Ad Blocker...

Hey all.

I haven't passed around a cup, asked for donations for the blog or started a patreon.

I do however request you turn off your ad block to help the blog out.  It's a simple thing I'm asking and I hope you find the minor inconvenience worth it.

Oh and my ads are from Google, Disquis and NewsMax.  I don't think those companies would risk spreading malware via their advertisements so there's that.

Anyway I appreciate it.

WHOA!!!! We need to reconsider everything with regard to air to air combat since the SU-22 evaded our AIM-9X!

Thanks to MicMac80 for the link!

via Aviation Week Blog by Bill Sweetman (2012...click here to follow the link)

"We had 210 maintainers," Manclark recalled. "They were dedicated, just unbelievable, tech sergeants and master sergeants. The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [Su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21."

That proved to be a very important test. "In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'.

"Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.

"I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about."

Now this from Combat Aircraft (click here to follow the link).

At approximately 18.43hrs local time on June 18, a US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet operating over Syria shot down a Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF) Su-22M4 ‘Fitter’ fighter-bomber near Tabqah, Syria.

The F/A-18E (reported as BuNo 168914/AJ304) was assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 87 ‘Golden Warriors’ (also known as ‘War Party’), which is assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8.

Its pilot engaged the ‘Fitter’ and initially fired an AIM-9X Sidewinder close-range heat-seeking missile from a range of about half a mile, which was defeated by flares launched by the Su-22 pilot. The Super Hornet then re-engaged and fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), which hit the ‘Fitter’ despite being fired from relatively close range.

The pilot was able to eject and was later recovered safely, according to local sources.

It marked the first shootdown of a manned fighter by a US aircraft since May 4, 1999, when Lt Col Michael ‘Dog’ Geczy, US Air Force, downed a Serbian MiG-29 with an AIM-120 fired from his F-16CJ during Operation ‘Allied Force’.

However, the engagement poses some interesting questions, not least; how was a 1980s-era ‘Fitter’ able to defeat a cutting-edge US air-to-air heat-seeking missile?

Go to both pages and read them in their entirety!

Now back on task.

I originally dismissed this news.  I thought nothing of it.  Then I saw MicMac80 in the open comments section today and it hit me square between the eyes.

EVERY ASSUMPTION BEING MADE ABOUT AERIAL COMBAT BY US AND ALLIED FORCES IS PROBABLY DEAD WRONG!

Think about it.

Maneuvering is irrelevant.

We all had been led to believe that modern dogfighting would result in mutual suicide because close range missiles were just that accurate.

We have read stories about the Navy wanting to get a bit more range out of the AIM-9X to make it into a medium range missile.

And then we have that old Rand Study that claimed that the F-35 would be clubbed like baby seals.

But what if even that dire report is overly optimistic?  What if between electronic attack, active/passive countermeasures and super maneuverability we're actually, unknowingly behind our potential foes?

What if risk was assumed and that risk has already cost us our once vaunted aerial superiority?

I'm just asking some questions.  It's up to you to decide what's right and wrong.  Have at it in the comment section.

How to Make a Quick & Easy Smoke Bomb via The Art Of Manliness...

What do you need?  Foil, Spectra Stump Removal, Sugar and a cast iron skillet...

Story here.

You know what has me spinning?

Imagine you wanted to go loco on people and start sniping.  What is one of the things you want?  How about smoke bombs going off in the location so that its more difficult to find your sniper hide?

99% of my readers can carry the start of the scenario to it's logical conclusion but damn!  If someone decided to launch a semi-complex ambush on citizens or police all the tools are right on the internet and in stores to get the job done.

Want something even more crazy?  You don't even need to make these...they're for sale as novelty items!

Are we the only people that understand the tactical applications for these "toys"??????

Electronic Warfare is now considered important by the Pentagon...another sign more Growlers are on the way!

via Breaking Defense.

After two decades of neglect, electronic warfare is — slowly — on the mend, the Pentagon’s Deputy Director for EW said yesterday. That includes a growing budget, a new (classified) strategy from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, increased interest from the leaders of all four armed services, and, most immediately, an ongoing joint study of future jamming aircraft.

“Give me about a month, maybe two,” and he’ll have a lot more clarity on what’s called the Analysis of Alternatives for Joint Airborne Electronic Attack, William Conley told the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute.

