Sunday, March 12, 2017

Open Comment Post. March 12, 2017.




China puts the J-20 into service because they fear the F-35?


via National Interest.
China made the decision to operationally deploy the J-20 despite its technical problems because of the threat posed the by Lockheed Martin F-35, according to the SCMP’s source. Indeed, more of the stealth fighters are scheduled to join the PLAAF later this year. “It’s urgent for China to show off its achievements as soon as possible,” the source said.
However, while Beijing is trying to rush the J-20 into service to counter the F-35, the Chinese machine is not likely to be a directly analogue to the American jet or its stablemate, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The J-20—which appears to be larger than Raptor—is more likely designed to attack the support elements that hold American air operations together such as tankers, AWACS and JSTARs radar planes. Over the vast reaches of the Pacific, where fuel is at a premium, destroying a tanker could achieve the same result as shooting down an enemy fighter.
China is developing the ramjet-powered PL-15 that could have a range as great as 120 miles. The PL-15 weapon has caused consternation within the top-ranks of the U.S. Air Force with Air Combat Command commander Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle citing the Chinese weapon as one of the pressing reasons for the United States to develop a next-generation replacement for the decades-old AIM-120 AMRAAM.
“How do we counter that and what are we going to do to continue to meet that threat?” Carlisle asked during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2015. Later, during an interview with Flightglobal, Carlisle said that countering the new Chinese missile was an “exceedingly high priority” for the U.S. Air Force. “The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” Carlisle said.
Indeed, the problem is not just that the PL-15 would out-range the AMRAAM, when coupled with the J-20, the Chinese could attack the tankers and ISR aircraft that would be the key enablers during any air campaign over the Pacific. A 2008 RAND briefing suggested that in order to sustain F-22 operations over Taiwan from Guam, the U.S. Air Force would need to launch three to four tanker sorties per hour to deliver 2.6 million gallons of fuel. That’s a fact that has not likely escaped Beijing’s notice.
Story here. 

I like Dave and he's played it as down the middle as possible when it comes to the F-35 controversy, but this article is curious as hell.

And I think he's missed the reasoning behind China's move.

The Chinese are as aware of the F-35's shortcomings as anyone in the West. I'm sure they scour websites and forums looking for info on the F-35.  They truly understand that the plane is not ready for primetime.

So if the F-35 isn't a threat then why did they rush the J-20 into service?

Simple.

To save face.

Asian culture is fascinating to me. To be publicly embarrassed, humiliated etc...will not stand.  Wait.  It's a bit more complicated than that and words escape me to properly describe it, but saving face is very important.  It dates back centuries but is still common enough to help understand actions on a personal and even international level.

That's one reason why Trump doesn't worry me on any issue except China.  If the Chinese leadership are backed into a corner they will hit back.  Don't get me wrong.  I don't fear the Chinese but I think I understand them.  Things that would require the turning of the cheek by US presidents and population to prevent hostilities are the same issues in reverse that would start WW3 if we did it to the Chinese.

Take the artificial islands for example.

If Japan, S. Korea or God forbid the US did the same to them in international waters the Chinese leadership would have sent warships to destroy the construction equipment.

Which brings me back to the F-35.

The Chinese don't fear it, but they did see a need to show the world and their own population that they aren't scared and that they could match us.  So what are we left with?  Two stealth fighters operating in the Pacific that aren't ready for combat.  Two countries that are posturing with equipment that doesn't work.  This boys and girls is how you stumble into wars you aren't ready for.


Elements of the 82nd are in Kuwait. US order of battle against ISIS is becoming clear.


via Army Times
 The U.S. military is sending an additional 2,500 ground combat troops to a staging base in Kuwait from which they could be called upon to back up coalition forces battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
The deployment will include elements of the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team, which is based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. About 1,700 soldiers from the same unit are overseas now, spread between Iraq and Kuwait. They're focused on the U.S.-led effort to train and assist the Iraqi troops doing much of the fighting against ISIS there. 
So why send the 82nd to Kuwait?

Theater Reserve?

Special Operations Support?  They are spread all over Kuwait so they might be doing the Army's version of distributed operations.

Rescue force for US units in danger of being over run?  Kinda far away for that, but I'm sure they have elements that have pushed forward and are setup in remote parts of the desert.

