Brits get first production Ajax Ares...

via Shepard.

Without much fanfare the UK MoD has taken delivery of the first two production standard Ajax Ares variants, Shephard has learnt.

The two vehicles were delivered to the Acceptance and Testing Team for Government Acceptance Tests (GAT) in December 2018. Two further Ares variants are to be delivered by the end of January 2019 and two more in February 2019.

General Dynamics UK (GDUK) also confirmed the vehicle deliveries saying that these would accompany seven prototypes already delivered and undergoing testing.

A total of 589 Ajax platforms are set to be delivered to the British Army through 2017-2024, along with the provision of in-service support and training, according to GDUK.

It is also understood that the first squadron will be equipped by mid-2019 to allow conversion to begin with a brigade ready to deploy from the end of 2020. The recent deliveries appear to put the programme on track to meet this schedule.

Story here. 

I know many of you are fans of the Boxer but it would make so much MORE sense in my opinion to simply standardize on the Ajax family of vehicles.  Considering the weight of the Boxer vs Ajax, I just don't see how you can credibly differentiate between a medium and heavy mech unit.  Additionally the Warrior Upgrade makes little sense either. 

Neck down to the Ajax and you help local industry, ease training/maintenance and make your Army more lethal.

 

LPD Flight II, better than anticipated...

via USNI News.

In an attempt to address a “capacity problem” in the amphibious ship fleet, the head of expeditionary warfare wants to accelerate the construction of new amphibious assault ships and stop a lengthy upgrade program for the aging LSDs to return them to fleet operations.

The aging Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships (LSD-41/49) will be replaced on a one-for-one basis with the much more capable San Antonio-class Flight II LPDs, once those are built and start to deliver in the 2020s. Until then, though, Maj. Gen. David Coffman, the director of expeditionary warfare on the chief of naval operations’ staff (OPNAV N95), wants to stop trying to bring the LSDs up in capability and instead return them to the fleet to do what they’re good at: hauling a lot of stuff.

Congress pushed on the Navy a modernization plan for its cruisers and LSDs; for the amphibs, it called for taking three LSD hulls, putting them in reduced operational status until they could undergo major upgrades to the command, control, communications, computers, collaboration and intelligence (C5I), and then bringing them back to the fleet with an extended service life and greater warfighting capability. The combat credibility of the LSDs was in question, as amphibious ships now mostly operate in a distributed manner but the LSDs cannot operate as independently as the LPDs, which have a much more robust command and control system, medical facilities and other key capabilities.

With a better-than-anticipated replacement on the horizon with the LPD Flight II design, Coffman said last week at the Surface Navy Association’s annual national symposium that he wants to ditch the LSD modernization plan, use the ships now as trucks to carry people and gear, and focus resources on the LPD Flight II replacement program.

Story here. 

One question.  What's going on with the LX(R)??  I thought that was the replacement for the LSD.  Did I miss a change in plans?

Leonardo develops M60A3 MBT upgrade

via Janes.

Leonardo has developed and tested a major upgrade package for the US General Dynamics Land Systems M60A3 main battle tank (MBT).

This M60A3 upgrade was developed and tested using internal funding for the export market, according to Massimo Gualco, director of marketing and sales at Leonardo Defence Systems. The Leonardo upgrade covers the M60A3's armour, mobility, and firepower, and is being marketed as a cost-effective upgrade package.

The M60A3 MBT has a hull and turret of cast and welded armour and over the turret frontal arc new passive armour has been fitted that is understood to provide protection up to STANAG 4569 Level 6.

A similar level of ballistic protection has been provided over the frontal arc of the hull and up to the third road wheel station on either side. Bar/slat armour is fitted over the turret's rear to provide protection against anti-tank weapons fitted with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead. The crew and power pack compartments are given an automatic fire and explosion sensing and suppression system.

The existing fire-control system (FCS) has been replaced by the Leonardo TURMS (Tank Universal Modular System) digital FCS, which has been installed in several other armoured fighting vehicles.

The new FCS includes a video tracker and a stabilised sight for the gunner that features Erica third-generation thermal cameras and an eye-safe laser rangefinder. If required, the tank commander can also aim and fire the main armament.

The original M60A3 has electro-hydraulic gun control equipment (GCE) that could be replaced by an all-electric GCE but to maintain a lower price the existing GCE was kept for the upgraded M60A3.

Hmm.  Another upgrade for the M60A3?  I guess all the surplus Leopards are bought up and for some reason (maybe the armor) we aren't seeing the M1A1's gifted.

Maybe this makes sense.

Open Comment Post. 23 Jan 2019

CH-53E conducts helo-lift of MTVR...Pics by Lance Cpl. Clare McIntire

You know its a big lift when the flight crew is checking out the rigging!!!

Marine Corps Builds New Amphibious Combat Vehicle for "Deep Strike" Attacks

via National Interest.

Coffman and other senior service strategists have been refining a new strategic approach to amphibious attack aimed at leveraging 5th-Generation air support, launching more dispersed, disaggregated yet “networked” assaults and using smaller unmanned vessels to perform reconnaissance, countermine and attack missions. A more dispersed amphibious attack force not only reduces vulnerability to enemy fire but can also use advanced C4ISR and networking to better identify key points of attack across a wider area.