Then this.

 For its own investments, the Air Force bet on stealth aircraft, the F-22 and F-35, that it deemed so undetectable they wouldn’t need Navy EW airplanes jamming enemy radar on their behalf, as one 4-star told Colin as recently as 2014.

As adversaries grow more electronically sophisticated, however, the Air Force has come round and started studying what it calls Penetrating Electronic Attack. PEA might be a dedicated manned aircraft unto itself like the old EF-111, a specialized variant of the future fighter known as Penetrating Counter-Air, a drone, or a complex mix of capabilities installed on different airframes. Much is classified, much is still to be determined.

Finally this.

 In other words: The brass realize that if you don’t have electronic warfare — both to protect your own networks, sensors, and communications, and to disrupt the enemy’s — you’re probably dead.

Story here. 

Make sure you read the whole thing but it left out a few important points...

*  The Pentagon has already done a study to determine if more Growlers were needed to meet the demands of the force.  I believe (not sure) that it decided it did which is why initially more Growlers were ordered.

*  The USAF has all but given up on the mission.  I know that they initially assigned Electronic Warfare Officers to EA-6B squadrons but I don't believe that practice has continued.

*  The USMC has stated that the F-35 will conduct the Electronic Attack mission with its AESA array.  That was obviously wishful thinking.  If that was the solution then all the Super Hornets, Updated F-15/F-16s with AESA arrays would be able to fulfill the need.  This story is telling.  The AESA might have attack capabilities but not to the extent that some hoped a few years ago.

*  The outlook for the Growler/Super Hornet combo continues to get brighter. With every grounding of the F-35 despite it being "in limited service" and new reports of needing capabilities NOW that the F-35 probably won't have till 2030 at the earliest mean that Boeing Defense stock is seriously undervalued.

Electronic Attack.

This is where we are without a doubt behind our potential foes.

What I find amazing is that the Marine Corps and Army are talking about inserting tactical Cyber Warriors at the Squad level but seem to be ignoring EA at the Battalion and higher.

Sic Semper Tyrannis calls the 'Evil Russia' meme a complete lie...

via SST

Let me give you some basic facts about Russia and the United States in terms of defense spending and then you will begin to appreciate my glum, angry outlook.
Russia has a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $1.326 Trillion dollars. Their Per Capita GDP is roughly $9,200.00. Russia, who is supposedly keen on conquering the world, only spends $60 Billion dollars on Defense. That works out to $417 per person in Russia to buy tanks, planes and air craft carriers.

The United States, with a GDP of almost $18 Trillion dollars is spending over $600 Billion dollars on Defense. Every man, woman and child in America is contributing $1,884 for U.S. defense. On a per capita basis the United States is spending four times what Russia does.

It also is laughable to portray Russia as "a crumbling civil society." Look at the fundamental economic facts. Although the United States enjoys a higher per capita GDP than Russia (almost six times more than Russia) the United States has a massive imbalance between its income and its expenses. The United States, with a GDP of $18 Trillion dollars, has a debt that is approaching $21 Trillion dollars. Put simply, we are spending more than we are bringing in. As long as the rest of the world lets us run up our credit card then we can continue to live the lives of kings. Russia, with a GDP of $1.3 Trillion dollars, only has a national debt of $157 billion dollars.

Then this.

 This is the American delusion. We insist that Russia is a beast of enormous appetite and intent on world conquest while happily ignoring the hard truth that the United States is invading more countries than any other nation state. We continue to spend more money on defense than China and Russia combined while our infrastructure becomes more frail, middle class jobs disappear overseas and our national debt exceeds our domestic product. We are like a drunk asleep on the sidewalk. In our previous life we were a banker of great repute. Now we lie soiled and asleep. Content to keep drinking the lethal mixture of war and debt. This much I know--this does not end well for us.

Story here. 

NOTE!!!!  SST has a STRICT comment policy.  He will ban a person he considers a troll faster than even I do.  I even think he pre-approves comments before they're posted.  If you go there then behave.

Open Comment Post. June 24, 2017

Pic of the day....Japanese CH-47 in a climb...

The IDF resurrects its Haruv Special Operations Unit

via Shepard Media.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced in April that it was reviving the Haruv Special Operations Unit following its disbandment in 1974 as part of a wider restructuring of the army.

