ZBD-04 IFV is starting to look like a proper armored vehicle!

Thanks to AllAboutTheMilitary192781 Tumblr Page!

I can't put my finger on it but the ZBD-04 has changed.  Its looking like a proper armored vehicle now.

A quick search (yeah I was gone for about 10 min) revealed that they've done a design change.  Below is the old model.

Remember my warning that it was about time for the Chinese to start modernizing their armored forces?

Looks like that time is now.  There is another vehicle out that I was unaware of called the ZBD-08 that is even more heavily armored and armed than the ZBD-04A (vehicle at the top of the page).  Check this out from Thai Military and Asia Region Blog.

How would I class it?  How about a seagoing, cheap BAE CV90 equivalent (supposedly capable of sea state 2 - 3...not sure how the Chinese classify sea states though).

RIwP Tall / Mk44 / M240 / 1 or 2 Axis / PS2 Configuration

The Marine Corps MUST bite the bullet and introduce the ACV with a RWS mounting at least a 30mm cannon just to keep pace (I'm with many of my readers and like the offering from Moog).

We tarried too long and now the Chinese have at caught up to us when it comes to IFVs.  Even worse?  It could be argued that they've surpassed the Marine Corps.  The dye is cast.  We're riding the ACV pony so we need to get it into service poste haste with a proper weapon system.

The armored threat from the Red Dragon is real.  We need proper swords to defeat him.

Blast from the past. LCAC Ballistic Missile Platform.

Thanks to ZeeDesertFox Tumblr Page for the pic!

Wow.

America was once the land of the mad scientist.  I couldn't have come up with this idea in a million years.  Who in their right mind would think of launching a ballistic missile from an LCAC?

Simply Amazing!

Hillary is part of the resistance movement? That means something important...

via NYMag.com

Hillary Clinton is through with long walks in the woods — on Tuesday, she told Christiane Amanpour at a Women for Women International event in New York that she’s back to being an “activist citizen” and “part of the resistance.” For Clinton, that entails speaking out about the role misogyny played in the election — something she’s mentioned before.

“It’s really troubling to me,” she said. “Whatever your political party, whatever your ideological bent, you have a stake, as a woman and a man, in ensuring that the promise of equality that we hold out and the efforts that so many women and men have made over the decades to secure it don’t go backwards.”

Hillary is still in shock from losing the election.  I can cut her some slack with her desire to be embraced by fellow democrats.

What I can't understand is how so many dems are throwing around the word "resistance" so casually.

Resistance movements is defined in military counterinsurgency manuals.  It ain't something nice either. Put this in terms of military history.  French Resistance?  Irish Republican Army? Unita, the Contras, Taliban...they're all examples of resistance movements.

We usually call them terrorists, they view themselves as freedom fighters but the results are the same.  They seek to foment chaos and to overthrow the govt.

Check out this incomplete but adequate definition from Wikipedia.

A resistance movement is an organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. It may seek to achieve its objectives through either the use of nonviolent resistance (sometimes called civil resistance), or the use of force, whether armed or unarmed. In many cases, as for example in Norway in the Second World War, a resistance movement may employ both violent and non-violent methods, usually operating under different organizations and acting in different phases or geographical areas within a country.[1]

I didn't notice it till Hillary stated she was part of it, but the talk of "a resistance movement" is not a playing matter.

It's deadly serious.

Usually I'd laugh it off but these are democrat leaders talking like this.  What if the democrat party actually views itself as a resistance movement and not an opposition party?  Whatever it means it can't be good.

Open Comment Post. May 3, 2017

Advanced Super Hornet Leader's Brief from Boeing Defense...

As many of you know, Boeing has launched a full scale assault on the F-35 (especially with the US Navy but I suspect with many others around the world) and while I begged on bended knee for them to give me a copy of the White Paper that's suppose to be floating around, but they refused.

They did give what I'm calling a "leader's brief" on the Advanced Super Hornet. Why is this important?  Because if you've taken time to read the latest defense budget documents then you would have noticed that the Navy is still in the hurt locker with regard to its ship maintenance program.
Simply put, there are too many needs for too little money and the F-35 is sucking up all the oxygen in budgets around the world.  Check out the brief below.

Block III F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet Capabilities
Boeing has worked closely with the Navy to address the strike fighter shortfall as well as to ensure the air wing has the capabilities needed to win in the 2020s and beyond.