Occupation troops for Mosul or parts of Syria when ISIS is finally killed?  Doubt it.  They're too lightly equipped for that nonsense and Trump has stated that he isn't interested in nation building (ignore that "take the oil" stuff...it won't fly and even if it did we'd have to send Divisions not a Brigade Combat Team).

I don't know.

The Pentagon way of doing this is kinda curious.  Why send parts of your global response force when the 173rd is sitting in Europe waiting to do their job here.  With the distances involved and with the force being so light why not use the 101st (they are truly the forgotten division in the Army right now).

We see the outlines of the end game with regard to ISIS and the US order of battle is starting to take shape but the plan that's to be implemented is still murky.  I guess we need to be patient and see how this goes.

Blast from the past...LOSAT (Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank) for Early Entry Forces

Saturday, March 11, 2017

VBTP 6x6 is now in the hands of the Lebanese Army!


Pic via Defense Blog, story here.

General Amos. I'm not a fan but his vision of the USMC was spot on...

Thanks to John for the link!


via San Diego Tribune.
"The Marine Corps is America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness * a balanced air-ground-logistics team. We are forward-deployed and forward-engaged * shaping, training, deterring and responding to all manner of crises and contingencies. We create options and decision space for our Nation's leaders. Alert and ready, we respond to today's crisis, with today's force...TODAY. Teaming with other services, allies and interagency partners, we enable and participate in joint and combined operations of any magnitude. Responsive and scalable, we operate independent of local infrastructure. A middleweight force, we are light enough to get there quickly, but heavy enough to carry the day upon arrival. We operate throughout the spectrum of threats * irregular, hybrid, or conventional * or the shady areas where they overlap. Marines are ready to respond whenever the Nation calls...wherever the President may direct."
Then this...
 Factoring all aspects of our role in the Nation's defense, the United States Marine Corps affords the following three strategic advantages:

* We provide a versatile ‘middleweight' capability to respond across the range of military operations.

* We possess an inherent agility that buys time for national leaders and provides them decision space to better analyze developing situations.

* And finally, we bring an enabling and partnering capability to joint and combined operations of any magnitude.
So tell me something readers.  Remember my post from yesterday?  You can check it out here but focus on the part where a serving General is describing the USMC.
 Lt. Gen. Gary Thomas, deputy commandant for programs and resources, said the Marines had not invested as much money into modernization overall as the service would have liked, due to spending caps and near-term readiness challenges, but he said in terms of the aviation versus ground force spending “we do feel like we are balanced.”
“We are a light general purpose force. 
If we're changing from a medium weight general purpose force that can scale up and down the spectrum of combat to a light general purpose force then we need to re-do roles and missions and let the Army know that they're gonna be taking on a bigger slice of the ground combat pie.

What's worse?  It appears that there is no confusion and that the goal IS to become a light general purpose force (if the old adage of "don't listen to words, watch what they spend money on" applies).

General Thomas is the Deputy Commandant for programs and resources.  It's his job to build the Marine Corps to plan.  Either he lied, misspoke or doesn't know what the hell he's doing.  You pick which one.

5 takeaways from the Marines landing in Syria via Washington Examiner.


via Washington Examiner.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that U.S. Marines of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are now deployed in northern Syria to fight the Islamic State. They are likely proximate to the U.S. rebel ally-held town of Ayn Issa, about 50 kilometers north of the Islamic State capital, Raqqah. This is significant news for five reasons.

First, it shows the final battle for Raqqah is imminent. This deployment is too large to mean nothing. With more than 2,100 Marines in complement, each MEU is also endowed with tanks, around 20 helicopters (including Ospreys), close air support jets, and armored assault vehicles. An MEU, in short, really packs a punch. The Pentagon would never amass such military power unless for something significant. That something, as I noted recently, is the seizure of Raqqa.

Second, It shows Trump believes boots on the ground can be positive. Until now, Trump has railed against significant U.S. military ground force actions in the Middle East. This action suggests he has changed his mind. Requesting Trump's authority to send the Marines ashore, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regional CENTCOM commander, General Votel, would have made clear the risks.
Third, this deployment shows the Pentagon is preparing for the post-Islamic State Syrian environment.
Read the whole thing here. 

The entire article is worth the read, but I highlighted the third point for a reason.

It worries the hell outta me.

