Kicking Pirates since the N. Koreans aren't available.

Numerous people have hit me with articles about the S. Korean Navy/Marine Corps retaking a hijacked ship off the coast of Africa.

My take on this?

The N. Koreans weren't available so the Pirates were a poor second choice.

If you believe anything believe this.  The S. Korean Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Air Force, their Leadership and its people all want to taste N. Korean blood after the atrocities of a few weeks ago.

The pirates just nutted up and attacked the wrong ship.

This got beyond interesting.  It got deadly for some misguided idiotic little boys that picked the wrong target because they didn't have a clue when it came to the political power of the people when they're sufficiently enraged. 

The S. Korean government had no choice but to act forcefully.  Another black eye and they would have been forced out of power.

Russian uproar over AK-47 replacement talk.

via FoxNews...

"The AK-47 is outdated because of it’s not an accurate weapon,” Scales said. “What I suspect is the Russian are looking for something that's a little bit more refined, a little bit more versatile, more accurate -- and their willing to sacrifice what the AK-47 brought in 1947."
Scales says an accuracy target of 400 meters is not good enough for modern day warfare. The gold standard for weapons in the West is the American M-4, which is accurate to 600 meters and beyond.

Interesting.  The Russians have done good work with the AK-74 and its many derivatives so the call to possibly buy a foreign weapon is curious to me.

I don't know whats going on inside Russia but something appears to be brewing.

First the buy of the Mistral...

Second the attempt to buy Israeli UAVs...

Third the idea of buying IVECO armored vehicles...

and now the idea is being floated of buying Western small arms!

What is going on inside there?

Sweetman is at it again.

If Sweetman didn't write this then the "dark lord" has a new apprentice.

via Aviation Week...

Considering the immense deficit-reduction work that lies ahead to help restore U.S. economic strength—which underwrites the nation’s military power—the aerospace industry ought to have breathed a sigh of relief when Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently unveiled the Pentagon’s Fiscal 2012 budget. Even with $78 billion stripped from future spending and another $100 million reallocated internally, government suppliers for the most part still dodged the proverbial bullet.
One that did not was General Dynamics and its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The Marine Corps program was the poster child for paying more to get less. The same holds true for the intractable problems of other programs canceled over the past few years, such as the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer, among others. Whether they are actually gone is another matter. Most live on as declared goals of the U.S. military.
Ironically, by eliminating programs that were hopelessly over budget and behind schedule, Gates removed some of the anchors around the collective necks of industry and the Pentagon, while at the same time encouraging them to pursue more affordable systems that still satisfy the mission. Of course, the budget in which they must work will be incrementally smaller, but it is still gargantuan; what else would you call a spending plan of at least $553 billion and growing? In short, Gates effectively handed the Pentagon and industry a second chance to get it right.
That is not to say the challenge facing them will be easy. Underlying all the heated debates about how much money the U.S. really needs to spend to maintain robust national security are some inconvenient truths:
•Budget decisions made now will dictate what the force structure looks like in 2020. Yet increasingly those decisions are heavily influenced by the conflict in Afghanistan, undercutting the ability to build militaries prepared for different conflicts. In the U.K., for example, a question being asked is whether that country’s capabilities are overly skewed to land warfare as a result of its experience in south-central Asia. Many camps in the U.S. believe American forces must look very different in 2020.
•Too much emphasis has been placed on unit costs, with less and less consideration to the value that a new weapon system offers the warfighter. As long as Congress insists on funding weapon systems year-to-year, relying almost exclusively on metrics such as unit costs, we will continue to see program death spirals, virtually assuring truncated purchases of advanced capabilities that will be vital in the future such as active, electronically scanned array radar and imbedded sensors.
•Smarter purchasing practices by government customers and greater efficiency by industry have to go well beyond the usual arguments over whether one system or another makes sense in the global threat environment of the future. The competitive process dominates the front end of a program. The more complex and less frequent the new programs, the greater the incentive to underbid and overpromise. Result: a culture that suppresses reality until it is too late to fix a troubled program, and so it rolls on.
•It should not take 20 years to develop a tiltrotor aircraft or an F-35. Even the F-111 program, hardly a model of management oversight in the 1960s, delivered the first workable aircraft, the F-111E, in seven years from contract award.
•The Defense Department is long past the point where it needs to make tradeoffs in roles and missions. To put it another way, every armed service does not need to fulfill its own organic capability in all areas. For example, why couldn’t the Navy or Air Force be tasked with providing the Marines Corps with the air support it needs? Congress—which itself has failed in its duties lately—must stop allowing turf wars to block reforms.
•Industry has a credibility problem with its dubious record on program performance. The best strategy that contractors have in a severely fiscally constrained environment is to keep their promises, and fess up if they can’t. The Air Force may need a new bomber, and the Navy may want a new unmanned combat aircraft, but neither will be built on the unrealistic cost estimation process of the past.
Given the financial abyss in which this country finds itself, no one is going to support granting the defense community a special dispensation from responsible cuts in military spending. Nor should they. That means suppliers and customers alike better get it right going forward; a new generation of affordable weapon systems will be needed, and taking any longer than absolutely necessary to field them is not an option.

