The new "hotness"? Sons of Liberty International.

via SoL website...

Sons of Liberty International (SOLI) is the first security contracting firm run as a non-profit. SOLI provides free security consulting and training services to vulnerable populations to enable them to defend themselves against terrorist and insurgent groups. The dedicated staff, volunteers, and funders of SOLI believe that all people have the right to self-defense and liberty regardless of their financial circumstances, and they strive to create a world in which the innocent are protected.
Recognizing the failure of the international community and governments to adequately protect the defenseless and support those struggling for freedom around the world, SOLI founder Matthew VanDyke realized the need for rapid on-the-ground action to help those whom the international system had failed. SOLI was created to enable those abandoned by the international community to take action in defense of themselves and their people, and to combat those forces that seek to harm and oppress them.

Geez.

I don't really know what to make of it but my initial impression is that this is a flash in the pan.

Supposedly this is a "crowd funded" enterprise but that makes no sense.  Even if you're just sending unarmed trainers, you're talking about a HUGE financial cost upfront.  You don't get that type of money by placing a donate button on your page.

Naw.  This just doesn't pass the sniff test.

I wonder who is REALLY footing the bill for this group.  That would be telling.  Check out the website here. 

KC-46A by the numbers...

Is this why the public's tuning out Civilian and Military Leaders?

This article is a must read!  Go here to check out yourself but a few tidbits..via New York Post from FoxNews.

The answer is straightforward:
Social insularity: Our leaders know fellow insiders around the world; our enemies know everyone else.
The mandarin’s distaste for physicality: We are led through blood-smeared times by those who’ve never suffered a bloody nose.
And last but not least, bad educations in our very best schools: Our leadership has been educated in chaste political theory, while our enemies know, firsthand, the stuff of life.

&

Put another way: We are led by men and women educated to believe in the irresistible authority of their own words. When they encounter others who use words solely to deflect and defraud, or, worse, when their opposite numbers ignore words completely and revel in ferocious violence, our best and brightest go into an intellectual stall and keep repeating the same empty phrases (in increasingly tortured tones):
“Violence never solves anything.” “There’s no military solution.” “War is never the answer.” “Only a negotiated solution can resolve this crisis.” “It isn’t about religion.”
Or the latest and lamest: “We need to have strategic patience,” and “Terrorists need jobs.”
Every one of those statements is, demonstrably, nonsense most — or all — of the time. But the end result of very expensive educations is a Manchurian Candidate effect that kicks in whenever the core convictions of the old regime are questioned. So we find ourselves with leaders who would rather defend platitudes than defend their country.

This article sings to me, perhaps because I'm of the unwashed masses.  Or perhaps it sings because it affirms closely held beliefs.

Either way it begins to touch on what I see as two decades of civilian/military failure.

To be frank, the article that I posted yesterday has me startled.  The idea that after this "procurement trainwreck" we're now faced with a "procurement bow wave" is the final straw.

The danger?  The US military could very well be operating with the equipment that was bought during the late 80's and early 90's into 2020 and beyond.

Why?

Because our civilian and military leadership did not properly plan.  Even now we're getting platitudes about the danger of sequestration but they've lost so much credibility that no one is listening.  Hell, I'm a strong military supporter and even I have my doubts.

But back to the article.  Are our current leaders so busy talking to each other that they no longer listen to "we the people"?  Is that why common sense is so uncommon in Washington?

Time wasted and the Defense Budget...

via National Defense.

"Looking at the modernization bow wave in the 2020s, we are embarking on a number of programs that, regardless of what we see with the [Budget Control Act] … I just don't see how we are going to cram all of those major programs into the budget at the same time," Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said March 16.

The "bow wave" refers to weapon system modernization programs that are progressing at the same time, creating a budget crunch.

As a result, many programs could be cut, delayed or deferred in 2018 or 2019, he said at a forum titled, "The Pentagon Budget: Prospects for Reform," at the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. 



Awesome.

I think these analyst are onto something which makes the F-35 fiasco even more tragic.  Time was wasted on that program that can't be made up and many needed programs will die because of it.

ACV, I'm looking at you.  Even if it limps along through the current sequestration issue you're still looking at this demographic time bomb.

Amazing.

All the fancy little "inside DC talk"...all the rebranding and moves to embrace infantile social media bullshit has resulted in one thing.  Failure of leadership to have the moral courage to deal with failure, reverse themselves and do what is necessary to protect a nation.

If this prediction is correct then we will be #2 militarily by 2020...a full ten years faster than my previous worse case scenario.