Winning battles is something that the US military does well.  Stabilizing and rebuilding countries is a Pentagon fascination and they keep doing it (rather trying to do it) and failing.

I don't know how tight a grip on the wheel Trump has on this military operation, but I hope to God that he doesn't get us caught in building another nation...no matter how much his General's beg him to.

JESUS! The CH-53K is now more expensive than the F-35A!


via Inside Defense (behind a paywall)
The Marine Corps CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter program's cost has increased by 22 percent over the baseline estimate and the price is higher than the Air Force F-35 variant, according to House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee Ranking Member Niki Tsongas (D-MA). Tsongas said during a March 10 hearing the 22 percent cost growth equates to $122 million per copy. The F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing jet costs the taxpayer $94.6 million per copy in the Lot 10 buy. 
The Marine Corps cancelled the EFV because of its high cost.  Slow walked the ACV because they prioritized aviation over the ground component.

Now?

Now we see costs for a freaking helicopter exploding to over 100 million dollars per!  I'd rant but I'm frankly too shocked for words.  I thought the CH-53K would be the one aviation program that delivered on time and at a reasonable price.  I was wrong.

Open Comment Post. March 11, 2017

via IVANgraphics.com (click here)

The Shooter by Mauricioabril

mauricioabril“The Shooter” - A story that I came up with two years ago actually but only just now got to draw it out. As a fan of storytelling I always let the art dictate the medium and this one seemed like it could only live as a comic. Hope you all have a great weekend!


Friday, March 10, 2017

Congress Critter asks why the Marine Corps spends so much on aviation, so little on ground component!


via USNI News
The Marine Corps’ top financial officer told lawmakers that the service considers its modernization programs properly balanced between aviation and ground needs, while acknowledging that there hasn’t been enough money in recent years to buy the ground assets at a proper pace.
The Marine Corps has faced the challenge in recent years of having to replace all its aircraft types, while simultaneously having to replace ground vehicles and amphibious vehicles and connectors. None are cheap, and having nearly a dozen modernization programs at once – plus across-the-board sequester cuts and then annual spending caps – has further complicated the service’s modernization outlook.
House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee ranking member Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) asked during a Marine Corps modernization hearing today whether too much priority had gone to aviation in recent years instead of ground vehicles and equipment.
“While the Marine Corps certainly has a need for aircraft of many types, the ratio of spending on aircraft compared to ground equipment is striking. The Fiscal Year 2017 budget request was no exception to this trend: in it the Marine Corps requested approximately $1.5 billion for procurement of ground equipment and ammunition, however in the same president’s budget it requested $5.3 billion for just five aircraft programs: the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, the CH-53K King Stallion helicopter, the V-22 Osprey, the AH-1 attack helicopter and the KC-130 refueler,” she said during the hearing.
“While the individual aircraft programs in question are likely very important when taken individually, the scale of the imbalance – more than three to one in just this fiscal year – suggests that upgrading aircraft is currently valued higher than upgrading ground equipment. I have some concerns about this ratio of spending on aircraft versus ground equipment, given the Marine Corps’ mission to be the premiere force in readiness and the historical reliance that the nation has placed on the Marine Corps’ role in ground combat.”

Lt. Gen. Gary Thomas, deputy commandant for programs and resources, said the Marines had not invested as much money into modernization overall as the service would have liked, due to spending caps and near-term readiness challenges, but he said in terms of the aviation versus ground force spending “we do feel like we are balanced.”
“We are a light general purpose force. One of the things that gives the Marine Corps an advantage on the battlefield is its mobility and its fires. Much of that comes from aviation,” he said.
“The ground side, in terms of fires, mobility – those are equally as important, but if we were just to look relatively how we’re investing across aviation and ground, without looking at the cost – although there are significant differences there – but in terms of capability and capacity, we think we’re balanced.”
First.  WELL DONE TO Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.)!!!

Second.  The ratio is off, has been off since Amos and the concept for operations hasn't kept up with the changing battlefield.  Too many eggs are being placed in the aviation basket.

Third.  Since when is the Marine Corps a "light general purpose force"????  I have always been taught, told, and preached that the Marine Corps is a medium weight force able to scale up and down the spectrum of warfare.  America's Shock Troops!

This is good news.  Someone in Congress gets it.  

Rosomak 6x6 is born!

Thanks to Galvars for the link!


Story here (you'll need a translator).