Talk about a personal jihad against land forces...against the Marine Corps...against anything that isn't USAF blue!  WOW!

Every bullet point I highlighted struck me as misguided but the last one takes the cake!

The Air Force may need a new bomber and the Navy MAY WANT A .....

Amazing!  Its obvious to me that Bill isn't grounded in American politics.  If he thinks that a Republican Congress is going to do away with Marine Air, or that his continued harping on the F-35 is going to sway policy makers then he's in for a serious disappointment.

As a matter of fact, several Ohio law makers are pushing against the EFV being canceled...one of them is the new Speaker of the House....

Bill ole' boy face it...what happened in the UK won't happen here.  Totally different style of government...two years ago when the Democrats were in control then yes...but now???  Not a snowballs chance in hell.

P-8 set for initial production.

via NAVAIR...

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - The U.S. Navy announced today the award of a $1.6 billion contract to Boeing for P-8A Poseidon aircraft Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of six aircraft.

This first LRIP contract also includes spares, logistics and training devices. Production of the first LRIP aircraft will begin this summer at Boeing’s Renton, Wash. facility.

“In 2004, the U.S. Navy and the Boeing Company made a commitment to deliver the next generation maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft to support a 2013 Initial Operational Capability (IOC),” said Capt. Mike Moran, PMA 290 Program Manager. “This contract and these aircraft keep that commitment on track.”

Three of the six flight test aircraft, built as part of the System Development and Demonstration contract awarded to Boeing in 2004, are in various stages of testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The Integrated Test Team has conducted sonobuoy releases and counter measures deployments.

Recently, one of two static test planes completed full scale testing on the P-8A airframe. The first static test aircraft underwent 154 different tests with no failure of the primary structure. The second aircraft will begin fatigue testing this year.

The U.S. Navy plans to purchase 117 production P-8A aircraft to replace its P-3 Fleet. IOC is planned for 2013 at NAS Jacksonville, Fla.

Wow.

Want to talk about a program that was designed to replace a cold war relic?

Want to talk about a program that was filled with the possibility of failure and delay?

Want to talk about a program that seems to have not only survived, not only thrived but also is being welcomed by the Fleet?

Then you want to talk about the P-8A.

LCS 3...the video.

Ok Mike...Time to come back!

worth a read!

Hey, do you all remember Mike at New Wars?

He put his blog in dry dock and in my opinion, its time for him to bring it back...

So Mike ole' buddy, if you're reading this...break time is over!  Get back in action!

Military Sealift Command had it right in 2003...

A single ship sea base.  Make sure to check out ThinkDefence's take on the "original" AFSB, the Atlantic Conveyor.

This from their website...

Afloat Forward Staging Base

MSC, through the CNO’s SeaPower 21 and sea-basing initiative, is developing the concept of the afloat forward staging base to rapidly and efficiently meet the U.S. Marine Corps’ future requirements and to support joint forces’ ability to launch combat power from the sea. MSC is exploring a commercial approach to the AFSB, taking advantage of our experience with the maritime community and industry’s research and development capabilities.

The proposed AFSB concept uses a 1,140-foot commercial container ship with a 140-foot beam, puts a flight deck on top to launch and recover helicopters and, potentially, short take-off and landing, fixed-wing aircraft. The ship would use modular berthing, feeding, medical and administrative spaces and would incorporate a selective cargo discharge system, automating supply selection and distribution.

Rapidly fielding the MPC.

How can we push forward a rapid fielding of the Marine Personnel Carrier?

We tag the purchase to the US Army's Stryker program and we kill a couple of birds with one stone.

BAE SEP Alligator

CV 90 Armadillo

First, while I would love the modularity that the SEP could bring to the table... while I'm intrigued by the idea of ignoring wheels and going with tracks with the CV90 Armadillo and while the French VBCI and the German Boxer all seem like capable vehicles...we need this quick...

French VBCI

German Boxer

The answer is the Piranha IIIC.

Its amphibious (on lakes and streams)...

Its has a degree (slight) of modularity...

Its in the same family as the Army Stryker...

Its a proven design in service with the Brazilian Marine Corps and the Romanian Army as well as several other armed forces worldwide.

If you want this done quickly then you select the vehicle that you want and write the requirements to fit it (sorta like the USAF did with the A-300 in the Tanker competition).

