Friday, March 02, 2012

F-35B External Stores Flight Test

I can't wait for this to come out.

Turkish Defense Products Guide.

Product Guide 2009

The Turks have put together a very interesting military program.  Not only are they assembling what will soon be the most powerful military in Europe, but they're also putting together a very robust defense industry.

I would list the following countries as bearing watching when it comes to defense matters in Europe...

1.  Romania.  They're not hardly rich but they are extremely innovative and have made some unique defense ties.  They were the first to start training with the Israeli's, have a strong relationship with US forces and are taking steps despite the current financial difficulties to upgrade their military.

2.  Poland.  Again, they also are developing a strong defense industry having recently partnered with Sikorsky and are upping defense spending while others are decreasing outlays.

3.  Georgia.  With a clear and present threat from Russia, this small country is developing a very strong force for its size, established strong relationships with the USMC and has a large cadre of combat experienced troops.

4.  Turkey.  Combat experience due to ongoing warfare with the Kurds, a quickly developing industrial defense sector and the buys of advanced systems from Europe and the US.

SNR's Landing Ship Tank.

An interesting design from Turkey.

While the rest of the world has basically abandoned the large tank landing ship, the Turks have embraced it in a big way and are trying to sell them on the open market.  If nothing else its an interesting take on an old concept.



LST

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Camp Lemonier in Djibouti

Interesting stuff on Google Maps as far as Camp Lemonier is concerned.  Go here to see for yourself but I see (at least as far as the map is oriented on my computer screen) on the western side of the airport a spot that has 5 CH-53's, four C-130's and on the opposite side of the airfield I see six F-15's and a couple more C-130's in addition to a couple of P-3's.

The secret war in North Africa is becoming more intense.  Digging for information on what's going on over there, several years ago Africa Command stated publicly that rotations of 200 US Army Special Forces troops were going in and out of this base.

That doesn't include what the French are doing (they have a French Foreign Legion Brigade and a Marine Regiment there) and of course with all of them playing you know the rest of the Special Ops of the world can't be far behind...I wouldn't be surprised to see British, Polish, Romanian, German, Italian...heck the entire western world participating in operations there.

UPDATE:

A couple of readers have spotted French ATL2 MPA's, Transol 160's, and C-27's...that's in addition to the F-15's, C-130's and CH-53's that were pointed out earlier but doesn't account for what's hidden away in the hangars and you can bet body parts that at least a couple of UAVs are present.

THIS IS A MAJOR LEAGUE OPERATION NOW.  THIS IS A BLACK OP THATS ABOUT TO BUST WIDE OPEN.  NEXT WAR ZONE...AFRICA!

Brits rethinking the F-35...might go with the "B" model now...


Massive, major league hat tip to Think Defence.

This would be too good if true.

The Brits, who switched from the B model to the C model are now thinking about switching back to the B!  From the Guardian...
Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.
The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.
Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.
Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan – namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .
The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.
Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.
Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 – and then only one carrier would be operational.
Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.
HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.
The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to icrease to as much as £12bn.
The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.
A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."
Wow.

Just freaking wow. But before I get too happy I wonder if we're not seeing a bit of interservice politics.  With the B model the Joint Forces setup established with the Harrier would continue and you would see Royal Air Force pilots flying off the Navy's flat top.

With the C model it would likely be too expensive to have Royal Air Force pilots trained to fly off and land on these conventional carriers.

It appears on second thought that there is more to this than meets the eye.

The US Army is on crack.

Boxer

VBCI

CV-90

Stryker
Namer

Puma

BMP-3
Its official.

The US Army is on crack.

Check out this story from Aviation Week.  Then take another look at the photos above and then reread the story.  The US Army appears to be combining two programs into one, or they're opening up the GCV program to so many vehicles that any requirements have obviously been thrown out the window.

This is tailor made for a protest.  Didn't anyone in the DoD learn anything from the USAF's troubles?

Someone in the procurement office needs to be fired.

TODAY!

Southern Justice!



Massive hat tip to Defense Tech.
I usually complain about the militarization of law enforcement.  But this just rocks.  Good to go!

NOTE*

Texas didn't name their boats after politicians, celebrities, or any other non-entity.  They named them after their fallen heroes.  Man!  These guys get it!

The Debate: Should Special Ops be its own separate service?

Not my debate issue but one that was held on the pages of US News and World Report's Debate Club.  It's to be expected.  SOCOM in general and SEALs in particular have been drumming up press lately.  Much to the chagrin of the old timers, this new breed of Special Operations personnel love the lime light.

