Dahir Insaat - Top Down Anti-Tank Missiles Concept Vid...

No M-16A5? Everyone is onboard the carbine bandwagon?

via Marine Corps Times.

"The Marine Corps conducted an evaluation of its individual weapons (M4, M27 and M16A4), with specific focus on comparing accuracy, shift of impact and trajectory with improved ammunition, and determined the M4's overall performance compares favorably with that of the M27 IAR, the most accurate weapon in the squad," according to the written responses provided by Semelroth.

Read it here.

At what distance does the M4 compare favorably with the M27?  What happened to the M-16A5 concept?  Why the move now to move to the M4?

I suspect its to accommodate women in the infantry and has nothing at all to do with increasing the lethality of the average infantryman.

This is another in a series of decisions that make no sense on the surface, appear to be acts to appease critics that the Marine Corps is not doing anything for its ground forces and is simply a big dose of me too-ism that is definitely Un-Marine Corps like.

On the whole this is no big deal.  Going to the M4 is relatively minor.  When added to everything else it once again makes me wonder who is running the shop, what their priorities are and if they have a clue.

A Mentor once told me to beware of a leader that focuses on minor shit because the tough stuff is too hard.  When minor becomes major you're at the beginning of a tail spin that will be difficult to recover from.

In today's Marine Corps this is minor shit that shouldn't even be on the radar.

More on the ADVS bid for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle project...

Thanks again to Max for the info!

via Defense Daily...

The deadline for bids in the amphibious combat vehicle program was Monday. Industry heavy hitters Lockheed Martin [LMT], BAE Systems, General Dynamics [GD] and Science Applications International Corp. [SAIC] each submitted bids. The outlier is relative newcomer Advanced Defense Vehicle Systems, or ADVS, based in Lake Orion, Mich.
With fewer than 1,000 employees, ADVS would seem out of its league in the ACV competition. However, the company told Defense Daily on May 20 that it will act as prime but has broughtTextron [TXT] and IR Technologies on board as subcontractors, which should add some industry gravitas to its bid.

The Marine Corps is in the market for a wheeled personnel carrier that can match land speed, maneuverability and survivability with the M1 Abrams tank. It must be able to carry at least 10 Marines fully loaded from the well deck of a ship offshore onto an unprotected beach and into combat in sea states with waves up to two feet tall.

I had talked about ADVS being a shot out of the blue but it seems that Defense Daily was all over this and I missed it.

So they've brought aboard Textron as a sub?

Interesting.  To be honest when this whole sausage making affair started I expected Textron to be one of the companies in the game....ADVS is spunky but I just don't think they'll make the cut.

My favorites (at least from my view of things) continue to be BAE/IVECO with the SuperAV....General Dynamics and SAIC/ST Kinetics fighting for the second position.  Lockheed Martin (maybe due to my prejudice against them) shouldn't even be allowed to compete considering their actions with Patria (why that isn't a bigger story is beyond me....corporate espionage that crosses continents...the SecDef himself and certainly the Commandant should be commenting on this).

It going to come back to swimming.  The SuperAV is the best swimmer, has been tested by the Italian Navy swimming from and to the well decks of its amphibs, they have documented its performance in comparison to their own AAVs and it was designed from the start for this role.

The Terrex 2 is an impressive vehicle in its own right but the swim portion will be its weakness.  As far as the General Dynamics entry....I see a modified Piranha 5 being used.

Yeah.  SuperAV definitely for the downselect and anyone's guess as to who joins them.

The infuriating thing is that the Marine Corps is going to go cost crazy on these manufacturers while they've been spending like a middle aged business man at a whore house on the F-35.

Any of these corporations can deliver the vehicle, the question will be whether the Marine Corps plays fair with them.

The time has come for an Assistant Commandant for Ground Combat Element...

General Dunford was doing a question and answer and a Marine Captain asked (paraphrasing) about the cost of the F-35 and whether it was time for an Assistant Commandant for the Ground Combat Element.

Dunford brushed it aside, and said it was unnecessary.

I cheered at the audacity of the question, the boldness of the Captain to state in public what has been talked about in private...to "beard the lion"!

The Mattis fan club is loud and proud....but no one is asking where he is on the subject.  Other retired Marine Corps generals are painfully silent.

Me and my readers can't be the only people that are alarmed by the cuts in combat power...GROUND COMBAT POWER...that the Marine Corps is undertaking with a kind of glee that makes me wonder if we don't have a fifth column inside our organization.

The Air Wing is well taken care of by the Commandant but not only do they have a voice in the Commandant's chair but they also have an Assistant Commandant to look out for them.

Its obvious that the Ground Combat Element no longer has an advocate.  To expect the Commandant to fill the GCE advocate role in this era of the Marine Corps is to expect too much.

So the real question is this......an Assistant Commandant for Ground Combat makes nothing but sense...but how do you do it?

Chinese MLP floating Zubr Landing Craft screen captures.

Thanks to Max, my new friend in Italy for the pics!

The estimated capability is one Zubr class  or two Yuyi class (similar to US LCACs) landing craft.

The next thing to look for is the composition of their Amphibious Task Forces.  How many MLPs will be assigned to each one?  Will they be a regular part of the deployments?  Is this a move (as I suspect) to put into service an ad hoc LST capability?

I remain convinced of one thing.  The Chinese are coming with armor!  Whether by accident or design this appears to be a counter to the Company Landing Team AND Japanese plans to rapidly reinforce/retake islands.

