Thursday, May 13, 2021

AJAX Brimstone Anti-tank Guided Weapon ‘Overwatch’ Variant

Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)

Rheinmetall – Kodiak to be the Bundeswehr’s new combat engineer vehicle

U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18D Hornet aircraft from Marine All Weather Fighter Squadron 224, Marine Aircraft Group 31, deployed to Prince Sultan Air Base, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Poland's 18th Mechanized Division preps for Exercise Dragon 21...

 

Wow. Iraq made a memorial from the wreckage of our drone strike on the Iranian General

 

Is Iraq OUR ally or are they an ally of Iran?  I'm having a real hard time understanding whose side they're on!


MV-22's aboard the UK's Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier...

Nice overview of the Brit Carrier Strike Group here.

UK's 3rd PARA & 13th Air Assault Support Regiment at Exercise Joint Warrior

 

SWIFT RESPONSE 21 - Night Airborne Insertion

SWIFT RESPONSE 21 - Night Airborne Insertion from Joint Forces on Vimeo.

Airborne Assault is the last remaining form of forcible entry we have.

It will be hard.

It is not to be undertaken lightly.

It will be an "all hands on deck" moment.

But if we have to do it, it is an option.  Our only remaining option to put boots on the ground in a place where the enemy doesn't want us to have boots on the ground.

31st Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted helicopter support team (HST) training

 

1st Marine Air Wing Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO) Exercise...

 

Wow.

I'm seeing some movement toward retaining what is probably called "legacy" skills like this NEO exercise but at the same time its sprinkled with the "Stand In Force" narrative.

I don't see how both can exist.

Additionally I've seen alot of the captions calling the Marine Corps a "Stand In Force" AND A "Force in Readiness".

Again.

I don't see how both can exist in the same organization.  Quite honestly one role will be prioritized over the other. Or am I just wrong? 

Challenger 3 Infographic...

 

The Brits are confusing.

They'll happily put US Marines on their carrier to fill the bulk of the airpower.  They'll happily join tag along with our nuclear program so that they can maintain that capability.  They'll happily sail half way around the world to participate in activity against the Chinese in the brewing troubles in the Pacific.

But they won't take excess Abrams for pennies on the dollar so that they can maintain a modern armored force on the cheap?

I just don't get it.

The Challenger 3 looks capable but I'm betting that they're gonna run into the same problem they did previously.  We're looking at the high water mark of that vehicle right now with no upgrade path.

The Abrams will be upgraded and eventually replaced.  It's latest incarnation at LEAST equals what they've labored to produce and like I've already said.  They could be had for a song, fall in on Army logistics and gain savings.

The old chestnut about the turbine is just plain silly.

The Challenger is a nice tank but from my seat it just don't make sense (oh and I know...Leopard fans are shouting but the Abrams could be had cheaper, quicker and with a more robust logistics system).