Suppression of enemy awesomeness.

They call the Prowler's mission "Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses," but they should call it "Suppression of Enemy Awesomeness," because there's no way you and your stupid C3I network can be awesome when an EA-6B is on station.
~photo & caption by Joe Copalman

Why are we still buying MRAPs?

I got this from Jonathan.  Thanks dude.  This is amazing.  This is nonsense.  This makes no sense!  Read it and weep, your tax dollars at work.  More MRAPs when we don't know what to do with the ones we already have.

Navistar Defense, LLC today announced that it received a delivery order for 250 International® MaxxPro® Recovery vehicles from the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command. The $253 million order was placed under the company’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity contract and includes contractor logistics support. This is Navistar’s eighth major MRAP variant.
Navistar originally unveiled the MaxxPro Recovery vehicle, also known as a wrecker variant, in February 2009 as a new utility vehicle offering.

Galrahn bails on USNI blog.

I lurk on the USNI blog from time to time and to be honest when I first read this blog post, I didn't see anything controversial...just another statement from an inside the beltway blogger that spends too much time at Navy Headquarters.

This statement though has me scratching my head...

I apologize to the United States Naval Institute for failing to meet editorial standards on the blog in my November 10, 2010 post titled Leadership and Accountability. In that post it has been suggested I made an ad hominem attack against Admiral Jonathan Greenert. US Naval Institute blog rules forbid ad hominem attacks on the blog. I am responsible for all content posted under my name on the United States Naval Institute blog, and I strongly believe I should always be held accountable by USNI for any violation by me of their rules.

 I didn't see the 'ad hominem' attack.

The US Navy is in bigger trouble than I thought if they're to the point of pushing Politically Correct THOUGHT!

If you have an interest in Naval Services then this should send a chill down your spine.

The leading blog of the US Navy/Marine Corps/Coast Guard has now instituted a type of censorship of opinion that does not support the views of leadership.

I once lurked over at the USNI blog.  I won't even do that now.

PS.
And if you believe that this was simply a voluntary exit on Galrahn's part then I suggest you notice these words..."it has been suggested I made an ad hominem attack'...from reading his blog I can tell you that the only people that would carry weight when it comes to that suggestion with the G-man would be Navy leadership or the USNI blog editors.  Since the editors allowed the posting then it would have to be Navy leadership.

You have got to watch this.

Massive hat tip to War News Updates.  This is a part of history I never knew.

K-Max UAV...the video.

K-max UAV would make the tank deployment make sense.

Ok, now this is making sense.  If the K-max UAV comes online then a whole lot of stuff comes together.  A certain blog has criticized the F-35 for requiring too much gas in forward operating base.

My response was that it would require less than a full gas tank to accomplish its mission since it would be forward based.  The same critique could be applied to tanks in Afghanistan.

This would seem to make Distributed Operations a nice dream but realistically undoable due to exposed supply lines....but bring into the equation not only the CH-53K but also the K-max UAV that's able to operate around the clock without worry of pilot fatigue and suddenly it comes together nicely.

Now the only thing left is to get the thing to Afghanistan and see if the experiment works!

Memorial planned for F-22 pilot.

A memorial service is being planned for the pilot of an F-22 which was lost over Alaska.

Capt. Jeffrey Haney's remains have not been found, but the Air Force says evidence at the remote crash site indicates he could not have survived. Part of the fighter jet's ejection seat was found at the site, which means Haney, of Clarklake, Mich., never ejected, Col. Jack McMullen said Friday.

Haney was on a nighttime training mission at the time of the crash Tuesday.

My question is this.

I'm by no means an aviation expert, but this is the second time that an F-22 appears to have abruptly departed controlled flight.  Why do I say that?  There has been no indication that a 'mayday' call was put out by the pilot.  It also appears that these airplanes were conducting some type of air intercept mission and were perhaps aggressively throwing the planes around the sky.

This is to be expected if you're flying the premier fighter in the world.

What isn't to be expected is that an airplane departs controlled flight without warning to the pilot.  The last time this happened that I can recall is to a Lockheed Martin test pilot in Nevada.

What gives with the F-22?

And please oh please spare me the tired old pilot error thing.

AH-1z onboard the USS Makin Island.

USMC makes the call...Tanks will stay in the force structure.