If the Pacific turns into a speed game then arriving first is not the goal.  Arriving first with enough force to hold the piece of real estate/dislodge the enemy is the goal!  We also need to be aware that while the Marines/Soldiers are hookin' and jabbin' the Navy/Air Force/Marine Air will be fully engaged in the hairest furball ever seen in modern times offshore.

Ground forces will be on their own.

Air and Sea forces will be fighting to see another day....they won't be able to help no matter how frantic the calls are....

Sapper Leaders Course...

Quick question.  Why the Ranger lite stuff?  Call it a day, save money and get these guys through Ranger school so they can earn a tab that is recognized everywhere instead of "inventing" a new school!  I'm sorry but I need to be schooled on why Sapper Leaders Course is worthwhile or it's a vanity play (as I suspect).

Heavy Hover via Joe Copalman's Flickr Page

The German Air Force has really been working out with our air force in the desert US lately.  Check out Joe's Flickr Page for coverage of their activities.

Marine Tanks. The future is grim...via Defense Media Review (MUST READ!)

I've wondered where the Marine Corps was going with regard to its Tanks Battalions and the future is grim.  A tidbit from Defense Media Review (here)...

......our tank battalions upgraded to the M1A1 in 1991, replacing Cold-War era M60A1 tanks. Prior to adopting the M1A1, USMC tank platoons were each assigned five M60A1 tanks. Moving to the M1A1, at four vehicles per platoon, effectively cut the equivalent of a platoon (four tanks) from each tank company, Bodisch explained.
“Years later, after a 2010 force structure review, it became apparent the Corps began looking to reduce tank numbers, so when cuts were made in 2012 they targeted the Marine Corps Ground Combat Element [GCE], unfortunately this trickled down, it was 2nd Tanks that took some of the reductions.” An artillery battery was also eliminated as were two companies from 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion, and the 8th Marine Regiment was disbanded, then recomposed, a move Bodisch said remains “an ongoing effort.”
Outlining the progression of decline in USMC tank inventories, Bodisch remarked “overall since Desert Storm we had a 54% reduction in tanks and 88% for TOW anti-tank missile systems, it’s pretty significant, if you break it down, in every major conflict since Desert Storm, the Marine Corps has averaged a 25% cut in tanks and HMMVW mounted TOW systems.”
Next February, 2nd Tanks will likely deactivate another of its line companies, “this time Charlie Company, and it will happen about four months before I relinquish command of 2nd Tanks,” he added.

This is madness.

We are cutting combat power.  At a time when the USMC is picking up ADDITIONAL missions in Europe with an eye toward deterring Russia, we are destroying the direct fire capability of the Ground Combat Element.

My gut instinct is that "risk" is being accepted and the thought is that the Aviation Combat Element will pick up the slack.

I don't believe that's sound planning.

I've wondered if we should move tanks over to a mobile gun system version of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, but its obvious that even if that's the plan it won't happen till after 2035 at the earliest.

So what does this mean?  It means that not only are we  on a glide path of not being able to staff MEU's with Tank Platoons but it also means that if we deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade into harms way, it will lack organic firepower.

The F-35 must live so the Ground Combat Element must die?

That's my take.  Read the article and let me know if you're as shocked as I am.

First Fusiliers Battlegroup at exercise Prairie Storm (Canada) ....pics by Corporal James McAllister

NOTE:  I found these pics interesting because of how the British soldiers wear their kit.  Its heavily biased toward what we would call a "battle belt".  As a matter of fact we don't see the type of chest rigs that are so popular in US forces.  The Brits are just as mechanized as we are.  They do air assault in much the same way.  Why haven't they jumped full force on the chest rig movement?  They seem to have dabbled a bit and then went back to their normal way of doing things.  What do they know that they're not telling us?

A MUST READ! Our enemies have had over 2 decades to prepare for the F-35...

Thanks to Charley for the heads up!

via National Review...

Well understood anti-stealth tactics, combined with networked passive sensors, will allow peer enemies flying faster, aerodynamically superior planes to get the first shot in at ranges 30 to 40 percent greater than that of the F-35’s missiles. The point is that potential future enemies, given decades to prepare, have done so. That we would expect anything different is just plain silly.

And this....

Brazen claims of future F-35 dominance are legion, but real evidence to support such claims is nonexistent. Nonetheless, the fact that such claims are being made by people with a lot of gold braid carries a lot of weight. That it is politically expedient to believe such claims helps explain the F-35 program’s continued existence. So where does that leave us? In business, there is the concept of a sunk cost. The idea is to disregard past investments, both financial and emotional, and make the decision on whether to continue with the project on the basis of what will yield the most value for the stakeholders going forward. Right now the F-35’s sunk cost is massive in terms of money, time, pride, reputations, and emotion. While it is likely that some of the technologies being incorporated into the F-35 are useful, incorporating these technologies into several superior platforms that optimally address the diverse requirements of the three jet-flying services has a much better net present value. Consequently it is time to pull the plug on the biggest threat to U.S military power — the F-35.

The F-35 is destroying the US military in general and the USMC in particular.

In a world ran by competent leadership, the Marines would have put the F-35 at the end of its procurement train and instead funded projects that work.  The ACV would have been done.  The CH-53K would be in production.

We would be waiting to see if the F-35 would work AND be affordable.

Instead leadership has gone all in on the F-35.

Reputations, both personal and institutional will be wrecked because of this hubris.

Worse?

We are placing our nation and those of our allies at risk on a whim, a prayer and a hope that Lockheed Martin can make this dead duck fly.