Tuesday, November 22, 2011
British fantasy vs. British reality.
The British military.
First from Think Defense on how some wish it to be...
Thank you everyone who commented, requested clarification and helped, I’m resubmitting with explanations, detail and the pound of flesh Jed demanded JRead the rest and especially the comments. Its quite entertaining.
So here goes
I’d start, with the “war fleet”, of which we would have two, each one “active” for 6 months of the year, or 8 months, or 4 months, or whatever else makes everyone happy.
Active would be “ready to at short notice go and beat some unfortunate foreigners to a bloody pulp”.
Inactive would be everything else, overhaul, training, diplomacy, exercises ect.
First Fleet Purchase Cost Operating Cost Carrier QE Class 24 Fast Air Rafale 6 Infantry landing ships Juan Carlos 24 Heavy Lift Chinook 6 Armour Landing Ship Bay Class 6 AAW Destroyers T 45 Daring Class 6 Light Helicopter Lynx 6 ASW Frigates T46 6 ASW Helicopter Merlin 3 Guided Missile Cruiser T47 5 SSGN / Deterrent Astute+
The Carrier and fast air is I hope fairly self explanatory, shoot down enemy aircraft, possibly bomb enemy targets, provide close air support and reconnaissance.
It’s the QE class, because that’s what we have, and the Rafale, because I believe thatFranceandGermanyare about to have a massive falling out, and we’ll buy it hoping to influence French opinion in our favour.
I assume some sort of ISTAR platform will also arrive, hopefully not that silly Sea King, but have no real idea whether we will end up with the Hawkeye, something funky based on the V22 or something else entirely.
This will also function as the flag ship, to what extent that means anything anymore
The Amphibs, the reasoning behind numbers simply being so that the entire force could be landed in a single group. Well, obviously not quite, a single group, each ships group of four Chinook would need to make 5 trips to offload the ship “battalion” and even with 4 LCUs it would take 13 trips to deposit the 50 warriors of an armoured infantry battalion. But we’re talking 11 hours rather than the 11 days Sutton took, or so I hope. To my none military mind, that sounds like a smashing capability. I’m wedded to neither Bay nor Carlos, feel free to suggest better ships, or just assume they are better. I’d much prefer something with a much greater cargo handling capacity, but am open to a third heavy landing ship specifically to vomit ISO boxes onto a beach.
Why Chinook? Again, its that realism (lol) bit, I’d prefer a bigger lift, I’m sure that there is something bigger than the CH53-k planned in the long term, but we have Chinooks.
Now the British military as it really is from CDR. Salamander...
The 1,000 ship Navy that CDR. Salamander is talking about is the plan that the Western Navy's of the world could combine (in times of intense crisis) to form a 1,000 ship fleet.In any event - the Brits are walking a rather thin line methinks ....Royal Navy officers said HMS Westminster was “dangerously under-defended” when it was called on to patrol close to the Libyan port city of Benghazi in March.
The warship can carry 32 Seawolf and eight Harpoon missiles but it is understood that military cutbacks left the Westminster and its crew of 190 with only a fraction of that capability.As Seawolf missiles — which are used to intercept incoming missiles — are fired in pairs, sources said the Westminster had just two rounds to defend against missile attacks from Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.A hollow Navy defined. Nice E-Ticket part of the 1,000-ship Navy we have there.
Reality is far different from the wishful thinking that is posted on TD's website. From my view of things the Royal Navy will be lucky to equal our Coast Guard in size and firepower in a couple of years.
UPDATE & CLARIFICATION:
I need to make a couple of things clear.
1. Think Defense has guest writers on his blog and the views expressed in that article are from one of them.
2. The US is clearly on the same trajectory as Europe and the failed bipartisan committee illustrates the trouble that we are in.
CBO's analysis of Amphibious Warfare Ships...
11-18-AmphibiousShips
Major hat tip to Defense Talk. Long story short. Combatant Commanders want Marines and amphibs at a higher rate than the US Navy can provide.
Its a short read and well worth it.
Of particular interest is the "Demand for Amphibious Warfare Ships...." and "The Operating Cycle of Amphibious Warfare Ships".
We need more ships!
Major hat tip to Defense Talk. Long story short. Combatant Commanders want Marines and amphibs at a higher rate than the US Navy can provide.
Its a short read and well worth it.
Of particular interest is the "Demand for Amphibious Warfare Ships...." and "The Operating Cycle of Amphibious Warfare Ships".