Its doable, its quick and it'll get a vehicle that our Marines need sooner rather than later.  Remember, a lack of urgency led to the EFV failure.

13th MEU receives combat certification

Marines from Amphibious Assault Platoon, Alpha Company, Battalion Landing Team 1/1, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, drive their Amphibious Assault Vehicles onto the USS Green Bay in preparation for Certification Exercise, Dec. 6. From Dec. 7-17, U.S. Marines and sailors from the BOXER Amphibious Ready Group – 13th Marine Expeditionary Group team conducted CERTEX 2010 in order to validate essential MEU mission sets in preparation for their upcoming deployment. Marines conducted operations from long range helicopter raids to Humanitarian Assistance Operations to Visit Board Search and Seizure missions. Marines and sailors of the 13th MEU proved that they are a capable amphibious force in readiness. “Any mission, any time."

Marines from Tank Platoon, Alpha Company, Battalion Landing Team 1/1, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, ground guide a M1-A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Dec. 14, during Certification Exercise. From Dec. 7-17, U.S. Marines and sailors from the BOXER Amphibious Ready Group – 13th Marine Expeditionary Group team conducted CERTEX 2010 in order to validate essential MEU mission sets in preparation for their upcoming deployment. Marines conducted operations from long range helicopter raids to Humanitarian Assistance Operations to Visit Board Search and Seizure missions. Marines and sailors of the 13th MEU proved that they are a capable amphibious force in readiness. “Any mission, any time.”

Marines from Alpha Company, Battalion Landing Team 1/1, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to move to another defensive position after conducting a Amphibious Assault aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Dec. 14, during Certification Exercise. From Dec. 7-17, U.S. Marines and sailors from the BOXER Amphibious Ready Group – 13th Marine Expeditionary Group team conducted CERTEX 2010 in order to validate essential MEU mission sets in preparation for their upcoming deployment. Marines conducted operations from long range helicopter raids to Humanitarian Assistance Operations to Visit Board Search and Seizure missions. Marines and sailors of the 13th MEU proved that they are a capable amphibious force in readiness. “Any mission, any time.”

WW II Marine Corps Humor...

Five cannibals were employed by Marines as scouts and translators during one of the island campaigns during World War II. When the Commanding Officer of ground forces welcomed the cannibals he said, "You're all part of our team now. We will compensate you well for your services, and you can eat any of the rations that the Marines are eating. But please don't indulge yourselves by eating a Marine."

The cannibals promised.

Four weeks later the C. O. returned and said, "You're all working very hard, and I'm very satisfied with all of you. However, one of our sergeants has disappeared. Do any of you know what happened to him?"

The cannibals all shook their heads 'no'.

After the C.O. left, the leader of the cannibals turned to the others and said, "Which of you idiots ate the sergeant?"

A hand raised hesitantly, to which the leader of the cannibals replied, "You fool! For four weeks we've been eating Lieutenants, Captains, and Majors and no one noticed anything,.. then YOU had to go and eat an NCO!"

Must Read. Gates challenges Marine Corps missions.

via Forbes (read the whole thing here)

The Marine Corps is facing a historic defeat at the hands of Defense Secretary Roberts Gates, and hardly anyone inside or outside the Corps seems to grasp what is happening. On January 6, Gates disclosed a series of proposed budget cuts that included termination of an amphibious vehicle the Marines have been developing for 15 years. He said the vehicle cost too much — around $17 million per copy — and that the service therefore should extend the life of existing amphibious vehicles while searching for a more affordable replacement. Gates stressed that, “This decision does not call into question the Marines’ amphibious assault mission.”
Taking that assurance at face value, prime contractor General Dynamics launched a campaign to convince Congress and the Obama Administration that buying a smaller number of the vehicles while upgrading current amphibious systems would be more cost-effective than canceling the program and starting over. Many backers of the Marine Corps on Capitol Hill seem favorably disposed to the idea. But what neither Congress nor the contractor seem to understand is that the Gates move isn’t really about the cost of one program. It’s about the cost of the whole “forcible entry” mission at the heart of the modern Marine Corps identity, and the desire of competing claimants on the Pentagon’s budget to use that money for other purposes.

Is this the real reason for "Next Generation Bomber" and other programs that seem to suck money but provide no benefit?

Is it time to put guns back on amphibs?

Above you see the commissioning photo of the USS Tarawa.  Notice the two 5 inch guns on its bow?

What happened and why did we lose these weapons?

If the requirements are changing and we expect assault echelon ships to make runs toward the beach to disembark its Marines (since holding at 25 miles off shore is no longer considered any safer than 10 miles in)...then why don't we have these fabulous weapons, along with modern warheads to engage shore based missile batteries, small boats and other threats in the littorals.

Maybe its time to take a blast from the past and put guns back on amphibs!