The Air Force might as well bite the bullet and make a combat capable version of this airplane. The original rationale was that they needed a trainer that would be viable with modern jet fighters so this should be a no brainer to load it with missiles, sensors and such.
via Breaking Defense.
“I wish they would have the trust in all Marines,” Berger said of the critics, listing off the numerous military agencies and offices that contributed to developing Force Design. “I will have that degree of trust the day after I leave because the person after me will be fully informed and I’ll be one day out of date.”
“That was kind of the surprising thing,” Berger added. “Why did they doubt? Why did they lose trust in all the Marines they served alongside?”
I find this amazing.
Berger started his "transformation" without trust. He was secretive, did not get buy in from stakeholders and formed a tight circle that kept relevant information away from those stake holders.
He is the ultimate example of a failed change agent.
To hear his lamentations about lack of trust is to be frank insulting. He and his cabal did everything but foster trust.
He leaves a wounded and failed Commandant that half assed this transformation and is leaving the Marine Corps in worst shape than when he found it.
Good riddance and I wish him nothing but pain and suffering in the future.
In #Russia, Telegram channels claim that the command of Russian forces in Ukraine was transferred to the commander of the Airborne Forces Teplinskiy. General Gerasimov formally retains the post of Chief of the General Staff, but has nothing to do with battlefield in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/3oS6f2rFm1
— Alex Kokcharov (@AlexKokcharov) June 28, 2023
#NEWS 📰: BAE Systems successfully demonstrated manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) on the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) C4/UAS mobile systems integration lab (SIL).
— BAE Systems, Inc. (@BAESystemsInc) June 28, 2023
Learn more: https://t.co/2DRYxeOiIn pic.twitter.com/796vKf9XBc
27JUNE23, #RCCTO's Mid-Range Capability (MRC) Project Office, in conjunction with 1st Multi-Domain Task Force Soldiers, and the U.S. #Navy Program Executive Office Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, demonstrated the launch of a missile from the Army's prototype #MRC system. pic.twitter.com/STSC3swp0y
— U.S. Army RCCTO (@usarmyrccto) June 27, 2023
Now that the Wagner drama is over (or at least appears over), what do ya'll think is going on with the war.
I can't put my finger on it but I sense we're entering a new phase. Where that will lead I don't know, but the latest arms package from the US along with the fact that no European nation to my knowledge has moved with us seems to prove what I've been thinking.
The cow is tapped. Not much more milk coming. Additionally, we heard back in MARCH that we were assuming risk by supplying Ukraine as lavishly as we have.
That's my view, what's yours?
via Breaking Defense.
General Berger’s initial planning guidance as commandant ended that long-time rationale. It argued that large amphibious ships were too vulnerable and too expensive: “We must continue to seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.” In highlighted text, the guidance announced: “We will no longer use a ‘2.0 MEB requirement’ as the foundation for our arguments regarding amphibious shipbuilding. We will no longer reference the 38-ship requirement.”
-----
If large amphibious ships were too expensive and too vulnerable and the Marine Corps believed that the future lay in small amphibious ships, then the Pentagon should limit the building of large amphibious ships.
-----
The Navy came to the same conclusion. The Navy’s FY 2023 shipbuilding plan showed a target of 24 to 28 large amphibious ships, which meant that, when previously funded amphibious ships were considered, no amphibious ships would be needed for several years.
-----
The controversy would die down if the Marine Corps offered a strong wartime rationale for 31 large amphibious ships. However, it continues its wartime emphasis on small units under FD 2030. The latest FD 2030 update does cite the need for 31 large amphibious ships but is vague about why, saying it’s: “[to] coordinate their actions directly with stand-in forces to control maritime terrain.” The Marine Corps has provided a calculation for their goal of 35 Landing ships Medium (nine for each of the three Marine Littoral Regiments and eight more for maintenance and other unavailability). Yet, there is no proposed calculation for arriving at 31 amphibious ships as there had been for the earlier amphibious ship goal of 34.
Here
