Thursday, June 29, 2023

French deploy Special Ops to deal with rioters...

* Don't know if these are military special ops guys or their national police special ops personnel. Macron might have no choice but to fully activate a few brigades to restore order. Supposedly the violence is occuring in several French cities now.
Posted by at 0 comments

France is burning...

Posted by at 0 comments

Wow. This lady just insulted an entire population.

We can achieve success in a merit based system. If they system is racist then we can't. That applies to everyone. Funny enough and I've said it a million times. The biggest loser in this will be white women. Not blacks. Not Hispanics. Certainly not Indians or Asians. It will be white women that suffer most with this ruling.

All the so called black leaders bemoaning this are doing it for other groups.  Not for blacks.  They're bemoaning the ruling for the liberal cause.

Sidenote.  Don't tell me shit about shit on this one.  My boot camp photo has me and one other black guy in it.  Same for all the schools.  Same applies when I joined the Sheriff's Dept.  Not all will choose the same path but all can succeed.  Maybe not become Steve Jobs but all can win.
Posted by at 0 comments

Massive looting in France...

 

Interesting. I thought French Police cracked heads. Guess I was wrong...or they've gotten soft.
Posted by at 0 comments

The Marine Corps has painted itself into a corner with regard to amphibious ships...

 via Breaking Defense.

An intra-governmental “war” has broken out between Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) over how many large amphibious ships the Navy must have.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2024 budget request “paused” construction of large amphibs. 

&

 The war began when a series of missteps by the Marine Corps undermined the justification for large amphibious ships. To overcome these missteps — and make things right with a skeptical Congress and OSD — it falls on the Navy and Marine Corps to develop stronger justifications for why they want 31 large amphibious ships and why OSD’s proposed smaller fleet is inadequate. 

&

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.”

That fit the new vision of small Marine units carried in a new design small amphibious ship (then called the light amphibious warship, now called the medium landing ship). These groups would operate inside the Chinese weapons engagement zone and strike at the Chinese fleet with long-range missiles.

&

 The Office of the Secretary of Defense, specifically the Directorate of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, (CAPE) took notice. CAPE―the lineal successor to famed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s systems analysis office―analyzes programs and operations. Based on the new amphibious concept, it made the logical recommendation: 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 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 

I don't believe this was a mistake.  I believe that Berger happily gave up 38 and even 31 large amphibs as long as he got his Landing Ship Mediums.

I think outrage from Congress and the Marine Corps family pushed the issue which made them backtrack.

The USMC painted themselves into a corner and the "mothership" idea isn't a solution.

The current Marine Corps is gonna be different.

It's gonna be totally defensive and totally wedded to the Pacific.

It will not be the Marine Corps of the past.  This new breed of Marines should do us all a favor and case the colors, change the name and christen a new organization.

 

Posted by at 0 comments

When did MEUs pick back up the "Special Operations Capable" moniker?

 

Posted by at 0 comments

A parade ready unit is not combat ready. The Navy is stretching that saying to the limit!

 Thanks to Gerard for the pic!


If the Navy can't get the basics right...like upkeep of their ships then how can we trust that all those exquisite weapon systems are ready?

We all know the saying that a parade ready unit is not a combat ready unit.

But this.  This is downright disgusting.

Our Navy is in a hurt locker.  To be honest I can understand (don't like it but understand) the Navy's reluctance to buy the Landing Ship Medium for the Marine Corps.

They need to get their house in order before adding any more ships.

It also could apply to new amphibs.  The Navy is in the midst of a serious recruiting crisis.  New ships that they don't have the Sailors to man is a problem.  They probably want to decrease the number of amphibs so they have enough Sailors to equip their destroyers.

Which is more valuable to the sea battle?  A Marine Littoral Regiment or two additional Burke Destroyers?

That's another mistake that Force Design 2030 made.

The Marine Corps went first and expected the other services to follow on tilt to the Pacific.  The other services are worried about world wide obligations with limited resources and CAN NOT laser focus on one region.

The USMC misread the room.  The US Navy is trying to cover its bases and get its sea legs back.

Until the Navy rights itself the USMC is stuck in limbo...especially if naval integration is the future course and not being a true member of the joint force available to the Combatant Commanders as a stand alone entity.

Posted by at 0 comments

You might think this is nothing. To me its ominous. Zelensky proposes a law that basically makes English their joint prime language

 

Why would you make this a requirement in Ukraine? Why would you make this a requirement for LOCAL administrations, police, prosecutors etc...? I know everyone on this blog is gonna say this is no big deal. To me it is. It's almost like Zelensky is paving the ground for Americans to flood into the country and do our thing. What is our thing? We attempt to make mini-USA's on a global scale. If the "natives" reject it then things go terribly. If they accept it then we have a new playground. Ukraine is opening itself up to be our new playground. That makes me nervous.
Posted by at 0 comments

Historians will remember the roots of the Ukraine - Russia war

 

Thanks to Duke 7 for the link!
Posted by at 0 comments

Abrams MBT arrive in Poland

* Poland has been on a massive spending spree lately. It's almost like they've already adopted a wartime footing. I believe they bear watching. Additionally I consider them a wild card. This is the problem with alliances. One nation goes rogue and it could drag the entire alliance into a fight no one else wanted.

Lastly if you think we have friends then you're wrong.  We have mutual interests with other nations.  Special relationships on a nation state basis?  Childish thinking.  
 
Posted by at 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )