China buys the S-400 Anti-Air System...the Pacific just turned deadly for airpower...

via Army Recognition..

The systems, which are capable of launching up to 72 missiles and engaging up to 36 targets simultaneously, entered service in 2007 to replace the S-300 systems. S-400 Triumf is designed to shield from air strikes, strategic, cruise, tactical and operating tactical ballistic missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles.
Design bureau Almaz is responsible for the development of the S-400 Triumf. It is a long-to-medium-range surface-to-air missile system, designed to intercept a range of ground-based and airborne targets, such as stealth aircraft, strategic carriers and cruise and ballistic missiles at a distance of 400km.
The S-400 is code-named the SA-21 Growler. It is an upgrade of the S-300 missile system and features three different missiles, including the extremely long-range 40N6, 48N6 long-range and a 9M96 medium-range missile.
Apart from China, the system has also attracted interest from a number of foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Belarus, and Turkey.
Russia plans to buy up to 200 launchers (each with two or four missiles) by 2015, and phase out the older S-300 and S-200 systems. This would mean deploying at least 18 battalions by 2017 and 56 by 2020 (or organized into 28 battalions containing two battalions each).
China plans to deploy its first S-400 battalion opposite Taiwan. That one battalion can cover all Taiwanese air space. The next battalions will be deployed to deal with Japan, South Korea and Vietnam.

Read the Army Recognition article here. 

Read Air Power Australia's analysis of the system here (the best I've seen open source on the web).

You do know what this means don't you folks?

China can cover most areas of interest (for them) from their mainland.  IF they decide to acquire, copy...whatever...even more of the missiles and stage them on those islands they're building then they would cover the Pacific all the way to Hawaii (against certain targets) and that's only the air side of the house...the same applies if they position anti-ship missiles on those islands (especially the longer ranged versions we've been getting hints of).

The Chinese are winning the war before the first shot has been fired.  Engagement isn't working...WE MUST DO BETTER!

Are they teaching this firing grip in the USMC now?

U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Nicholas Rumple aims at his target during Certification Exercise (CERTEX) aboard the USS Essex (LHD 2) off the coast of San Diego April 10, 2015. Rumple is a member of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit’s Maritime Raid Force. Deck shoots give the Marines the opportunity to improve their marksmanship skills while at sea. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Anna Albrecht/Released)

I wonder.  Are they teaching this firing grip in the Marines now?  We all know where it originated...Costa and Haley's "C-Clamp" method.

I've always thought that it was mostly a 3 gun match thing or at best for LIMITED use in CQB.  Now everywhere I look people are putting it into action.

What has me spinning on this is the fact that Costa and Haley always used the technique with standard length barrels with forends that provided enough real estate to make it "relatively" practical.

What am I talking about?  Check out the Marine again in the top pic.  He's just a few short inches from covering the muzzle with his own hand.

If this is being taught with the M4 hit me up.  I'd like to know the reasoning, proper technique and the rationale behind its use in a combat organization and not simply for 3 gun matches.

Sidenote:  First.  All you Marine haters pound sand.  I've seen so much goofy stuff being done by the other services that it would fill the internet.  I don't post about it because I really don't care. They're not Marines.  Second.  This isn't about bashing the Marine in photo.  I've seen the technique quite a bit and this photo spurred me on to finally ask the question.  And then last.  Save the butt hurt.  Its simply a question.  I'm not indicting current training techniques, just wanting to learn more.

Russian Airborne Exercise...photos via English Russia...

This so called "mother" needs to be shot in the face...

Everytime I think we've hit a low point in human behavior, we always seem to be able to take it a few rungs lower.

This so called "mother" needs to be shot in the face.

Light Tactical Vehicles 1970-2015

click to expand...warning extremely large!

Multi-role fighter?

Multi-Role?

After reading some of the comments on the F-35 and whether or not it would succeed in the multi-role arena I thought a quick down and dirty about the label was in order.

Historical.

Air arms have not always chased the "holy grail" of multi-role fighters.  Early on it was recognized that the attack, strike, air superiority and bomber missions required optimized aircraft to perform each role.  So having said that where did the multi-role "airplane" come from?  From what little I could dig up I would say that it was made famous (note that I'm not saying they developed the technique, just that they popularized it) by the 8th AF P-47 fighter during the fighting in Europe.  Air Aces like Lt Col Gabby Gabreski pushed their troops hard to always be on the offensive.  After escorting bombers over their targets, and ensuring their safety, he would task his men with attacking whatever target of opportunity they came across...whether enemy airfields, rails, troop emplacements, tanks in the open...he had his people rampaging across Europe.

Later when production increased and P-51's became the main escort fighters for the bombers, the P-47 was loaded with bombs and rockets and then became a fighter bomber.  The roles reversed.  It would seek out ground targets first and THEN go after air kills if the situation arose.

This still isn't a multi-role plane in the manner in which we speak today however.  It simply became re-tasked with the attack mission with a secondary capability to go after enemy fighters.

What is the key to a superior multi-role airplane?

Check my light research but from what I could dig out it appears that optimizing an airplane for aerial combat first allows for it to later become a multi-role (in the modern sense) fighter.  Prime example.  The F-4 Phantom.  Did you know that it was originally designed by the US Navy to be a "Fleet Defense Fighter"?  In other words it needed to be big enough to carry large anti-air missiles to defend the fleet against enemy bombers and fighters, long legged enough to get to them before they could launch their missiles and have enough endurance so that it could remain airborne while performing its duty.  What did that mean?  Well it was a MACH 2 plus airplane that evolved to carry a massive bomb load over a respectable distance when it got pushed into the multi-role scheme.  The plane had it all because it was designed to excel at one mission...it was able to flex into other roles because of that excellence.

