Pics of the HSV-2 after the antiship missile attack!

Thanks to InfoInfantry for the pics!

This is a HUGE deal that the US Navy and Marine Corps is ignoring.  Even military bloggers (the vast majority) are silent on this issue.

Its about concepts and plans boys and girls!  The USMC is pushing alternate transports aboard ships that act as cargo or transport vessels!  They're acting as if those same ships with civilian crews and NO defensive capability will be able to sail in dangerous waters with either a squad or company of Marines and be able to conduct all manner of missions without threat.

This shows the folly of such thinking!

The minute you put Marines aboard those ships they become targets.  You sail them in "supposedly" safe waters off the coast of Africa and parts of the Pacific and every rebel/terrorists with access of anti-ship missiles will be licking their lips ready to take apart one of our ships.

If your thinking is wrong then you must change.  HQMC's thinking is wrong.  The world is a much more dangerous place today than it was in the 1960's and 70's.  You could get away with "alternate" shipping then but not today.

Its time for the Marine Corps tribe to man up and call bullshit bullshit.  Alternate transport is bullshit.  The answer to a more dangerous world is to start floating Reinforced MEUs.

Side note:  Don't look away.  Drink in those pics at the top of the page. It was Australian contractors this time.  Unless we change course it will be Neller writing letters to Mothers of America explaining why their sons died carrying out a flawed concept.

Open Comment Post. Oct 4, 2016.

Convair XFY-1

VAdm Foggo likes bands. Just wow.

via USNI News.

The U.S. Naval Forces Europe Band is a force multiplier. From the headquarters in Naples, Italy, it represents U.S. interests to 105 countries in Europe and Africa, just over 25% of the world’s population.[1] American Sailors are among our most capable ambassadors, and in our area of operation we average 10,000 Sailors at any given time. Most of these Sailors, though, are either underway or concentrated near a few Navy bases. The Band’s 50 musicians—including five Italian members—are extremely adaptive and play as one large unit or within smaller, specialized groups. Like all Navy bands, they support our mission, enhance international diplomacy, improve community outreach, and help forge enduring relationships. Each component of the Navy is concentrated on support of the warfighters and their mission. The Band is no exception.

Just plain wow.

The Naval Forces Europe Band is a force multiplier?  They support the mission, enhance international diplomacy, help forge enduring relationships?

Does the good admiral have anything to support those assertions?  Has anyone done a study on why the Navy has bands that it sends on these "good will" missions and if they ACTUALLY support the military's mission?

In a time of tight budgets (supposedly) does it make sense for the Navy to be doing this?  If it's so effective then why isn't the State Dept, USAID or some other agency involved in this type of outreach/diplomacy?

But the biggest shock to me is that days after the HSV-2 was sunk off the coast of Yemen, instead of a response to that action we instead have a flag officer talking about the freaking band (I note with a bit of amusement that none of the "major players" in Naval Blogging world are talking about that sinking...out of sight, out of mind).

If you want to know why I view this generation of military leaders as the worst in the history of our nation, just add this article to the list.  This is both tone deaf and clueless.  Time for someone to turn in his retirement papers.

1-12 Cav Chargers, 3BCT, 1CD on exercise.

Jesus!  Can the Army simplify their unit designations?  I had to do a Google search to find out exactly what units pictures I was looking at and which division they belonged to.  There has to be a better way!

About that General Dynamics Griffin tank...do we follow the Army and get a light tank or make an AmTank?

Thanks to Kinetics for the link!


AUSA 2016: Griffin to tempt US Army from Shephard Media on Vimeo.

via Shepard Media.

Peck said there could also be interest from the US Marine Corp, which has a similar issue as it can only fit one M1 Abrams tank on its LCAC amphibious landing craft. Therefore GDLS sees itself as providing a medium-weight large calibre niche capability - or a light tank.

This is interesting.

I haven't looked at an airdrop table in like forever but according to the article this is suppose to weigh 28 tons and they hope to get it down to 27.  I'm not sure but I think that puts it at the upper end of what they can airdrop without going exotic (meaning that they can use only parachutes and packing...no need for retro rockets to slow its descent).