Today, Haruv is already operational, with the special operations unit scheduled to achieve a full operational capability (FOC) within the next two years, unit officials explained to Shephard.

The deputy commander of Haruv, Capt Ben Eichenthal, described to Shephard on 12 June that the unit was revived in response to emerging requirements across the contemporary operating environment, particularly relating to increased demand for specialist counter-terrorism (CT) missions in and around Israel.

‘The IDF has a need for a special unit capable of operating in Palestinian areas,’ Eichenthal explained while making reference to covert operations in urban and densely populated areas such as the Gaza Strip.

Story here. 

Another Special Ops unit?  Wow.  An Army made up of specialist units....I wonder if Israeli Special Ops now outnumbers its general purpose force units?

Congress pushes the Army to modernize/buy armored vehicles...which leaves the Marine Corps in a quandary...

via Inverse.com

The United States has run up against enemy tanks in the early stages of both Iraq wars, but an uneven fight where the America’s military had command of the air (planes beat tanks in the big rock-paper-scissors of combat, generally) isn’t really a good test of its tank capabilities the way that a land war with Russia would be.
In such a fight, Congress is worried that the current vehicles, like the M1 Abrams MBT — there’s approximately 9,000 of them at $5 million a tank — won’t quite cut it. The M1 has been in service since 1980, and until now the military’s policy has been to keep slapping upgrades and new technology on the same platform, basically across the board. In the future, though, it’ll be much easier to incorporate new technology on a platform specifically designed for it, and the military will need an entirely new main battle tank in the future.
As Breaking Defense reports, the Army already had plans for a successor to the Abrams, first in the “Ground Combat Vehicle” program (which it ended in 2013), and currently with the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program, which wants to have a new design for a heavy vehicle that acts as a mothership for packs of drones and unmanned ground vehicles. But the HASC’s message is clear: hurry up.

Story here. 

ACV contestants aboard ship

Read the entire article to get the flavor of things but consider this....The US Army has gone from the M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP v2, M1A2 SEP v3, and are working on the M1A3 for introduction around the 2020 time frame.

Meanwhile the USMC will make a decision on the final winner of the ACV in 2018 with full scale production hopefully in 2019.

The USMC M1A1?  It will soldier on.  While the US Army will have gone thru (counting the base M1A2) four iterations of the M1A2 and will be working toward the M1A3 the USMC will be soldering on with the M1A1.

That my friends places the Marine Corps on the horns of a dilemma.

The solution (from my chair) are a series of uncomfortable choices that introduce risk into the equation if we ever have to do another "800 mile" cross country run.

US Army Stryker Mobile Gun System

Solution 1:  Go with the Mobile Gun Solution.

LVT-A5 AMTANK at Saipan

The Tank community would howl but a possible solution is to go the Mobile Gun System route.  Marine Corps Tankers take pride in supporting the infantry, but they're trained to destroy tanks.  Going to a MGS will require a change in culture, but should be doable.  Tank killing would fall to properly equipped
ACVs designated as anti-tank variants and equipped with TOW or a similar missile.  MGS variants of the ACV would take care of pillboxes, fortifications, obstacles etc...An immediate advantage is that they would be able to swim ashore and would be a nod to history.  AMTANKS was once a thing and there might be a few old skool Marines still hanging around that would cheer its return.

USMC tanks in Norway

Solution 2:  Soldier on with the M1A1.

It could be argued that the M1A1 is "good enough" for Marine Corps purposes. Some would say that modest upgrades will keep it highly capable into the future.  Some would say that the real problem is in having enough of these vehicles in fighting shape where and when we need them is more of a pressing problem than actually keeping pace with the Army and updating them.

BAE Modernized M8

Solution 3.  Follow the Army Airborne and go light tank.

