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.

Pic of the day. Israeli Armored Reconnaissance

A fighter from the Armored Brigade's Reconnaissance Unit levels the way for the following tanks during an exercise of the Armored Brigade's Headquarters.

Africa's the new hotspot. 26th MEU trains for its deployment.

Photos by Lance Cpl. Adwin Esters

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

A Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marine, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fires M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 Marines, from 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, fire M40 sniper rifles at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

Maj. John Brown, engineer officer, right, and Capt. Thomas Waller, a Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2 team leader, fire a M40 sniper rifle at 1,000-yard targets during a training exercise aboard Camp Lejeune, N.C., Feb. 10, 2012. The training was a part of their pre-deployment exercises preparing the Marines for their upcoming deployment to Africa.

NOTE*

They're not even hiding it anymore.  26th MEU is heading to Africa as part of its upcoming deployment.  It appears more and more like the secret war in the horn of Africa is becoming public.  My only question is why is it necessary for an MEU to provide support to SOCOM's operations?  They have a Division (-) of personnel in house.  

F-35s at NAS Patuxent River

General Dynamics Land Systems...the 500 pound gorilla in the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest.

US Army Stryker ICV

Piranha V, failed entrant in the UK FRES competition

Piranha III, in service world wide most notably with the Canadian Army, the Spanish Marine Corps and the Brazilian Marine Corps.

A 500 pound gorilla.

That's about the best description of General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) if they decide to jump with both feet into the Marine Personnel Carrier Contest.

THEY ARE NOT GIVING OUT ANY INFO!

Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.

I have written everyone I can think of in their outfit and they must hit delete without thinking about it.  BAE and Lockheed were cautious but were forthcoming with as much info as they thought reasonable.  It is after all a competition.

GDLS.  The info on what they're going to be presenting is password protected, and marked eyes only.  I have a feeling it has to do with the tremendous burn that they received from the British when it came to their FRES contest.  From the outside looking in they had a much better product than the ASCOD, yet were shot down in a weird cost shoot out (we keep coming back to that factor instead of the best vehicle winning).

With that being said I'll list a few bullet points on what will make GDLS a formidable opponent in this contest...even though I'm not quite sold on their offering in comparison to what BAE and Lockheed are putting forward.

1.  They could attempt to make the Stryker amphibious and push commonality with the US Army.  As a matter of fact if they can make the Stryker surf ready and keep many of the components the same then they're well on their way to winning....but...

2.  Number one in this depends on what the Army does with its M-113 replacement program and whether the Marine Corps will wait for them to decide.  If the Stryker wins that contest then the first option becomes even more attractive.

3.  Eyes will also be on the contest in Canada for a close combat vehicle.  GDLS was at one time going to enter the LAV-V with the Lancer turret in that contest.  If the Canadians get their act together and make that buy then the Marines could be tempted to go with that setup.  The LAV-V though has not been touted as an amphibious vehicle and I don't know if it swims or could be made to.  What I do know is that the Lancer turret is an outstanding looking piece of gear.  The Canadians will be running ballistics tests and the LAV-V supposedly is an uparmored variant of the LAV-III.

4.  The Piranha III is in service world wide with a number of forces.  The Marines on the east coast did a training evolution with the Spanish Marines (I believe it was the 24th MEU) and got an up close look at the beast.

5.  A major down fall of this vehicle is its troop carriage.  Its limited to a crew of 3+6.  Not competitive.

6.  If this does turn into a price war then GDLS should have it going away.  They already have manufacturing set up.  A supply chain already in place. NSN setup for ordering parts, etc...

To sum it up.

I have no idea what GDLS is going to do.

If they offer the Piranha III and if its compatible with the Stryker as far as drive train, components, parts etc...are concerned then they will win a price war.  All they'll really have to do is meet requirements.

We're in the unfortunate place of having the air wing gobbling up a tremendous part of the budget (not bitching, just pointing this out).  With the F-35, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, MV-22 and the CH-53K all gobbling up funds, it looks like the ground side is just going to have to gut it out.

A side note to all this is you can bet that the only reason why the JLTV is still alive in Marine Corps planning is because the US Army is basically subsidizing the buy.

But back to the Piranha.  I just can't put my finger on but I'm just not warm to this vehicle....

Note*
My buddy Grim tells me I might have flubbed the issues that GDLS has in the FRES competition. He's probably right. Between the European, US and Canadian divisions its hard to keep up with the vehicles, how they're designated and what competitions they're involved in and heck, even the vehicles designations are confusing.