Saturday, February 20, 2021
Thursday, February 18, 2021
Marines receive improved optic to identify threats from longer distances
via Marines.mil
MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va.—Marines recently received an innovative new optic that better prepares them to engage adversaries from longer distances.
In January, Marine Corps Systems Command’s Program Manager for Infantry Weapons began fielding the Squad Common Optic—a magnified day optic comprising an illuminated and nonilluminated aim-point designed to improve target acquisition and probability-of-hit with infantry assault rifles.
The SCO can be attached to the M4 and M4A1 Carbine as well as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. It will supplement the attrition and replacement of the Rifle Combat Optic and the Squad Day Optic for each of those weapons for close-combat Marines.
“The Squad Common Optic provides an improved day optic to infantry and infantry-like communities, including reconnaissance units” said Tom Dever, project officer for Combat Optics at MCSC. “It’s a system that improves situational awareness and decreases engagement times, greatly benefiting Marines.”
SCO an improvement over RCO
The SCO enables Marines to identify targets from farther distances than the existing RCO system.
Roger Boughton, MCSC’s lead engineer for the SCO program, said the RCO has a fixed magnification, whereas the SCO provides a variable power. This means Marines can use the SCO to identify targets at both close and far distances, providing twice the visual range of the RCO.
“Having an optic that can reach out to longer distances will ultimately make the Marine a more lethal first-shot shooter,” said Boughton. “This means they can use less rounds to overwhelm an enemy.”
Maj. Kyle Padilla, MCSC’s optics team lead and an infantry officer, said the SCO is agnostic to the round and weapon system, which provides additional flexibility for Marines. This allows for movement to a different host weapon and accommodates the employment of the M855, M855A1 or future ammunition.
“It’s all about making an accurate decision,” said Padilla. “The SCO gives squad leaders or individual riflemen more time to make a decision to eliminate that threat if necessary.”
The system is also easy to assemble. The SCO includes a mount that prevents Marines from needing to carry tools to remove or exchange the optic, lightening the load for Marines.
“If you want to mount it onto the rail of the weapon, you don’t need a wrench to tighten anything,” said Boughton. “You just need your hands.”
‘A step in the right direction’
The SCO program moved rapidly from program designation to fielding in just 16 months. After awarding a contract, PM IW conducted various user assessments, including a simulated 10,000-round fire exercise, during production verification testing to confirm performance and resolve issues.
During these evaluations, Marines raved about the benefits of the SCO and its improvement over the existing system.
“Being able to shoot farther, identify targets at greater ranges and be more accurate will make them more lethal,” said CWO4 David Tomlinson, MCSC’s infantry weapons officer. “Marines have expressed excitement over this capability.”
CWO4 Gerald Eggers, the infantry weapons officer at The Basic School, participated in the system’s fielding in January, aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. He commended the scope’s variable power magnification as well as its ability to be employed with different ammunition and weapons.
“Marines with M27s will greatly benefit with this scope,” said Eggers. “I certainly believe the SCO fielding is a step in the right direction.”
Dever said the fielding of the SCO puts an improved capability into Marines’ hands more quickly and enables them to carry out their missions more efficiently and effectively.
“The rapid acquisition and fielding of improved capabilities is vital to equipping the Marine Corps to operate inside actively contested maritime spaces in support of fleet operations,” said Dever.
The program office anticipates the weapon reaching Full Operational Capability in fiscal year 2022.
"Arguably the single most important decision I've seen in defence circles for well over a decade"
Read the entire Twitter thread! THOUGHT PROVOKING FOR NOT ONLY THE USAF but also our allies! Additionally Berger has already signaled that the USMC will be reducing its buy of F-35s. THIS IS HUGE FOLKS!
PS. The gravy train is over!!!!
Arguably the single most important decision I've seen in defence circles for well over a decade.https://t.co/GjKCNvD5hu
— Francis Tusa (@FTusa284) February 18, 2021
1° Air Brigade Special Operation of Italian Air Force
1° Air Brigate Special Operation of #ItalianAirForce🇮🇹, is the component dedicated for tactical transport and for airborne troops, with the task of managing Special Forces (17°#StormoIncursori) and the Protection Forces for land defence of A.F. installations (16° Prot. Forze). ✈️ pic.twitter.com/aAaJyTQfu0
— Ciro Nappi (@CiroNappi6) February 18, 2021
Is this good leadership, bias against single soldiers, development of an "unfit" warrior culture or none-of-the-above?
One of the best officers I know is calling it quits bc he realizes he can’t preserve his fam and keep working. Me and one of my best friends (another LTC) struggled w the same tension - we both failed, both lost our wives. I’m glad this other guy is getting right. /2
— Nick F. (@NCFranklin) February 17, 2021
Is this good leadership? What about the single soldier that is having to bear the additional load while these family men/women are at home doing their thing? Is this the warrior culture we want or is it an aberration that should be fully thought thru?
Seems to me like this is the same issue that people face on the job in or out of uniform. So why are they pushing so hard in the military now? Long hours are expected if you want to rise in corporate America, why is it different in the military?
