Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Afghan "Shooter" and multiple deployments.
Been catching bits and pieces of the news today and one thing they keep hitting on is multiple deployments.
This is a raw point. Not for me but mainly for Soldiers.
A deployment is a different thing for different services, occupational specialties etc...
For a Special Ops member a deployment MIGHT be 3 months or less.
For a Marine it could be 6 to 9 months.
For a Soldier.
It could be a year...I've heard for some its been more than a year.
And then you have the style of your deployment. Are you living in a war zone like you'd live if you were stateside? Meaning are you on one of the big bases that have fast food restuaraunts, mall like PX's etc????
Or are you out in the boonies keeping fleas and ticks off your nut sack? Ok, that might have been a little much but you get the idea.
So just a word to the news media. Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start mouthing off.
This is a raw point. Not for me but mainly for Soldiers.
A deployment is a different thing for different services, occupational specialties etc...
For a Special Ops member a deployment MIGHT be 3 months or less.
For a Marine it could be 6 to 9 months.
For a Soldier.
It could be a year...I've heard for some its been more than a year.
And then you have the style of your deployment. Are you living in a war zone like you'd live if you were stateside? Meaning are you on one of the big bases that have fast food restuaraunts, mall like PX's etc????
Or are you out in the boonies keeping fleas and ticks off your nut sack? Ok, that might have been a little much but you get the idea.
So just a word to the news media. Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start mouthing off.
Pic of the day.
A thinly disguised hit piece.
I read an article this morning over at Information Dissemination and it touts the lethality of cruisers and destroyers over that of aircraft carriers.
Or so the author would like you to believe.
It is in essence an F-35 hit piece. Read the whole thing but check this out.
Second, he slams the carriers by stating that they're vulnerable to subs. But if a carriers helicopter ASW's won't help out and he demands fixed wing ASW from carriers then his vaunted cruisers and destroyers are just as vulnerable.
Overall its a real hot debate the way that he framed it but it fails in so many areas its not even funny. But this part has me scratching my head.
Again, read the whole thing. This is gonna be fun to watch...and laugh at.
Or so the author would like you to believe.
It is in essence an F-35 hit piece. Read the whole thing but check this out.
Until I see a US Navy CVW with a fixed wing ASW platform or a legitimate carrier based tanker capability tested and fielded, I am going to find it very difficult to take the naval aviation community seriously when all threat analysis from every corner of the globe highlights submarines as the fastest growing threat to the maritime domain, and the tyranny of range as the greatest threat to naval forces in the Pacific. The Navy is spending about $50 million more on the JSF than the F-18 to get less range with a moderate increase in stealth. And the CVW will still be left with no fixed wing ASW and no organic tanking.First. Dude is wrong about the F-18 having better range than the F-35. But he doesn't care because he's following the talking points of others who would play with numbers and juice such important details. He talks about the F-35 having moderate stealth? Exactly how the fuck did he arrive at that?
Second, he slams the carriers by stating that they're vulnerable to subs. But if a carriers helicopter ASW's won't help out and he demands fixed wing ASW from carriers then his vaunted cruisers and destroyers are just as vulnerable.
Overall its a real hot debate the way that he framed it but it fails in so many areas its not even funny. But this part has me scratching my head.
And btw, you'll still need the 4 major surface combatants to protect the carrier, just so the Navy can hit targets at greater cost and at a slower pace.Don't they realize in that shop that if cruisers become the next capital ship then they'll be the ships in the fleet that need protecting.
Again, read the whole thing. This is gonna be fun to watch...and laugh at.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Be a Gear Head, not a Gear Whore...Eagle Tac Flashlight.
Are you a Gear Head or a Gear Whore.
A Gear Head goes after the best gear at the best price possible. A Gear Whore buys the latest, trendiest items out there no matter the cost. In essence he plays follow the leader.
You know the type of guy who's all into the CHE (Costa-Haley Effect) method of gear buying. If Costa or Haley has it...If Special Ops has it...then he must too.
Well I'm a Gear Head and I like value for my money. Because I want the best bang for my buck I'm not impressed by names. Names like SureFire.