Wow.  Hard to believe but earlier this month I did a blog post about Tanks and the USMC.  While my premise was that ...

Just a few intense facts...

1.  Marine Corps tanks haven't deployed to Afghanistan.
2.  Distributed Operations (at least as I've read it) doesn't account for tanks in its doctrine.
3.  The Marine Corps is attempting to become more expeditionary.  Tanks don't allow for that luxury and even in the best case scenario would be relegated to Division or higher.
4.  Tanks are a tremendous burden to the MEU.
5.  The MEU could deploy more AAVs/EFVs/JLTVs, howitzers, MTVRs etc...if it didn't have the burden of having a tank platoon attached.

The big brains at Headquarters Marine Corps have obviously decided that Tanks are going to continue to be organic to the Marine Corps.

But is this really the case?

Are we perhaps seeing --- right before our eyes --- an experiment in logistics for Distributed Operations?

This from the ARES blog... Paul Mcleary is the author and has spent as much time with ground units as the other authors have with air forces quotes Jason Fritz (I never heard of him)...

You know what scares the hell out of dismounted insurgents? 70 tons of badassery that will make them dead if they mess with it…If the problem in Helmand is a highly-active insurgency that requires a firepower solution, then the M1A1 is what you want to bring to the fight….The bottom line is that the Abrams provides a highly mobile, well armored platform for long distance, highly accurate fire. To question that is to not understand tanks at all. It seems that the Marines need long distance, highly accurate firepower or they wouldn't be asking for it.

The all-weather fire support for these beasts has never been in doubt.

The ability to keep insurgent heads down has never been in doubt.

The idea that tanks or other ground based fire support is more responsive to the needs of the Ground Combat Element has never been in doubt.

What has been in doubt is the logistics train to keep these beasts in the field.

What will matter is this.

1.  How will they operate? 
a.  Will they operate as Platoons?
b.  Will they be shopped out to individual companies as mobile pillboxes?
c.  Will they assemble and sortie out from the direction of the MEF?
2.  What will this do to our already strained logistics train?
3.  Are our rules of engagement going to allow them to be used for anything but shows of force?
4.  Does it make sense to use them as convoy escorts?
5.  What happens and do we have the system in place to recover them if one is battle damaged?

There are many more issues I'm sure.  I hope this experiment is successful but I do wonder if this has been properly war gamed at 29 Palms....

More reading at...
Think Defense (European perspective in the article...but in the comments section they're beating chests saying I told ya so)
Ares (generally anti-Marine in the comments but McLeary has a nicely balanced article)

Pic of the day. Nov. 19, 2010.

Pic of the day. Nov. 17, 2010.

A U.S. Navy Sikorsky SH-60B Seahawk helicopter, flown by Lt. Brian Roberts, assigned to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 37, and Cmdr. Brian Gebo, the commanding officer of the squadron, lands next to the Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor on Ford Island in Hawaii Nov. 16, 2010. The helicopter was delivered to become a part of the museum?s collection after reaching the end of its service life cycle. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Mark Logico, U.S. Navy/Released)

The C-141 did the A400 before the A400 did!

Once the USAF had a capable airlifter that had about the same carry capability as the A400, was cheaper, faster and could fly further...as a matter of fact this airplane (if it were still in production) would be the main rival to the A400.

What is that airplane from years ago?

The C-141.

Might be time to dust off the old birds from the scrapyards and stick modern engines on them and put them back into service!

UPDATE!
Thanks to everyone for their comments but a few points...
1.  The C-141 cubing out before reaching its max takeoff weight was examined and to a certain degree rectified by the stretched C-141B.
2.  In the light that the C-141 was tweener...between the C-5 and the smaller C-130 makes it similar to the A400 in mission profile..
3.  If you think that any of the partner nations in the A400 project are going to be using the A400 on rough fields, etc, then I've got a bridge in a dark swamp to sell ya...it ain't going to happen.
4.  The idea that in addition to A330, the A400 will make a superior tanker is nonsense.  The A400 will not be procured in large enough numbers for it to perform a swing role...a role that the A330 is more than adequate for.
5.  The C-141 is faster, flies farther and carries as much as the A400...the only place where the A400 might be superior is the fact that it can carry SOME outsized cargo.