The strike fighter shortfall solution – working to get the right capacity of aircraft to the carrier air wings – includes both new production aircraft and a robust service life modification program (SLM) to extend and modernize the Super Hornet fleet.

To address the capabilities needed in the air wing as early as the 2020s, Boeing has also developed the Block III Super Hornet to complement existing and future air wing capabilities.  Block III is the same aircraft as Advanced Super Hornet.

These capabilities can be both built into new aircraft and incorporated into existing aircraft during SLM, allowing maximum ability to field these capabilities quickly and affordably.  Block III Super Hornet is built from the same airframe as Block II, providing low risk development and maintaining the lowest operating costs of any U.S. tactical fighter.  While Boeing demonstrated advanced Super Hornet capabilities in flight in 2013, the package of upgrades has evolved to best complement F-35, EA-18G and E-2D as they will be operating together in the air wing well into the 2040s.

Key features of Block III Super Hornet:
       
*  Enhanced network capability with a system that improves computing power (DTP-N), network throughput (TTNT) and sensor/platform integration, allowing large amounts of data on and off the airplane and making F/A-18 a smart node on the network.  It also has the increased ability to receive targeting information from platforms like the F-35, EA-18G and the E-2D Hawkeye.

*  Longer range with low-drag, stealthy conformal fuel tanks.  The

shoulder-mounted tanks can carry 3,500 pounds of fuel and reduce drag, allowing the aircraft to operate longer, go faster, and/or carry more weight.

*  Long-range detection with Infrared Search & Track (IRST). The long-range sensor can detect and target threats without having to depend on radar, generating a multi-ship, common tactical picture at long range and allowing the Super Hornet to operate as a smart sensor node on the network
       
*  Enhanced situational awareness with a new Advanced Cockpit System.  A new 10 x 19 inch touchscreen display provides the pilot with the capability to see, track and target multiple long range targets generated by the common tactical picture.
     
*  Improved signature with low observable next generation radar cross section for increased survivability.
9,000+ hour life for reduced life cycle costs by incorporating design changes into production aircraft based on lessons learned from the Service Life Analysis Program

Is it just my imagination or does it seem like they're trying to sell the entire package that they developed to the Navy and not a few bits and pieces from the A.S.H.?

Doesn't really matter.

The full buy of F-35's ain't gonna happen.  The Pentagon, LM, the USAF and Marine Corps all know this.

The F-35 fan club asked for a plan B if the F-35 didn't work as advertised...well here it is!

 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle a model of procurement efficiency?

via National Interest.

The U.S. Marine Corps’ plan to replace its aging fleet of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV7) is about to take a major step forward.  By the end of June, the two teams vying for the contract to build the first of a series of increasingly sophisticated Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV) will each provide the Marine Corps with 16 prototypes of their proposed solution for testing. The current plan is to release a final request for proposal by the end of the year and award a contract for the first tranche of some 200 ACVs by June 2018.  Delivery of these vehicles is to be completed by 2025.

The ACV program is a model for how a military service with an urgent need to enhance its warfighting capabilities, but constrained by a lack of time and a scarcity of funds, can pursue near-term modernization. The Marine Corps’ initial effort to replace the AAV7 with a new platform, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), an altogether remarkable armored platform capable of high speed movement from landing ships to shore, fell afoul of a combination of changing requirements and declining procurement budgets. In response, the Marine Corps came up with a clever solution: a phased modernization program for the ACV that would produce sets of increasingly capable platforms as technology and resources become available. In addition, to meet the Marine Corps’ near-term needs, some 400 AAV7s will be upgraded.

A model for others?  Really?  Fucking seriously Dan?

That might fly on other defense blogs but not this one.  Let's do the tick tock (and this is just from memory...if I pulled out my library it would be much worse) on this ongoing travesty.

1.  The USMC embarks on the EFV program.

2.  Changing dynamics require the EFV to become blast resistant.  The design is changed again after finally hitting it's stride.  Costs rise.

3.  In a move to mitigate the cost increase of the EFV, the Marine Corps launches the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) so that the goal of providing armored protection for two Marine Expeditionary Brigades can be met.

4.  The CMC (Amos at the time) starts trotting out the theory of extremely long distance ship-to-shore movements.  As far as 200 miles out is actively talked about.  Many suspect this is a move by the Aviation Mafia inside the Corps to gobble up more funds and to justify the MV-22.  They're right.