Yeah they were good back in the day but they've fallen behind other makers...both in quality, capability and price. The Eagle Tac is just one example in the flashlight realm. Read a great review of the product over at "Jerking the Trigger."
Australia improves its amphib capability.
Australia has a new amphibious support ship.
And they got it cheap.
Read about it over at Think Defense.
And they got it cheap.
Read about it over at Think Defense.
Blast from the past. Rigid Raiding Craft.
I have yelled at the critics that claim that the USMC became a second land army during the war on terror.
Perhaps they were right. It pains me to say so but perhaps they had a point.
Small boat raids.
Special Operations Training Groups.
Performing a mission the approved "Special Ops" way...not the Marine way.
Before the Marine Corps did away with the Riverine mission set (because of lack of manpower), we had a very effective and innovative Boat Office at Camp Lejeune.
One piece of gear that went away along with the riverine mission was the rigid raiding craft. We need it back. The rigid raider is faster, can be beached on the fly and has almost equal carrying ability. The following data is from the USMC Family of Small Craft Website...
RRC Craft Data
Hull Type: Rigid Hull, GRP Length: 18 feet, 6 inches Beam: 7 feet, 2 inches Draft: 10 inches Fuel Capacity: 63 gallons, Gasoline Max Payload: 3,010 pounds Speed: 25+ knots Max Personnel: 8-10 Passengers, excluding crew members Draft, On Plane: Eight inches Propulsion: Twin 70 Horsepower Pump Jet, OMC Crew: Two Range: 75 Nautical miles Transportability: Trailer
CRRC Craft Data
Primary function: A standard small, lightweight, inflatable, rugged boat to be used in performing various reconnaissance missions. Operational configurations Length: 185 in. Width: 75 in. Height: 30 in. Weight: 265 lbs. Storage/Shipping configurations Length: 59 in. Width: 28.5 in. Height: 24 in. Weight: 265 lbs. Power requirements: Improved Military Amphibious Reconnaissance System (I-MARS) 35 horsepower engine. - Being phased out
Small Craft Propulsion System (SCPS) 55 horsepower engine - replacement for I-MARS.Background: The CRRC was fielded to fill the Marine Corps' requirement for a small, lightweight, inflatable, rugged boat for use in performing various raid, and reconnaissance missions. Inventory: Active - 424; Reserve - 46; Supporting Establishment - 75
Following Special Operations Command is a mistake.
We need gear suited to Marine Corps operations, not SOCOMs.
Bring back the Rigid Raider. We need it, and should have it.
NOTE:
Time to do something with the Special Operations Training Groups. A misnomer if I ever heard one. We need a Marine Expeditionary Training Group. A unit that's tailored to train Marines to a Marine standard across the board. The Marine Corps needs to once again recognize itself as an elite military outfit.
The worship of Special Operations that some Marine Generals are engaged in is not only pathetic but its also detrimental to the Marine Corps. A first step in repairing the damage done to us by our own is to disband the Special Operations Training Groups and reform them with a new mission and mindset.
Put the Special Operations Capable back into the BLT.
My main question is why the reliance on the Maritime Raid Force?
Why has the BLT been relegated to providing support for such a small subsection of the MEU?
The BLT which was once the muscle of the MEU with Force Recon and Amphibious Recon in support has suddenly been relegated to step child.
This is unsat.
A dynamic Marine Corps need dynamic BLT's.
Relevant BLT's.
And don't feel picked on 31st MEU...its a Marine Corps wide problem. And it stems from Rummy's edict which wasn't fought by General Pace and is affecting Marine ops to this very day.
What makes Special Ops special?
Is it mission set? Why? Rangers have tasked themselves with airfield seizure. Did you know that was once an 82nd mission? SEALs have taken beach recon. Did you know that was once a Recon mission and before that a Scout Swimmer mission?
What is raiding except an Infantry skill that needs to be practiced?
What is recon except an Infantry skill that needs to be practiced?
What is training of foreign militaries except a skill that needs to be practiced?
You get the point.