I just don't know.
What I do know is that at one time people talked about the sacrifices they made to "make it". What happens to a society/culture/military when success is available without it?
Regardless.
What's your thoughts? I'm of really no opinion on this. Either way is good with me but I can see the pitfalls BOTH WAYS!
‘Clean Sheet’ F-16 Replacement In The Cards
Thanks to StarshipDirect for the link!
Before we can even get to the article we have to be clear and answer one question. What airplanes was the F-35 suppose to replace. via Military.com
The F-35 is designed to replace aging fighter inventories including U.S. Air Force A-10s and F-16s, U.S. Navy F/A-18s, U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and U.K. Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way let's get on to the main event. via Breaking Defense.
The study will include a “clean sheet design” for a new “four-and-a-half-gen or fifth-gen-minus” fighter to replace the F-16, Brown elaborated. Rather than simply buy new F-16s, he said, “I want to be able to build something new and different, that’s not the F 16 — that has some of those capabilities, but gets there faster and uses some of our digital approach.”
Brown explained that the idea would be to build on the lessons learned in digital engineering for the “e-series” T-7A Red Hawk trainer, and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD). In particular, Brown said he would like to see any F-16 replacement sport “open-mission systems” that would allow near-real-time software updates to meet new threats.
Is the F-35 going away? Nope. Too many have been bought. But one thing is obvious. Just like Roper said. It costs too much to maintain.
All the fanboys that kept claiming that costs were getting under control, all the defense officials that stated this is a "die in the ditch" airplane have been proven wrong.
All the critics (and you know who they are...I'm talking about the guys that were onto this thing before I was) are RIGHT!
The USAF is launching this initiative and a few things are obvious.
The F-15EX is here to stay and the USAF will probably buy more.
The F-35 will not be the basis of the F-22 replacement. That ship has sailed and all the happy talk surrounding that airplane has finally evaporated.
The idea that the USAF is talking about taking a step BACK to a gen 4.5 airplane makes me wonder about the very efficacy of stealth. What is going on in the background? What do they know either about stealth or the version of stealth that the F-35 has that makes them think against a peer foe the upgraded F-16 type airplane is a winner?
My guess?
The Navy CNO was right.
They're going for payloads over platforms.
Regardless the critics can take a moment to chest thump. The fanboys need to sit down and rethink their drink.
For better or worse the USAF is looking for a 4.5 F-16 type airplane that can carry the day while the F-35 will probably serve only a fraction of its projected life. 2070? It'll be lucky to make it to 2035.
What is the USMC's specialty now?
Quick question.
What is the USMC's specialty now?
Berger has dumped amphibious assault. The US Army is the now confirmed leader in combined arms. The US Navy is the master of combat at sea. The USAF (along with it's dept sibling) is the master of aerial warfare.
So while the USMC assists the Navy in the sea fight, its not the master of that fight. It's an enabler. An asset. An assistant at best. Oh and all that depends on location. Another battle of the Atlantic or its mirror fight in the Pacific and there is no room for the littoral fight.
Berger has claimed that his new concept will be useful in the Persian Gulf but do you really see how these Littoral Regiments would be of use in that confined waterway? In Northern Europe? How? Why? We bring nothing to the land fight and I doubt we'll have targets for our missiles to go after at sea. The Russians will be parachuting specops all over the place to disrupt rear areas while they're rushing to capture...whatever! We're clearly not gearing up to fight in the Arctic (thank God the US Army, Navy and Air Force have that covered) so we'll sit that out too.
Additionally the US Army is building the same capabilities. You can bet that we'll soon see the 25th ID tasked with the same mission set and in the name of jointness will be climbing aboard amphibious ships.
So how does this concept guarantee the USMC's viability to the nation?
Forcible entry is gone. HA/DR is probably off the table. What better time to strike than when you have part of the force rendering aid...and make no mistake...with these penny packets of Marines you'll need to mass forces to provide suitable assistance or it'll only be a token force, one built for the media and not to render aid.
The only forces that are truly viable under this new plan is Missile artillery and Marine Aviation. Not even sure rotary winged aviation...I'm talking about fast movers.
What use is infantry in a sea fight? We don't fight from riggings anymore!
And the big question is why are we even maintaining a seat on the JCS? Why aren't we seeing a savage cut in the number of generals? How can such a large force structure be justified if its just missile slingers and aviation?
By rights, with the one region/one foe concept we're seeing the USMC SHOULD BE CUT to about 125K at MOST!
Two recruit depots? Why? Two major bases stateside? Why? A couple of Logistics bases? Pure folly!
If you take forcible entry off the table, if you take land combat off the table, if you eviscerate the MAGTF then the USMC should be a shadow of its former self both in tasking and in numbers.
Tell me why I'm wrong!
US Army's Robotic Combat Vehicle (M) arrives
Robotic Combat Vehicle (M) arrived today. Forge the Future? You better believe it! #USArmy @armyfutures pic.twitter.com/bujQICoJCm
— U.S. Army NGCV CFT (@NGCVCFT) February 18, 2021
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)