SEAL/SWCC Training.

Got this vid from their FaceBook page.




Navy SEAL Qualification Training [SQT] from Navy SEALs on Vimeo.

David's got awesome pics...check him out.

Plus he's in Southern Europe...they still like America down there and in the former Soviet States, so you won't have to read America bashing on his site!

Marine Corps Mechanized History Sites.

Marine Corps Mechanized Museum

Amtrac.Org

Both sites can give a quick over view of Marine Corps Vehicles through out the years.  I'm currently looking for the official history (the Marine Corps is usually very good about such things) of Marine Corps AAVs, Tanks, Artillery and other mechanized units.

A very brief history of Marine direct fire systems.

LVT(A)1

LVT(A)4/5

 LVTH6

 M4 Sherman

M103

LVTPX-12* Note I found this photo on the internet but am having trouble finding information.  The issue lies in its designation.  When the Marine Corps was developing an LVTP-5 replacement, it came up with two different sized vehicles in its evaluation phase.  One was a larger (some would say full sized APC) and the other is pictured here...more of an M-113 sized purpose built amphibian.  From what I've read they both fell under the LVTPX-12 designation but history only records information on the victory...the vehicle that would eventually become the AAV.  No worries, I'm still looking for more information.  See the update below.

The rest of the history everyone already knows.  The M-60 MBT, the LVTP-7/AAV and the M1 Abrams MBT.  What I wanted to show in this brief over view is the startling fact that the Marine Corps once insisted on Direct Fires to be amphibious.  Even if that requirement no longer applies, then certainly new constraints are appropriate.  Weight, logistics tail...being where the Infantry needs it, when the Infantry needs it.

These are things that the current MBT just can't do.

How do we know this?  Quite simply by the way that these vehicles are being utilized in Afghanistan.  They're not working with and protecting the Infantry...the guarding MSRs.  A properly equipped MRAP can do that ---mount the proper sensors, put a few designated Marksmen on it and you have your guard.

We need INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLES...not MBTs.  More to come.

UPDATE:
Got this from BB1984.

It's off topic but I believe the last pic you have is actually of the LVTHX4, an armed development of the earlier M59 based LVTPX2, so yes roughly the size of an M113. There was also a twin 40mm armed AA version that was sort of in between the two called the LVTAAX2. As the designations suggest, these were all developed before the LVTP5.

About the only reference I have seen for the LVTPX-12 says it was the designation given to LVTP-7 prototypes delivered in '67-'68 before the production run started in '70.

Just FYI, FMC did propose an AAV version of the M113 called the LVT(X). It looked like a smaller LVTP-7, carrying 13 troops, and had a fire support variant with a turreted low pressure 90mm gun and troop carrying cut to 6 to make room for the turret and ammunition. The Italian San Marco brigade also deploys a modified M113, which again looks like a mini-LVTP-7, for amphibious work.

I stand corrected.  This does bring up another point though.  Our armor history is being lost.  Alot of the sources for this type of material are withering away.  FAS and others are becoming pay sites...the only hope is that the US Army Armor Center and Marine Corps History stay in the fight to preserve our military history.

A day without Heavy Armor. Could the MEU survive???

Just a heads up.

Later today I'm going to expand on a discussion that me and B. Smitty have been having on heavy armor and the Marine Corps.

B. Smitty is a heavy armor advocate and I'm just not so sure.

Want to know what Infantry...what USMC Infantry fears (we're talking conventional warfare...not an insurgency)?  Its not tanks...modern Infantry can handle tanks...what modern infantry fears is artillery fire.

With that in mind I penned an article stating that the BAE CV90120 should be the Marines next MBT.

But barring that a few other items come to mind....if we can't get the CV90120, then how about the turret from the Stryker MGS mounted to a Marine Corps vehicle...say the MPC or even the AAV?

If that proves a non-starter then perhaps its time to make a Marine Corps Aviation, secondary mission, a primary one...anti-armor support...AH-1Z's and UH-1Y's can handle the work...if they're swamped then the AV-8B and future F-35 along with F/A-18's can mix it up here too...

And last but certainly not least, Marine artillery could help fill the gaps.  But the point is this...what we need worry about is not tank on tank warfare but direct fire support for the Infantry.  My contention remains that the M1 is just too heavy to provide that support in the MEU and larger units as we're currently comprised.

Give the mission (if its ever required) to an Army detachment assigned to the Marines and find a smaller lighter vehicle to get it done.

Gates..the Ugly American and Europe.

I originally posted my thoughts on this subject.  No need.  And this is purely for American readers.  Want to know how Europeans feel about you?


About your spending for their defense?


About the expense of basing units on their soil to defend their interests?


Read ....


Think Defense
Especially the comments...and...