The person putting forth the idea that Special Ops needs to be its own service is none other than Douglas Macgregor the guy that authored Breaking the Phalanx.

He's one of those persons that likes re-arranging deck chairs and trying out new ideas on actual forces without experimentation.  A bad mix in my opinion but he's become famous for his ideas.  To the article....
If Americans learned anything from the colossally expensive use of large general purpose Army and Marine combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that a low-profile mix of special operations forces and covert operators to find and liquidate anti-Western insurgent, terrorist, and criminal elements is a more effective and economical solution in the Middle East. Special forces are also far better suited to foreign internal defense missions than general purpose Army or Marine forces.

In addition, a smaller defense budget is not only inevitable; it's a national economic necessity. Budgetary realities dictate a strategic shift toward more efficient and effective means of national defense, means predicated on a lighter footprint overseas with far fewer soldiers and Marines stationed on foreign soil.
Thus, it's time to make special operations a separate service. But Americans in and out of uniform must scale back their expectations regarding what such a service could achieve on its own. In a conflict with a capable opponent that fields effective armed forces and maintains a cohesive society, special operations forces can only operate on the margins in support of general purpose forces. Special ops is most effective in the developing world, where societies are weak and armed forces are ineffective or nonexistent. These are places like the Middle East, Africa, and most of Latin America, where capable air-defense networks, strong armies, and internal police forces are few and far between. In these settings, special operations forces can play a decisive strategic role.

There is also another reason why special operations should become a separate service. Operatives should be legally accountable for actions involving the train and equip mission, as well as direct action missions beyond America’s borders. Like all of the current services, a separate special forces service must not operate without regional combatant commander knowledge or permission anywhere under any circumstances.
One way to establish special forces as a separate service is to return the general purpose Marines to control of the Navy while also permanently reassigning selected Army, Marine and Air Force units to Special Operations Forces and Special Forces control. This would keep the number of service branches the same. All of these proposed changes should be considered in the context of a new National Security Act designed to replace the Joint Chiefs of Staff system with a unified national defense staff under a uniformed national defense chief.

I say let them do it But with a caveat.  66,000 people makes SOCOM as large as 3 US ARMY DIVISIONS!


No more leveraging off conventional forces.

They should be self contained and self sufficient.  Separate base, aircraft etc...

With a force that large they should be able to perform any mission short of an invasion without support of conventional forces.

This has been in the making for at least the last 10 years.  Time to make it happen.




Marine procurement games & the Marine Personnel Carrier.



Talking with friends about the Marine Personnel Carrier Program and there are some disturbing facts sitting in front of our faces.

1.  The MPC was conceived as a way to make up for a transport shortfall because the numbers of EFV's was going to be reduced due to costs.  The plan was to be able to transport the assault wave in EFV's with follow on forces to gain battlefield mobility with the MPC.

2.  The MPC promises to give battlefield mobility to keep up with the M1 Abrams, a certain degree of ocean going ability, protection against IEDs and full ship board compatibility.  In essence it will be more capable than the current AAV in all realms EXCEPT for ship to shore amphibious ops.

3.  For better or worse the USMC is moving toward a quasi-Commando force with a premium being placed on aerial insertion of not only raid but forcible entry forces.  With the current budgetary pressure and programed spending being locked into the air wing's F-35, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, MV-22, and CH-53K I don't expect this to change any time soon.

4.  Supposedly the AAV is going to be upgraded, the MPC procured and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle developed to replace the AAV, which the EFV failed to do.  How are we going to afford to procure the MPC, upgrade the AAV AND develop the ACV?

Me and my buddies came to this conclusion.

The Marine Corps is playing games.

The MPC is going to be the replacement for the AAV and the ACV will be ultimately canceled due to budget pressures.  The JLTV will be touted as making up for overland mobility shortfalls and the CH-53K will be dragged out of development purgatory in order to tout the MPC's ship to shore mobility, additionally the Navy will push the follow on to the LCAC and deem the amphibious tractor obsolete.

I hope I'm wrong but little else makes sense.  Of course HQMC could be playing it straight and the plan really is to develop these vehicles as planned.  But if that's the case then what is the make up of the Assault Amphibian Battalions?

How many MPC's will they have?  How many AAV/ACV's?  Will the make up depend on locale?  Will we tailor all AAV/ACV Battalions to support ops in the Pacific while using MPC's in the Middle East and Africa?

Lots of questions.

Very few answers from the program office.