5.  The MPC program is cancelled.  In light of changing requirements, the Marine Corps will now lift 2/3rds of its combat power ashore by air instead of the previous 1/3rd.  The Ground Combat Element is turned on its head, trying to figure out ways to get armor ashore by helo instead of landing craft.

6.  The outcry from the tribe is intense.  More money for aviation but nothing for the ground?  Amos puts the MPC program back on track.

7.  In another last minute move Amos reclassifies the MPC program and abandons any attempt at this time to get a high water speed armored transport.  Instead he rebrands the program as being the Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0.  That's the part that everyone misses.  ACV 1.1 was only suppose to swim inland waterways.  Manufacturers stepped up and are now providing vehicles that can match the AAV in swimming from ship-to-shore.  2.0 is suppose to be a tracked vehicle and if I got it right 3.0 was suppose to be the uber high speed tracked vehicle.  In short the ACV is suppose to be our interim vehicle...the Marine Corps "Stryker".

You would think that's where the story ends right?  Wrong!

8.  Even after deciding to buy an off the shelf vehicle, the Marine Corps continued to slow walk the project.  In the time it's taken Brazil to field a new 6x6, upgrade their M-113s and begin working on an 8x8 based on the 6x6 the USMC is just NOW approaching the time to take delivery of 16 vehicles for a year long test.

This program is many things but a model for others?  I think not.  Our only hope is that our Marines finally get a vehicle that matches others on the modern battlefield.  That AAV upgrade and ACV?  They're the only game in town that the Corps has for high intensity combat. 

China's AG600 Seaplane taxi testing...

Thanks to MicMac80 for the link!



What's even crazier than the Chinese putting (or about to) into service a C-130 sized seaplane?  The fact that I think it would make sense for the US Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard!

This is another one of those things that ole Sparky talked about and everyone made fun of him....but he was right!  Unfortunately the Chinese see the utility.  Kinda makes ya think they're digging up Marine Corps concepts that were discarded doesn't it?

War drums haven't stopped beating for N. Korea

via The Blaze.

The North Korean media warned America on Tuesday that the U.S.’s “military provocations” will push the Korean peninsula “close to nuclear war.”

“Due to the U.S. military provocations that are becoming more explicit day by day, the situation in the Korean peninsula that is already sensitive is being driven to a point close to nuclear war,” a North Korean news anchor warned via the media as per a translation done by Reuters.

A North Korean newspaper added that the nation was “waiting for the moment it will reduce the whole of the U.S. mainland to ruins.”

The North Korean threat emerged from the state-controlled KCNA news agency just hours after the United States flew two B-1B bombers in training drills with South Korean and Japanese military.

President Donald Trump’s sentiments from last week seemed to echo the anchor’s and newspaper’s warnings.

Last week, the president said that a “major, major conflict” with North Korea was possible, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson revealed that the military action isn’t too far off — and is “on the table.”

In an Oval Office interview with Reuters, Trump said, “There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely. We’d love to solve things diplomatically but it’s very difficult.”

Have you guys noticed something?

1.  That carrier battlegroup has gone silent.  The only thing we've heard is that a Japanese Burke style ship linked up with them.

2.  Remember the story about the Navy SEALs going to S. Korea to practice a decapitation strike against the little fat man?  We haven't heard a peep from them since then.

3.  Remember stories of the 2nd ID and elements of the Marine Corps in Japan being put on alert?  I've scoured the internet and haven't read a thing about them going back to normal operating tempo.

Now we have this from the N. Koreans.

The drums haven't gone silent, they're just out of ear shot of the general public and most of our fellow citizens have a real short attention span.

This thing isn't ramping down.  People are still doing stuff to get ready for war and the dance of death continues.  It ain't over yet people.  Trust me.  It ain't over. 

Rand's Enhanced Army Airborne Proposal. MUST READ!

Thanks to SNAFUperman for the link! (that's really dude's screen name)

I made the contention that the US Army is finally acting on Mike Spark's long ago proposal to make Army Airborne Mechanized.  Well what did I find in my in box?  A note from SNAFUperman confirming my suspicions and linking to the above document.  He added this comment...

In response to your posts about the 82nd trying out the LAV-25, check out the 2014 RAND report  The report calls for a mix of LAV-25s (Stryker is too heavy) and gun platforms like the M8/"Mobile Protected Firepower". This is EXACTLY what is going on.

The chilling thing for Marine Corps planners?  While the USMC is trying to ramp down to "Expeditionary Squads" and "Company Landing Teams" to chase terrorists in the Middle East and perhaps support SOCOM raids, the Army is pushing to fully mechanize the 82nd.