I have no idea how Marine Tankers would react to this idea.  I don't think you'll see a potential USMC Light Tank variant being dropped out the back of C-130's, but the weight saving aboard ship might see bigger detachments.  I assume that the Airborne boys would want their vehicle to be as fuel efficient as possible so that also yields benefits unrealized, and since they're going for a large caliber cannon (I believe 120mm but it could be a 105) it might be capable of engaging MBTs. NOTE:  A quick Google search reveals that the BAE entrant has the 105 while the General Dynamics sports the 120. Regardless we could see brand new opportunities open up.  Amphibious raids with platoons of Light tanks escorting ACVs?  SOCOM would love that for some of their raids and even if we're acting in a supporting role, that kind of firepower would be welcome.  But there is always a downside.  For the light tank option you're looking at a vehicle that just can't take the hits that a MBT can.  Instead of leading the assault the light tanks will be back providing supporting fire to infantry assaulting...alone.

Solution 4.  No tanks.

This is the solution that the Marine Corps once appeared to be pursuing (and still might for all I know).  Tank strength in the Marine Corps has been drastically cut (misplaced an excellent article on it...I'll try and find it) and many in the Tank Community were becoming alarmed.  Recently we've heard of some planned upgrades for the M1A1 so perhaps those plans were never real and only rumors.  Quite honestly I see no upsides to this.  Direct fire will always be a necessity on the battlefield.  Any weather, always on hand firepower is a must have.

My guess on how this will play out?

I don't see a "AMTANK" coming anytime soon.  While I believe this is the best option if we can't have a real tank, and while being able to swim to shore with the assault element and standardizing or "necking down" to one armored vehicle type makes all kind of sense I just don't see it happening.  We don't have the money.  A light tank option?  Don't see that either.  I've already pointed out the advantages and operating a common vehicle with the Army is a money saver in so many ways I just don't think the Marine Corps is culturally ready to accept a light tank (yeah I know...an AMTANK based on the ACV would just be a LARGE light tank but it swims so its in a different category).

My guess is that this can gets kicked down the road.  The M1A1 in some modestly upgraded form will soldier on till around 2030 or so.  I expect the Marine Corps to totally skip the M1A2 gen of tanks and wait and see what the M1A3 offers.  If the updates are adequate, no breakthrough in tank technology is achieved then we could see the Marine Corps going till 2040-2050 with a tank that was first conceived in the 1970s.

USS Fitzgerald mishap becomes clearer...Freighter on autopilot at time of collision.

via Free Beacon.

The deadly collision between a U.S. destroyer and a container ship June 17 took place while the freighter was on autopilot, according to Navy officials.

The Philippines-flagged cargo ship ACX Crystal was under control of a computerized navigation system that was steering and guiding the container vessel, according to officials familiar with preliminary results of an ongoing Navy investigation.

Investigators so far found no evidence the collision was deliberate.

Nevertheless, an accident during computerized navigation raises the possibility the container ship's computer system could have been hacked and the ship deliberately steered into the USS Fitzgerald, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.

A more likely explanation is that collision was the result of an autopilot malfunction, or the autopilot's warning signals, used to notify the ship's operators, were missed.

Story here. 

Bill Gertz is the last of a dying breed.  Hardcore defense journalists.  Even if you don't lean right you should subscribe to the Free Beacon just to keep up with his reporting.

Back on task.

Could the N. Koreans have gamed out this incident and used one of their only world class weapons to almost destroy a US warship?  Could they have hacked the navigation system?  Gertz smashed the theory right after he raised it but still....

F-35B's grounded in Yuma.

via Breaking Defense.

A glitchy software upgrade to the ALIS ground support system has grounded the Marine Corps F-35B squadron based in Yuma, Arizona, the F-35 Joint Program Office announced. Details are sparse, but a Marine Corps statement (reproduced in full below) said the unspecified “anomalies” only affected maintenance codes and only in the Yuma squadron, VMFA-211. The Marines have been the service most bullish on the F-35, pushing their variant, the F-35B jump jet, into service earlier than the Air Force or Navy.

Senate Armed Services chairman, former Navy fighter pilot, and F-35 skeptic John McCain swiftly issued a statement that he was “concerned” with the latest grounding but so far has held back from the ferocious criticism for which he’s famous.

Story here. 

Wow.  Is this ALIS system a point of vulnerability so big that black hat hackers, mercenary hackers or just bored computer nerds could change the course of a battle?

I don't know enough about this, but software is becoming a serious sore point for this program.

Can anyone explain why it needs so much code?  They brag that it has more code than the Space Shuttle but is that something to chest thump about?

Open Comment Post. June 23, 2017