The emerging ACVs will launch from big-deck amphibs, called LHAs, and Amphibious Transport Docks, called LPDs. With one of the upcoming LHA America-class amphibs bringing back the well-deck, the Corps plans to emphasize ship-to-shore water-launched combat vehicles. At the same time, Navy leaders emphasize that the first two America-class amphibs, LHA 6&7, are built with an aviation emphasis to, among other things, capitalize upon the F-35B and other key air-launched elements of amphibious attack. These aviation-centric big-deck amphibs are intended to pave the way toward the upcoming LHA 8 - which brings back a well-deck.

The entire strategic and conceptual shift is also informed by an increased “sea-basing” focus. Smaller multi-mission vessels, according to this emerging strategy, will be fortified by larger amphibs operating as sovereign entities at safer distances. Coffman said these ships would operate as “seaports, hospitals, logistics warehouses and sea-bases for maneuver forces.”
Additional land attack firepower and survivability seem aligned with the Corps newer, more "dispersed" amphibious assault strategy; if amphibious incursions occur in narrow, more spread-apart scenarios, landing forces will potentially need to engage in more land-fighting without large numbers of forces nearby. They will likely rely more upon air support, long-range fires and "networked" intelligence from other ISR nodes, command and control ships or elements of the force - to find and exploit landing areas most advantageous the the attacking force.

Story here. 

Hmm.  I don't know if this is just more of the same or if the concept is being refined.  I do know that the bit about "larger vessels operating as sovereign entities at safer distances" is a welcome change...well that along with the idea that some sort of smaller multi-mission ships will be operating closer in (I can't help but wonder what ship they have in mind...could LCS' act in this role...could we see specific amphibious support modules in the future?).

I need to chew on this a bit.

The 120mm Smooth Bore Challenger Demonstrator is real and it's glorious...

Thanks to PitchBlackUniverse for the pic!

The butcher's bill from the latest IDF strike on Syrian installations...

The loses in the recent Israeli attack:
SAA: six air defense, radar and communication systems were destroyed.Two officers killed, more than eight injured.
Iranian Forces: around ten warehouses and offices. Food, personal weapons and uniforms were stored in some of them.

— Within Syria (@WithinSyriaBlog) January 21, 2019

Hmm.  I hope this is a false report.  That was alot of work for such a little result if true.

Theory. Iran is gonna make a run at Israel using Hezbollah...

I made a post yesterday about a certain website listing Iran ahead of Israel in terms of military power.

No biggie.  I link to many websites.

What has me spinning is the comments.  No thought.  No attempt at understanding.  No attempts to think out of the box.

I stated that the IDF appears to have gotten soft, is attempting to fight in the Western style and that I believe they could get got.  Didn't say that Iran was militarily more powerful, just that I'm sensing vulnerability.

Did some more thinking.

Syria might be about pipelines for the US and Russia and the Europeans, but for Iran and Hezbollah (who have sent many forces to the fight) I believe its about developing a secure supply chain.

Let me expand.

Check this out via Wikipedia.

The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War[37] and known in Lebanon as the July War[2] (Arabic: حرب تموز‎, Ḥarb Tammūz) and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון השנייה‎, Milhemet Levanon HaShniya),[38] was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon, Northern Israel and the Golan Heights. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The conflict started on 12 July 2006, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect in the morning on 14 August 2006, though it formally ended on 8 September 2006 when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. Due to unprecedented Iranian military support to Hezbollah before and during the war, some consider it the first round of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, rather than a continuation of the Arab–Israeli conflict.[5]

The conflict was precipitated by the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid. On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah fighters fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[39] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two Israeli soldiers were abducted and taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[39][40] Five more were killed in Lebanon, in a failed rescue attempt. Hezbollah demanded the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel in exchange for the release of the abducted soldiers.[41] Israel refused and responded with airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon. Israel attacked both Hezbollah military targets and Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport.[42] The IDF launched a ground invasion of Southern Lebanon. Israel also imposed an air and naval blockade.[43] Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the IDF in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.[44]

There is more on their page, so if you're interested go check it out.  In the meantime put a pin in that.

Now consider this.

1.  We've seen terrorist operate in quasi-nation state fashion militarily.  They are operating tanks, apcs, artillery and anti-aircraft sites as well as UAVs.

2.  Hezbollah has stated that they can basically blot out the sun with their rockets.  Iron Dome is good but it ain't that good.  Even if they miss their targets it's gonna be kinda hard to miss some sort of Israeli installation.

3.  Hezbollah commandos have gotten a workout in Syria.  Bumbling and fumbling ain't in their playbook anymore.

4.  Quds Force has also been getting extensive experience in Syria.

My theory.

Assad/Syria is seeking allies.  I doubt very much that he would directly participate in a conflict with Israel but he WOULD provide an additional axis of approach AND a supply point for the flow from Iran.

I'm just guessing but I'd bet that Hezbollah will no longer have to manufacture rockets in basements and little shops, cause Iran will give them all they want and more...to include anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles and even anti-ship missiles.

I'm fleshing this out and will add more later but I believe that we're about to see round two of the 2006 war, this time with better firepower on the side of Hezbollah and a much improved supply chain.

If this theory is even halfway right then Israel should be moving toward serious force protection even as I type this out.  I would bet that we'd probably see the same starting event too.  An ambush on an isolated patrol with the intent to capture IDF soldiers (I'm sure they'll probably aim for a couple of females too...that will certainly shock the Israeli public) and a massive rocket barrage perhaps aimed at a major airport or an air force base.

Open Comment Post. 22 Jan 2019