLS cells may soon gain the ability to rain almost instant havoc on targets some 2,000 nm away should put a bit of a damper on those who counted on overwhelming a hunkered-down and relatively passive “defense-oriented” AEGIS fleet. It’s a big deal. You heard it here first–A shift of the U.S. surface combatant fleet from defense to offense is a real game changer.Craig is pumping up the value of every Burke class DDG being able to provide offensive firepower...he even goes on to claim that its a game changer but in reality he over blows the issue. This is simply an evolution of the Tomahawk. That missile is now too slow for the threat environment. All they're doing is developing a missile that gets back the advantage that was had when that missile system first came online.
Game changer? Not bloody likely. Don't believe me? Stats for the Tomahawk are below. All we're getting is what we once had...before time and technology caught up with it. Also note how small the warhead is on the new missile. I realize that the speed of the weapon will help with effect on target but still...
A BGM-109 Tomahawk | |
Type | Long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile |
---|---|
Place of origin | United States |
Service history | |
In service | 1983-present |
Production history | |
Manufacturer | General Dynamics (initially) Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas |
Unit cost | $US 569,000[1] |
Specifications | |
Weight | 1,440 kilograms (3,200 lb) |
Length | Without booster: 5.56 m
With booster: 6.25 m |
Diameter | 0.52 m |
|
|
Warhead | Conventional: 1,000 lb (450 kg) Bullpup, or submunitions dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb, or a 200kt (840 Tj) W80 nuclear device (inactivated in accordance with SALT) |
Detonation mechanism |
FMU-148 since TLAM Block III, others for special applications |
|
|
Engine | Williams International F107-WR-402
turbofan using TH-dimer fuel and a solid-fuel booster |
Wingspan | 2.67 m |
Operational range |
2,500km |
Speed | Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h) |
Guidance system |
GPS, TERCOM, DSMAC |
Launch platform |
Vertical Launch System (VLS) and horizontal submarine torpedo tubes (known as TTL (torpedo tube launch)) |
Did Marcus Luttrell get a video game?
I don't know. The body language and type looks like it could be him. I wonder...
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)