Airbus Helicopters teams KAI for light armed helicopter bid...

via Press Release.

Airbus Helicopters will join with Korea Aerospace Industries in developing two 5-ton class rotorcraft that meet South Korea’s requirements for its next-generation Light Civil Helicopter (LCH) and Light Armed Helicopter (LAH).
As the LCH and LAH competition winner, Airbus Helicopters will continue its highly successful relationship with Korea Aerospace Industries, including the joint program that developed Korea’s Surion twin-engine utility transport helicopter.
“We would like to express our deep gratitude to Korea Aerospace Industries and the South Korean government for entrusting us with this major helicopter program,” said Airbus Helicopters President Guillaume Faury. “We are committing our full support in ensuring the LCH and LAH projects will be completed on time, on cost and to specification.”
Both the LCH and LAH will be based on Airbus Helicopters’ H155 (formerly known as the EC155) – the latest evolution of its best-selling Dauphin family, which includes the Panther military and parapublic variants that have demonstrated their capabilities in operation around the world.
As part of the new commitment, Airbus Helicopters will transfer the company’s technical know-how – as already demonstrated in the Surion program – to ensure Korea is able to develop its newest indigenous products, which will become leading next-generation light rotorcraft in the 5 metric ton weight category.
“The LCH and LAH programs will build on our collaboration with Korea Aerospace Industries on the Surion, which has become a reference in successful rotorcraft collaboration. By continuing our relationship, we will significantly reduce the risks of these two new development programs, while meeting all of the mission requirements,” added Faury.
The LCH version is expected to enter service in 2020 while the service introduction of the LAH is targeted for 2022.

Strock Interview 1.5. LCAC Carrier Concept?

This is part 1.5 of my interview with Jim Strock, Director of Sea Basing Integration, HQMC.  This is an overview of the conversation and not a retelling of all subjects covered.

Sidenote:  HQMC, Marine Corps Communications etc...should really consider putting out videos of briefs on these subjects.  ACV and Sea Basing slides are one thing, but to hear Mullen and Strock actually discuss these issues takes it to another level.

So what exactly is this LCAC Carrier Concept?

The LCAC Carrier Concept are based on the T-AKR class of ships which were originally designed to be heavy lift Sea Bee Barge Carriers.  Its a two ship class composed of the SS Cape May and the SS Mohican.

You can read their Wikipedia entries here and here.

Why are they important?  Both Mullen and Strock pointed to them as being an important part...correction, potentially important part of Marine Corps operations.  The problem is simple.  If the Sea Base is going to work...If we're going to do over the horizon delivery of ACV's to a launch point...If we're going to keep amphibious assault viable now and in the future then the A2/AD threat needs to be overcome.  Today that means launching LCACs from perhaps as far away as 60 plus miles.

Additionally if you're talking about sustaining more than an MEU, say perhaps a gas guzzling Stryker Brigade or two ashore, then you're going to need more LCACs than the Amphibious Ready Group normally carries.  The LCAC Carrier Concept fills the gap by transporting additional Surface Connectors that might be needed to augment those carried by the ARG.

How many LCAC's could this ship potentially carry?  I have no idea and I kick myself for not asking.  Even worse?  I had two bites at the apple and didn't get the job done.

My take?  The Sea Base and concepts like this are tailor made to enhance Joint Operations and Coalition Warfare.  

The sticky widget with this?  These ships are old.  A purpose built "carrier" will need to be developed sooner than many would like (although these will do until then).

The planning for the Sea Base is much further along, much more involved and a reality now.  The LCAC Carrier Concept is simply a tool to help evolve it.  

China's Wheeled Amphibious IFV being operated by Venezuelan Marines.

Hat Tip to Defense Blog.



Remember.  General Glueck said that the ACV will be indefinitely delayed if sequestration continues.

It looks like sequestration WILL continue.

What does that mean?  It means Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela will all operate Wheeled Amphibious IFV's that are more advanced than the USMC.

Strock Interview Part 1. Why the "Short Well Deck LX(R) & Army Integration with the Sea Base.

As promised I'll be rolling out an overview of my discussion with Mr. Jim Strock, Director Of Sea Base Integration, HQMC.  I've decided to break things out a bit and roll out the points covered over the course of a couple of days so that the individual items would get the attention I think they deserve.

Why the Short Well Deck LX(R).
This has been a point of contention among many in the Marine Corps.  Quite honestly I wondered if the benefits outweigh the cost savings.  The argument goes a bit like this.  The LX(R) will provide the Navy/Marines commonality with a ship that is already in service (the San Antonio class), will preserve tribal knowledge in our shipbuilding base and most importantly will give the MEU the needed flexibility for "Disaggregated ARG/MEU Operations".