The Marine Corps needs to get hard again and part of that is to put the Special Operations Capable back into the MEU in general and the Battalion Landing Team in particular. If need be we can return Force Recon to SOCOM and get it done with our BLT's. We just need to train them to a higher standard.
Scout Swimmers should be able to do beach recon. With additional training, recon further inland should not be difficult.
The only thing that's lacking is institutional will. The current trend of bending knee to everything SOCOM goes against Marine Corps tradition and ethos. We are an elite force and have no need for an elite inside an elite.
How leadership forgot that is beyond me, but it can still be corrected.
All it takes is a little bravery and conviction.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Grand Logistics Blog nails the RAF...
The battle between the Harrier and the Tornado continues.
Or perhaps better stated, the war between the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm continues...
Grand Logistics has a great write up on the issue and says in pictures whats obvious to any observer...the Air Marshal lied...or at least stretched the truth till it was unrecognizable. Go to his site for the juicy details but before you head there check out this statement...
But then check out this statement from a Brit when talking about sea power...(Robert Farley of Information Dissemination brought it to my attention in an article about sea power in today's society)...
Quite honestly, Air Forces of all nations have a tendency to be quite vicious when it comes to budget battles...the USAF included...but I haven't seen interservice warfare like I'm seeing between the RAF and RN in modern US history. Last I recall seeing this type of "no holds barred" jabbing was before the Korean War when the very existence of the Marine Corps was threatened and the USAF was attempting to make carrier aviation irrelevant.
Grand Logistics has posted an outstanding rebuttal to the Air Marshal's statement.
Sharkey Ward battles continuously for the Fleet Air Arm.
But its going to take more than two voices in the wilderness. FAA supporters are going to have to get much more vocal and vicious if they're going to even keep pace in this fight.
The RAF is playing for keeps and the RN should be too.
Or perhaps better stated, the war between the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm continues...
Grand Logistics has a great write up on the issue and says in pictures whats obvious to any observer...the Air Marshal lied...or at least stretched the truth till it was unrecognizable. Go to his site for the juicy details but before you head there check out this statement...
Wow huh?!"The Tornados have delivered [MBDA] Storm Shadows to penetrate hardened buildings and the dual-mode Brimstone,neither of which could have been delivered by the Harrier."
"I am not knocking the Harrier,just those who have,often willfully,overstated its relative utility in this scenario,"
"In operations such as Ellamy,on the periphery of Europe,the access,basing and over-flight restrictions that would necessitate carrier strike do not apply.There is simply no comparison in terms of platform capability,time on station or versatility between Tornado GR4s operating from a well-found NATO airfield in Italy and Harriers operating from a CVS*."
*A Royal Navy aircraft carrier.
But then check out this statement from a Brit when talking about sea power...(Robert Farley of Information Dissemination brought it to my attention in an article about sea power in today's society)...
We're a maritime nation—we've grown by the sea and live by it; if we lose command of it we starve. We're unique in that way, just as our huge empire, only linked by the sea, is unique. And yet, read Brassey, Dilke, and those "Naval Annuals", and see what mountains of apathy and conceit have had to be tackled. It's not the people's fault. We've been safe so long, and grown so rich, that we've forgotten what we owe it to. But there's no excuse for those blockheads of statesmen, as they call themselves, who are paid to see things as they are. They have to go to an American to learn their A B C, and it's only when kicked and punched by civilian agitators, a mere handful of men who get sneered at for their pains, that they wake up, do some work, point proudly to it, and go to sleep again, till they get another kick. By Jove! we want a man like this Kaiser, who doesn't wait to be kicked, but works like a n----- for his country, and sees ahead.The question I have is this.
How did the Royal Navy get to a position of being pushed around by the Royal Air Force?
Grand Logistics has posted an outstanding rebuttal to the Air Marshal's statement.
Sharkey Ward battles continuously for the Fleet Air Arm.
But its going to take more than two voices in the wilderness. FAA supporters are going to have to get much more vocal and vicious if they're going to even keep pace in this fight.
The RAF is playing for keeps and the RN should be too.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)