I notice that they're pushing the large caliber gun capability when I recall the Army will be satisfied with a 105mm (amazing that suddenly a 105mm cannon is no longer considered large isn't it).

But let's put that aside and look at the talk about the Marine Corps being interested.

That's intriguing and brings us to a place where many don't really want to go.  Which way do we take tanks?  Do we revert back to the idea first formed in

WW2 when it was realized that we needed mobile firepower to accompany the assault echelon and developed the AmTank or do we place a premium not on mobility or firepower but on the ability of tanks to close with the enemy?

I have been a big proponent of using the ACV as a family of vehicles to include an AmTank version so that we have excellent mobility and the ability

to swim most of our armor from ship to shore.  But there is ALOT to be said for having 70 tons of armor that can go where others can't to deliver the pain to the enemy.

On this one I just don't know.  Swim, IED protection, mobility, commonality with other vehicles in service vs. armor protection, shock action etc.  It would help if we were operating the same tank as the Army as a cost saving measure (to include training, ammo, parts etc..) but we're not.

The question is simple.  Do we follow the Army and piggy back on their buy of a light tank or do we develop the ACV into a modern day AmTank?  I just don't know.

Open Comment Post. Oct 3, 2016.

No matter how much you fight it, if you're ate up, you're just fucking ate up!  That applies to jacked up concepts, aircraft and people.

Your advice for the day?  Don't sail your ship near a hostile coastline if you don't have countermeasures and an alert crew...it also helps if your ship is 90% aluminum and burns like a wildfire if hit.

S-97 RAIDER helicopter takes to the skies in its latest flight tests

Next Generation Bradley Fighting Vehicle demonstrator

Hmm...looks like it got an extra roadwheel...is this the AMPV disguised as the next gen?

Commando Helicopter Force Merlin Mk3 helicopter and HMS Scimitar

Singapore to buy F35 in 2030...the coalition is fracturing...

via Defense News.

Singapore remains interested in the F-35 joint strike fighter, but does not expect to procure the fifth-generation jet until the 2030 timeframe, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said Sept. 30. 
“The F-35s are considered form a timeframe of 2030 and beyond for our defense needs, and in that light we are not in a hurry and we are still evaluating,” Ng said here following a meeting of the ASEAN defense ministers. “It’s a good plane, but our needs aren’t so urgent at this point and time.” 

This is ominous for the F-35 program.  Foreign sales were suppose to help it ramp up production and now we hear Singapore won't buy until 2030?  This is telling.  Defense News buried the geo-political bombshell that the Singaporeans put down.  Check this out.

 Asked if there was a geopolitical situation in the region that could spur the country to speed up a procurement decision on the jet, especially given the turmoil in the South China Sea, Ng replied confidently that the current plan is the right one. 
“It will not be influenced by what happens in the south china sea, nor China’s military might,” he said. “We’ve acknowledged China is a military power. It is really dictated by what we feel is our needs, as well as how we can contribute to defense globally.” 

This is huge news.

Singapore is taking a middle road.  They will align and work with anyone in the region.  They are seeking friends and will not be dragged into a fight between China and the US.

The idea of forming partnerships in the region to act as a buffer against China is failing.  Where Singapore goes, we can expect others to follow.  The pivot to the Pacific is in serious trouble.

Arguing about the F-35 dogfighting misses the point?

via Business Insider.

"As a pilot, dogfighting is fun, but it doesn't get the job done," US Air Force Maj. Will "D-Rail" Andreotta, commander of the F-35A Lightning II Heritage Flight Team, told Business Insider.
"If I'm dogfighting I'm not bombing my target. I'm not getting my job done, and what I'm probably doing is wasting gas and wasting time."
Andreotta, a pilot in the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base who has flown both the F-16 and F-35, says the F-35A's unprecedented situational awareness and stealth gives him "the utmost confidence that this plane will operate perfectly" in a dogfight with fourth-generation aircraft.

Wow.

So air superiority missions, combat air patrols and fighter sweeps (do they even use that term anymore?) means that the F-35 isn't doing its job?

It gets better though!  Did you notice the nuanced statement by the Major?  He has utmost confidence that this airplane will operate perfectly in a dogfight with fourth gen aircraft?