Defense and Freedom 

Long story short.  This marriage is dead.  Leave Europe to their own devices.  The UK, and the rest of them.  Lets see how they do in their next war.  The bastards will be begging for help.  Personally, I'm tired of the America bashing.

GRAPHIC! DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE EASILY DISTURBED. Pakistani Police kill a young man for stealing a cell phone.

And these barbarians are suppose to be our ally?  I don't think anything in the Middle East is worth our association with them...not even oil.  Barbarism.

Armed Scout Helicopter...a tale of three companies.

AH-6I

AAS-72X

AAS-72X

AAS-72X

OH-58II

OH-58II

OH-58 II

The Armed Scout Helicopter competition is a tale of three companies.  Two of those companies have the savy, have the knowledge of "publicity" and the modernity to realize that information on their products will help in the arena of public debate.  One company is a dinosaur.  Lost in the days when newspapers led the way and everyone sat in front of the TV to hear Walter Cronkite.

As much as I pound on EADS and Euro Copter they're doing it right.  They're claiming market share on the civilian side of the market in the US and they're trying real hard to get into the military market here in a big way.

Bell Helicopter is a leader in the industry and has several projects its leading on.  Its well established with the Department of Defense with its current offerings being the current Scout Helicopter, the AH-1Z, the UH-1Y and the V-22.  Its maintaining market share in the civilian market with its offerings there.

Boeing is a dud.  Its biggest military claim to fame is the F-15, its partnership with Bell on the V-22 and its Chinook helicopter.

But its playing the game old school.  This time old school isn't good school.

I wanted this post to be a description of the three contenders for the contract after watching Trimble's video on the AH-6I that he posted today.

I can't do that.  No information is publicly available on the AH-6I except from "established sources"...I won't play that game.

Check out the websites of the two companies that actually do care enough to make their information available to us lowly bloggers and those that happen to read them.

Websites you should check out.

Bell Helicopter's Scouts Out

EADS EuroCopter's AAS-72X

This should be the USMC's next Main Battle Tank.

If HQ Marine Corps is paying attention to the tyranny of weight...the continuing need for large caliber direct fire support and the idea that logistics are as important as tactics then the BAE CV90120 will be the Marine Corps next main battle tank.

Advantages over the M-1
1.  Lighter yet has the same firepower.
2.  Has equal cross country mobility...maybe more mobility due to its lighter weight.
3.  Lower fuel consumption.
4.  Less cube space aboard ship.
5.  Allows easier transportation to shore.
6.  Compatible with Trophy defense system.

Liabilities in comparison to the M1.
1.  Not able to stand up to other MBT's in combat.

Its quite clear.  If the Marine Corps is to continue to operate all weather, direct fire weapon systems in support of the Infantry then tanks are a must.  The M1 is too heavy, too thirsty and takes up too much space aboard ship to be compatible with continued Marine Corps service.

Time to give BAE a call.

Principal Characteristics

EFV will come back...

This story by Fabey illustrates a private thought that I've had and one that is being confirmed by HQ Marine Corps.

The EFV will be stripped of it complex drive system will be fitted with current but high tech jet pumps for its amphibious mission and will come online stripped down, and renamed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.

The whole story is worth a read but this caught the eye...

Traditionally, an AOA of this type would take about 18 months, Flynn said June 9 at an event in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“We’re trying to get to six to nine months,” Flynn says, adding that he hoped the aggressive schedule would “energize the acquisition process” for the vehicle.

A speedy acquisition process isn't how things are usually done and points to a single sourced program.  Another tidbit that caught my attention is that the Congressional delegation has suddenly stopped it protests and holding up of the Defense budget.

All this points to General Dynamics winning the project through a sole sourced program probably to be announced either late this year or early next.

BAE fans shouldn't be too depressed though.  If I was a betting man then I'd lay every cent in my pocket that they'll win the upgrade contract...which leads to the wildcard in this whole thing.  If BAE is able to design an attractive enough upgrade package then it could essentially make the expense of a new EFV/ACV moot.  The AAV could theoretically continue in service --- just with new built vehicles.

Blast from the past...CH-37 Mojave.

CH-37 Mojave.

USS Freedom. Tired already?

110607-N-DB113-082 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 7, 2011) An MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 77 prepares to land aboard the littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Aaron Burden/Released)

Ignore the helicopter and blow the pic up and take a good look at this ship.  It just entered service and its looking tired and worn out.  I know visuals mean nothing but I wonder.  Has limited manning finally caught up with ship upkeep?  Is operating skeleton ships crews actually the way we want to go if we desire to keep these ships in service for 20 plus years?

I can't say because I don't have the facts or the skill sets to know for sure.  What I do know is that the USS Freedom is looking tired...very tired.