In other words they'll have a global response force that can ACTUALLY hold its own against other middle weight forces.  They'll go from being speed bumps to actually being able to hold ground and even seize it from all but top tier enemy forces.

The only thing worse would be some hardcore Army Colonel to get the idea of making the 101st useful again and converting it back to an airborne instead of air assault unit.

I shared the report (properly this time) and you can find it here. 

F-35 funding is screwy as hell!

NOTE!  Inside Defense is offering a free one month subscription and while there are MANY good defense journals, I'd have to say they're one of the very best.  Do yourself a favor and take advantage of it!

Story here.

Now the subject of this blog post.  Something is screwy as hell with the funding provided to the Joint Program Office.  What do I mean?  Check this out from Inside Defense (read the above to get a peek at the whole thing).

"The agreement directs the JSF PEO to use a contracting approach that would award all aircraft included in each Department of Defense Appropriations Act on the respective production contract for that fiscal year," the language states.

The bill, if enacted, would fund 74 F-35s in FY-17 -- 50 for the Air Force, 18 for the Marine Corps and six for the Navy. In their respective budget requests, the Air Force asked for 45 jets, the Marine Corps 16 and the Navy only four.

This is interesting but to be expected.  Congress Critters respond to money. They'll make the Pentagon swallow gear they don't want if some shady ass lobbyist from say....Lockheed Martin....pushes for the funding.

Still its pretty damn curious that the Marine Corps is seemingly ramping down on its buy instead of being all over the 18 jets offered.  The Navy's position is obvious but the USAF's stance is also puzzling.

Could it be that even the services are now getting a bit alarmed at the idea of buying mistake jets?

Forget all that for a second and check this part out.

 "It is imperative that requested information is received promptly for proper congressional oversight of this major defense acquisition program," the bill states.

The language highlights tension between Congress and the JPO over program reporting requirements. A congressional source told Inside Defense last month the program has yet to submit a report required by the FY-17 National Defense Authorization Act that would include key cost and time lines for Block 4 follow-on modernization as well as annual funding profiles for development and procurement. The report was due March 31.

For the past few years, Lawmakers have reduced funding for Block 4 due to a lack of clarity on its requirements. The program finally completed a capability development document, which the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee approved in March, after a nearly 15-month delay, but the new appropriations bill proposes a $160 million cut to Block 4 -- $76 million from the Air Force's budget request, $44.5 million from the Navy's and $40 million from the Marine Corps'. That cut follows a $125 million reduction from the services' budget request in FY-16.

What the hell is going on with funding for Block 4?

Are they trying to push money forward to get the initial testing completed?

I'm not sure what I'm reading here so any help would be appreciated!

Let's talk Leopard 2AV and put that drama to rest!

Some internet memes just won't die.  For some reason certain memes have more lives than a demon cat hopped up on crack being fueled by Satan himself.

The idea that the Leopard 2AV was superior to the M1 Abrams is another one of those memes.

Short story is that this "effort" came about because of a desire to standardize NATO gear.  With the demise of the MBT-70 it was decided to standardize as many components across the US and West German tank fleet.  Eventually this led to the Leopard 2 AV (Austere Version).

But I'm heading off into the woods.  Back on track.  Many armor fan boys believe that the Leopard 2AV was unbelievably capable and only lost out because of the insufferable Americans that refused to buy a vehicle not invented here.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  I don't feel like pulling out my dusty old Hunnicutt so Wikipedia will do.

In July 1973 German Federal Minister of Defence Georg Leber and his US counterpart James R. Schlesinger agreed upon a higher degree of standardization in main battle tanks being favourable to NATO. By integrating components already fully developed by German companies for the Leopard 2, the costs of the XM1 Abrams should be reduced. A German commission was sent to the US to evaluate the harmonisation of components between the XM1 and Leopard 2.[14] However, by American law it was not possible for a public bidder to interfere in a procurement tender after a contract with intention of profits and deadline was awarded to companies of the private industry.[14]

As a result, the modification of the Leopard 2 prototypes in order to meet the US Army requirements was investigated. Following a number of further talks, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed on 11 December 1974 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the USA, which declared that a modified version of the Leopard 2 should be trialled by the USA against their XM1 prototypes,[15] after the Americans had bought and investigated prototype PT07 in 1973.[16] The MOU obligated the Federal Republic of Germany to send a complete prototype, a hull, a vehicle for ballistic tests and a number of special ballistic parts to the USA, where they would be put through US testing procedures for no additional costs.[17]