Ok Solomon but what about an attacker that became a good fighter?

Again, this is a quick and dirty...so correct me if you find an example...but I couldn't.  As a matter of fact the only strike fighter that was designed with the "strike" mission in mind first and a fighter mission second was the F-105.  I'm not as critical of the plane as many.  People forget that it was made to be a NUCLEAR strike fighter and flexed into the deep strike mission role and then went head to head with MIGS over Vietnam.  It got sent after the roughest targets in that conflict and suffered enormous losses because of it, but other airplanes would have had an even rougher ride.  But back to the issue at hand.  Thankfully we had hardcore roughnecks flying those planes because against more nimble MIGS they held their own.  It wasn't optimal.  It wasn't pretty, but they got the job done.  Unfortunately the institutional memory faded and we're where we're at today.

But what about modern multi-role fighters?

Yeah, I knew you'd bring this up.  Lets talk modern multi-role (or as the French say "omni-role) fighters.  Everyone forgets that everyone of the modern big dawgs was built first as a superior fighter.  The F-16, F-15, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-27 family...they all were built to be air superiority or (in the case of the F-18) fleet defense fighters.  Technological advances have made them multi-role.  PODS, advanced munitions that are precision capable...but it can't be denied that they were first designed as fighters.  Oh and don't let the clowns at F-16.net or Lockheed Martin tell you different.

So you're telling me that multi-role is fiction?

No.  I'm telling you that you build a fighter to be superior in that role and if you get it right then you can flex it into the strike mission because of that.  If your plane is optimized toward strike then making it a fighter will cause tradeoffs that are unacceptable.

Bottom line?

Build a fighter first.  Then let your plane evolve due to tech into a striker.

Rafale News. So much for a quick deal...

via Reuters.

NEW DELHI, April 11 (Reuters) - India will not receive its first Rafale fighter jet from France's Dassault Aviation for up to two and a half years and tricky issues including pricing must still be worked out, India's defence minister said on Saturday.
Manohar Parrikar's comments came a day after India ordered 36 ready-to-fly Rafale fighters to modernise an ageing fleet apace with neighbours China and arch-rival Pakistan, which are fast upgrading military hardware.
While the order is meant to be delivered as soon as possible, terms and conditions of the deal - estimated at about 4 billion euros ($4.25 billion) - have yet to be worked out, the minister said.
"It may take two to two-and-a-half years to get the first plane," Parrikar told reporters. "Fly-away means not tomorrow, it has to be designed as per India's need, plus there is a requirement of working out the price."

Wow.

Quite honestly I'm surprised that I'm surprised.  The French have a habit of making premature announcements about aircraft sales.  Additionally we should know better than to take the word of politicians when it comes to deals.

"Designed as per India's need"?

That should be filling French and Dassault officials with dread...India will extract a pound of flesh before they sign a contract. 

A modern military force can't keep its soldiers fed?

Thanks to Adrian for the heads up!

via sverigesradio.se (read it all here)...

"It is crazy that in 2015 we do not get enough food. It affects our mood. People get sour and angry when they do not get enough to eat," says a source from the Swedish military presence in Mali to DN.
The 200-strong task force, which will soon start their work supporting the UN mission in Mali, receives UN food rations of 1800 calories per person, per day. Not enough to meet the body size of the Swedish soldier, according to DN's source.

"1800 kilocalories, might suffice UN soldiers from Burkina Faso and Bangladesh, who are often of smaller build, but not for us," says one of the Swedes.
The Swedish UN force is in the final stages of constructing of a 42,000-square metre base at Camp Nobel in Mali, which will include a hospital, garages and service stations. The strenuous work, allied to smaller rations, is affecting the Health of the soldiers, according to some.
"Our physical shape is affected. We were not fat and did not have much fat tissue when we arrived. When the food is not enough, we burned the fat first, but now it has also affectected muscle mass. I myself know that I have become weaker," says one soldier, who has lost five kgs in weight during his time in Mali.

Just plain wow.

If we were talking about a 3rd world military force I'd simply roll with it...I'd assume that leadership couldn't do better and besides the people in their own nation probably didn't have enough to eat.

But we're talking about Swedish forces.

I seriously wonder why this wasn't taken care of at the local level.  Laying hands on additional MRE's shouldn't be that difficult...I know our military has warehouses full of them...hell I even have more than a few cases of them myself!  What's going on with their armed forces?

Navy Matters Blog on the real problem with the F-35...

A tidbit from Navy Matters (read it all here)....

The biggest failing of the F-35 is not any of its physical characteristics or even its cost. No, the biggest failing is its time to operation.


It has taken almost 20 years to get this far and we still don’t have operational aircraft. With respect to the Marine’s delusional and fanatical obsession with IOC, which is just a PR spin event, the F-35 still won’t be operational when they finally declare IOC victory. True operational status won’t be achieved for another 2-5 years, if that. So, we’re looking at an aircraft that will be 20+ years old before its first operational use. Most aircraft are at their prime and beginning to look at their downslope and replacement by that point.

Consider all the perceived shortcomings of the F-35. Almost all of them can be attributed to the extreme amount of time it has taken to develop the aircraft. Had the F-35 reached operational status 15 years ago, it would have been top of the line in stealth. It’s range would have been adequate for the missions of that time. Its weapons load would have been adequate for the time. And so on. In short, 15 years ago, it would have been a pretty good aircraft. Remember, the Super Hornet only entered service in 1999 and the early 2000’s. Had the F-35 been operational in the year 2000, the Super Hornet, and its subsequent comparisons to the F-35, probably wouldn’t have happened.

I agree completely.

Cost, obsolescence, inadequate performance, outrageous maintenance costs...the F-35 is just a flying example of government waste.

Varan APC video...