Quite honestly I didn't see that coming. (a quick check revealed that the concept was rolled out shortly before the previous Commandant left office.)

Also emphasized was the increased aviation capability that the LX(R) would provide and the idea that shortfalls in LCACs would be made up with the possibility of an LCAC Barge being developed/brought online.

My take?  Increased aviation capability on the LX(R) sounds good but does it make up for the well deck space that we're losing?  If anything it makes my modest proposal to add an MLP to every ARG worth pursing.  A whole lot of eggs are being placed in the heliborne assault basket.

Integrating the Army into the Sea Base.
This was another head scratcher for me.  I contend that the Army is attempting to usurp Marine Corps roles and I use Army Aviation attempting to fly off Navy ships as an example.  Integrating them into the Sea Base would be allowing them to drink our milkshake.  Strock pushed back hard and stated that the Sea Base is a national asset and that Army participation was necessary in order to ensure that its as robust as envisioned.

Summation.
All of the above brings me back to the Sea Base concept itself.  What is the Sea Base?  Its a tailorable and scalable assembly that is designed to provide logistical support to forces ashore during entry and while they carry out their mission.  It is designed to operate without the need of port or airport facilities and in doing so will limit the operational risk that our forces face.
How you ask?
Simple.  I've been beating the drum about the USMC not practicing port seizure (I do note however that airfield seizure is still being drilled).  One explanation could be that its no longer necessary.  Supplies can be delivered over the beach without having to engage in a costly and predictable assault on a target that is easily reinforced and if losing it seems probable, then easily destroyed by enemy forces.  If this works as advertised along with the other pieces of the MEF, we could be looking at new operational capabilities for our units.

15 days sustainment for an MEU?  Now it could be considered indefinite.  The same would apply to our MEB's and MEF's.  Conducting sustained operations ashore will no longer be limited.  The Sea Base could...I repeat could...change the way that the USMC conducts operations.

This is why I have a problem with religion...

via CNN

(CNN)Creflo Dollar is hoping a few folks will see fit to bless him.
The minister, known for being a prosperity preacher at his Atlanta-area World Changers Church International, is seeking "200,000 people committed to sow $300 or more (to) help achieve our goal to purchase the G650 airplane."
The figures were presented Friday in a nearly six-minute video on the Creflo Dollar Ministries website (the video was not viewable Friday night) and total more than $60 million needed to buy the Gulfstream G650, which goes for a reported $65 million.

Absolutely amazing.

This is why I have a problem with religion.  The deity that they represent rode on the back of an Ass, was born in a filthy stable and this guy wants a private luxury airplane.

Meanwhile you have people in his community suffering and if he dare to look beyond the borders he would see this...

The sad part.

He'll probably get his airplane and not one additional person will hear the word of God because of it.

Excuse me while I find a wall to punch.

Forcible Entry US Army Edition. When are they going to develop tactics to deal with the threat?

Fact.
The USMC has labored since its birth to perfect forcible entry.  Today its working hard with the Navy to overcome A2/AD problems and while we don't have all the answers, we're working the problem.

Fact.
There are only three forms of forcible entry.  Airborne.  Air Assault.  Amphibious Assault.

Question.
Have you seen the US Army working to solve the forcible entry problem for its Airborne or Air Assault formations?

The Reality.
While the Army has made a great show of squashing the term "Air-Sea Battle" (even though they had no problem with the term "Air-Land Battle" previously...show me a better sign of a paranoid service!), pushing to get Army Aviation aboard already crowded US Navy ships and played with the way that their units are made up, they've ignored their piece of the Forcible Entry pie.

The Rub. Light Combat Vehicles for the 82nd might be "cool" but doctrine needs to be written on how the division will enter contested airspace and be sustained once they're on the ground (I won't even touch on the strategically immobile 101st Airborne!).

The Solution.
The US Army and Air Force must turn to on making forcible entry for Airborne and Air Assault units a reality.  The idea of "emptying" an aircraft carrier for a redux of the Haiti experience IS NOT an answer.  Penetrator aircraft...C-5's, C-17's and even partnering with Air Force Special Ops to use CV-22's as guide aircraft for Army Rotary winged aircraft must be examined.  Additionally it should be noted that every Army Unit has some form of Air Assault capability.  Does the 101st actually serve a useful service to the nation or would we be better served by having another Airborne Division that is strategically agile?