The Leopard 2AV (austere version) was based on the experiences of the previous Leopard 2 development. It was created in order to meet the US requirements and the latest protection requirements of the German MoD. The turret T14 mod was used as base for the Leopard 2AV's turret, but meeting the required level of protection for the hull required several attempts until the final ballistic trials on 23 to 26 June 1976.[18] Following the US' preference of laser rangefinders, the turret of prototype PT19 was fitted with a laser rangefinder developed together with the American company Hughes.[19] In comparison with the earlier Leopard 2 prototypes, the fire control system was simplified by replacing the EMES-12 optical rangefinder and removing the crosswind sensor, the air-pressure and temperature sensors, the powder temperature sensor, the PERI R12 commander sight with IR searchlight, the short-range grenade launcher for use against infantry, the retractable search-light, the spotlight, the retractable passive night vision sight, the APU and the mechanical loading assistant.[17]

Due to the design and production of the Leopard 2AV taking more time than expected, the shipment to the US and the US evaluation was delayed. It was not possible to test the Leopard 2AV before 1 September 1976.[18] Despite the German wish that the Leopard 2AV and the XM1 prototypes would be evaluated at the same time, the US Army decided not to wait for the Leopard 2AV and tested the XM1 prototypes from Chrysler and General Motors beforehand.[14][20]

Two new prototype hulls and three turrets were shipped to the US: PT20 mounting a 105 mm rifled L7 gun and a Hughes fire control system, PT19 with the same fire control system but able to swap out the gun for the 120 mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, and the PT21 fitted with the Krupp Atlas Elektronik EMES-13 fire control system and the 120 mm Rheinmetall gun.[16] The Leopard 2AV fully met the US requirements.[21] A study made by the American FMC Corporation showed, that it was possible to produce the Leopard 2AV under licence in America without exceeding the cost limits set by the Army.[21] But already before the trials were finished, it was decided that instead of the US army possibly adopting the Leopard 2AV, the focus was shifted on the commonization of components between the two tanks. FMC, after having acquired the licences for production of the Leopard 2AV, decided not to submit a technical proposal, as they saw little to no chance in the US Army adopting a vehicle not developed in the USA.[20]
The US Army evaluation showed that on the XM1 a larger portion of the tank's surface was covered by special armour than on the Leopard 2AV.[20] Differences in armour protection were attributed to the different perceptions on the expected threats and the haste in which the Leopard 2AV was designed to accommodate special armour.[20] On mobility trials the Leopard 2AV performed equal to better than the XM1 prototypes. The AGT-1500 gas turbine proved to consume about 50% more fuel[22] and the Diehl tracks had a higher endurance, while the tracks used on the XM1 prototypes failed to meet the Army's requirements.[21] The heat signature of the MTU diesel engine was much lower.[22] The fire control system and the sights of the Leopard 2 were considered to be better and the 120 mm gun proved to be superior.[20] The projected production costs for one XM1 tank were $728,000 in 1976, the costs for one Leopard 2AV were $56,000 higher.[20]

After the American evaluation of the Leopard 2AV and the US army's decision to opt for the XM1 Abrams, both American and German sources blamed the other side. According to American literature it was discovered, that the Leopard 2AV prototype used for mobility trials was underweight.[nb 1]

In Germany the test conditions were criticized for being unrealistic and favouring the XM1. Instead of using actual performance data, the calculated hypothetical acceleration was used.[22] The XM1 was found to have a slightly higher rate of fire despite having internal layouts similar to the Leopard 2AV, because the XM1 prototypes were manned by professional crews, while the Leopard 2AV had to be manned by conscripts in order to prove that the Leopard 2AV was not too complicated.[22] Firing on the move was demonstrated on flat tracks, which nullified the better stabilization systems of the Leopard 2AV.[22]

That's a pretty good summation of the Leopard 2AV story.

So what's the lesson here?

Don't believe the armchair generals (or even real generals when they're talking about the F-35) or German armor fanboys...especially on Armored Warfare or War Thunder forums (nothing wrong with those sites, its just the information is sometimes shady).

LFC 63: Gerald Harris vs. Aaron Cobb via MMA Gifs Tumblr Page.

Dude got concussed.  Never heard of Harris but he's a bit long in the tooth for MMA at 37 years old.  Wonder why he isn't fighting UFC?  Sherdog has his profile here.