We need more ships!
Monday, November 21, 2011
F-35 Commitment...
 |
| During a press conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, on 18 November 2011, US Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta (right) and Canadian Defence Minister Peter G. MacKay both called the F-35 crucial to the defense of North America. "The United States is committed to the development of the F-35 and to a cooperative relationship with the F-35 with our Canadian friends," Panetta said. "The F-35 is going to be an essential fighter … in helping us with security challenges we face." MacKay said, "There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States, so all the hypothetical discussions—and quite negative discussions, quite frankly—about this program are really just clatter and noise.” |
The leaders of both the US and Canadian Defense establishments just called the F-35 critics, journalist and those that are in their camps -- generators of 'clatter and noise'.
Luv it!
Cooking with the Troops.
Hey all.
Consider this a strategically placed stab at your pocket books.
Instead of spending money on trinkets from China that you don't need and won't last how about you support "Cooking with the Troops" with a little of that hard earned money.
I don't do this often so consider it a sign that this is indeed a worthy cause...but if you have your doubts then go here and listen to what a BlackFive writer has to say about it!
Oh and how about after you make your donation, you get your sorry ass to the gym...working out during the holidays will keep you from struggling during the next CFT/PFT.
Thompson nails it. F-35 completes this years test goals....
Thompson nails the critics once again....
Absolutely spot on.Aviation Week & Space Technology reports today that the nation's biggest weapons development program has surpassed its testing goals for calendar year 2011, and is on track to do the same in 2012. The goal for 2011 was 872 flight tests, and as of last Thursday, 875 had been completed. This is very good news, since three U.S. military services and a dozen allies need various versions of the plane to replace aging Cold War fighters. Without it, they can't preserve U.S. air superiority through mid-century.So where are all the news stories highlighting the importance of this achievement and praising American ingenuity? Over the last several years, news services and the general media have reported every setback the F-35 program has faced, real or imagined. You know, like the trillion-dollar number to operate the plane through 2065 that it now turns out none of the military users believes (they're getting ready to challenge the methods and assumptions supporting the calculation).
I checked news.google.com for F-35 stories this morning, and it came up mostly with headlines like "Lockheed's F-35 Not in Budget 'Cross Hairs', Dempsey Says," and "McCain Raises Concerns About F-35 Cost Overruns." Something tells me if I wait a few days for the Fourth Estate to digest the good news from the F-35 program, I'm still going to find mostly negative reports about how it's faring. I predict all the major news outlets will decide it isn't worth reporting that the Pentagon's most expensive and complicated weapons program is making steady progress. Aviation Week and the rest of the trade press will notice, but the New York Times? Not a chance.
This tells you some important things about the way news is reported in the general media. First, it underscores the preference of reporters and editors for stories involving conflict of some sort. If it's good news, it usually isn't considered news at all. Second, it reflects the ideological biases of some outlets, which will report any kind of lurid nonsense about big weapons programs with minimal checking, but just can't be bothered to tell you the other side of the story. And third, it suggests why people who are exposed to a great deal of daily news tend to be pessimistic about America's future -- because all the technological breakthroughs and economic achievements get short shrift, while bad news hogs the front page.
Oh, and it also tells you one more thing about the prevailing approach to gathering the news. It tells you why consumers are walking away in droves, preferring social media and internet aggregators to the daily downer they get each day from traditional outlets. People just don't believe (or don't care about) the version of reality they are getting from newspapers and television news, so they are voting with their feet to get information from other sources. If you look at the way the F-35 story has been reported over the last several years, that reaction is easy to understand. It's an essential program that is making steady progress, but you'd never know that from reading stories about it in the general media.
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
I also note with a bit of sadness that there appears to be a distinct rift between Aviation Week and its blog Ares.
Note that I said appears.
This would bear watching, but I've always assumed that what was in one was in the other and vice versa. That wouldn't seem to be the case.
Like I said ... interesting.
Shooting Positions by MagPul Dynamics...
My questions are...
1. Is this useful in CQB? Seems like muzzle strike are out the window when using this shooting method.
2. When you're shooting, moving and communicating is this method as fast as the 'old' holds? Transitioning from a sprint to the MagPul grip would seem to cost time.
3. Its definitely not as stable on long distance shots so is this a one trick pony? For use only on a range when engaging multiple targets? Is it something that can be used tactically?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)