That statement is so loaded its scary!  Operate perfectly does not necessarily mean win!

The hits keep coming for the F-35 this weekend though.  Check out these passages from an AFR.com article.

Those planes – the Russian Su-50 and the Chinese J-20 – are labelled 5th generation because they have stealth, along with certain speed-altitude-agility attributes, armament capabilities and beyond-visual range combat capability. They are also twin-engined compared to the F-35A's single jet, meaning they cruise at higher speeds and altitude.
There are conflicting views about the merits of the aircraft among the experts.

Director of test and evaluation at think-tank Air Power Australia, Peter Goon, says the combat equivalent to the Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters is not the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, but the American F-22 Raptor.
"The evaluation of the F-35, so far, has shown that in air-to-air combat, it has trouble defeating the F-16," says Goon, referring to the "old" technology fighter.At the same time, Goon says the Russian and Chinese fighters have evolved to meet the "referent threat" not of the F-35A, but of the American F-22A Raptor of which there are only 186, none in Australia, and with production ceased.

Everyone is excited because the USAF will test the F-35 against the A-10 in close air support tasks.  We've all read the report about how the F-35 fared in a dogfight against an F-16.

We all missed the point.

What we should be demanding is real deal info on how the F-35 performs against top tier opponents.  We need to see no shit sims on how the F-35 performs against an integrated air defense complex including land based S-300/400/500 missiles, threat 5th generation aircraft/air to air missiles and electronic warfare.

I feel confident in saying that if information about the F-35 changes then I will happily change my opinion of the plane and the program.  Slick marketing campaigns, appeals to authority by rolling out a pilot to sing the company line about the plane being the best thing since sliced bread, and redesigning the Marine Corps to make it seem indispensable isn't gonna get it done.

Remember the "alternate transport" craze the USMC was on? Doesn't look so good today does it!

One thing HQMC has been doing to perfection is throwing so many concepts out that it boggles the mind.  Alternate transport for Marines was the "hotness" last year.  Let me bring you up to speed on what leaders were saying.  via USNI News Nov, 2015

Major General Richard Simcock said at a Marine Corps Association event on Nov. 19 that he wants more L-class amphibious ships in the region but will use whatever strategic lift he can get.
“I have to fight tonight, I have to do that most dangerous mission, I have to take what I have and I have to adapt. And we’re doing that,” he said.
Simcock joked that he spends a lot of time with the Commander of Logistics Group Western Pacific/Commander of Task Force 73 because “he owns every weird ship that there is in the Asia Pacific,” from logistics ships to the Littoral Combat Ship to the Expeditionary Fast Transport.
“We use them. We experiment, and we adapt. And you don’t say no, and you take what you have because you have to fight tonight,” the general said.

And then this from Marine Corps Times Jun, 2015.

For this reason, Dunford said, the Pacific is one of two priority regions that may host new alternative platforms as they become deployable. Designed to alleviate some of the burden on an overtaxed amphibious ship fleet, the new platforms include, among others, the joint high-speed vessel and the tanker-like mobile landing platform, which can be fitted with a flight deck and berthing space to create the afloat forward staging base.
The heads of U.S. Africa Command have already requested that an afloat forward staging base be positioned near that continent to assist with crisis response and security efforts, and Dunford indicated the Pacific might be a candidate to receive one or more of the ships as they become available.
"If I were to give you priorities, probably the two priorities right now would be mitigating the risk in AFRICOM and mitigating the risk in the Pacific Command," he said. "And there's plenty of other places that we could use [alternative platforms.]"

As a theory alternate transport sounds good on paper.

If the threat hadn't changed.

But it has.

Terrorist, rebels, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them are no longer acting like ragtag bands of ultra light infantry.  They're "meching up".  They're acquiring heavy weapons of all types.  They have everything but an air force to include heavyweight anti-ship missiles that can destroy our "alternate transports".

The theory was cute but reality is a bitch.  Put Marines on logistics ships, JHSVs, Mobile Landing Platforms (I refuse to follow Mabus' idiotic rebranding) and you will hazard those ships to perform missions of dubious value.

The Navy and Marine Corps need to take a second look at alternate shipping/independent ship operations to see if its worth the squeeze.