USMC F-35 performance at Red Flag not what we were told?

via The Drive.

 A reading between the lines would seem to prove Marine F-35Bs were still far from ready for actual combat a year after the service declared the aircraft had achieved initial operational capability (IOC). It's especially enlightening to read after the Air Force's impressive claims about its own F-35As at Red Flag 17-1 in February 2017, where pilots reportedly racked up an impressive kill ratio of 15-to-1, a figure that was later revised to 20-to-1.

Interesting.  What else does the article have to say?

Bardo did not include his squadron’s win/loss ratio for Red Flag 16-3, but blamed all losses on pilot error or the exercise’s constraints. The limits of Nellis’ training range, artificial no-fly areas, and rules that confined the jets in a 1,000 foot “altitude block,” meant the F-35s could play to their strengths, he wrote. Based on the available information, we cannot independently assess those claims.
Even with these limitations, VMFA-121’s aviators had “the ability to use the aircraft's high fidelity sensors to share data over Link-16 [data link] with fourth-generation assets with less capable sensors/radars,” Bardo explained. “This type of non-kinetic support was a force multiplier and enabled fourth generation escort assets to be more lethal and survivable.” 

The whole story is here..read the article before you comment!

SAIC/ST Kinetics Terrex 2 ACV highlighted on Breaking Defense.

Breaking Defense has a "how it came to be" story on the Terrex 2 ACV and why SAIC teamed with ST Kinetics to offer it to the Marine Corps.

While I'm truly conflicted on which vehicle is best (swim test will be the deciding factor I believe...I wonder why BAE has gone dark when it comes to talking about the SuperAV?) I truly think we're at a point where we can't go wrong in the pick.

What still irks is how long it's taking to get this off the shelf vehicle into production (yeah...I know off the shelf is a talking point and not reality especially when it comes to the Terrex 2, but you get what I mean).

Regardless, its a neat little article and worth a few minutes of your time.

Open Comment Post. March 10, 2017.

Thanks to Anthony 256 for the pics!

US Army Rangers in Syria...does this mean a change in SOCOM operating philosophy?

via Army Times

A team from the 75th Ranger Regiment is operating in Syria as American forces ramp up the fight against ISIS in its capital city. 
The special operators and a Marine artillery unit are positioned in Syria to provide support to the commander of Operation Inherent Resolve in the effort to liberate Raqqa, according to a U.S. Central Command spokesman. 
"The exact numbers and locations of these forces are sensitive in order to protect our forces, but there will be approximately an additional 400 enabling forces deployed for a temporary period to enable our Syrian partnered forces to defeat ISIS in Raqqah," Air Force Lt. Col. John Dorrian told Marine Corps Times in a statement Wednesday. 

Apparently the Strykers were carrying markings that identified the unit as being Army Rangers.  I missed that part, but the idea that Rangers are on the ground and not Special Forces makes me wonder.

Are we seeing a change in philosophy?

Special Forces adopted the raid and only raids concept when the current fighting in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan should be their solo playground.  This is the kind of fight where "combat multipliers" should RULE the day.

But they switched to raids.

The same could be said of Navy SEALs.  It could be said that historically they've been more focused on recon than direct action, but they've recently embraced that as their primary mission.

They've also gone all raids.

There is a problem though.  Terrorists have formed much larger groups and its common to run across at least company sized group if not bigger.  6-8 man sized actions are no longer appropriate.  This can be seen in the sniper communities in both the Army and Marine Corps.  Two man teams have given way to six and now almost platoon sized groups go out hunting.

Is it possible that small unit (meaning smaller than platoon sized) actions are no longer viable?  Could my preaching that on the modern battlefield company sized elements are too vulnerable, even against terrorists and that conventional units should operate at battalion strength?

If the philosophy is changing then we're about to see Rangers and MARSOC come to the fore as the units of choice for special ops missions.  Special Forces and SEALs will have to re-evaluate and probably start operating in company sized elements.  The culture shock for these units will be extreme but I think it's the future...especially if the raids and only raids attitude persists!

Under Control by Marek Okon via Camerxn Tumblr Page!

“Don’t worry Ma'am, we have them under control”

Open Comment Post. March 9, 2017.

Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump (vid)

Levin makes a pretty good case.  I'm conservative so I'm biased but I believe this guy.

Defence Technology Review Magazine video tapes Boxer CRV heading out to the range

Australia.  Talk about a weird place.  The testing is taking place at Puckapunyal how do you even pronounce that?  What madman came up with a name like that?  Exactly how much crack do you have to digest to be able to pronounce that correctly?

Australia.  Beautiful country.  Beautiful women.  Fucked up animals and names of places.

United States Marines have landed in Syria!

Thanks to Filippo for the pics!

Pics are via Charles Lister's Twitter Page.

Trying to find out if this is just an artillery battalion (or smaller) and the infantry battalion (or smaller) providing security.  Either way it's apparent that after Dunford met with his Russian and Turkish counterparts that destroying ISIS is NOW the number one goal of the United States.

About fucking time!

This is how you end the refugee crisis.  This is how you arrange for the headchoppers to get their 72 goats!

Discussion. How effective is the Russian anti-air complex of the Pantsir S1-3 and S300v4?

Above you see infographics on the Pantsir S1-3 and S300v4 anti-air gun/missile systems.

Earlier today I got into a pissing match with a reader over a story regarding Israeli F-35's already having been in combat striking a warehouse in Syria.  The source of the story went on to say that the reason for the strike was to keep Hezbollah from obtaining Pantsir anti-air missile systems that he said would deny the Israeli Air Force access to Lebanon.

I took the story of Israeli F-35's being used in combat with a grain of salt.  Quite honestly I rate it as propaganda for the program.  What made me sit up and take notice was the claim that the Pantsir could give the terrorist a ready made anti-access aerial denial weapon.

If that system is that good then it would be a huge development for the region.  We're already seeing terrorist groups challenge nation state armies on the ground, but if they could do it in the air then that would be an alarming new "thing" that could change things in the ME in the near term.

Which brings me back to this.

How effective are these systems?  I want opinions.  Is the Frenchie right?  Could the Pantsir deny the Israeli Air Force entry into Lebanon?  Could the teaming of the Pantsir and S300v4 effectively nullify US efforts (if it came to that) of destroying Iranian nuclear weapon sites?

What do you think.

First to Fight | Marines land in Vietnam (vid) & Modest Proposal for a name change.

In today's military the "expeditionary" is applied to every damn thing.  It's been co-opted by every branch to such a point that even the USAF calls its air wing's "expeditionary".

The term has lost its flavor and is no longer distinctive.

I propose a name change that is in keeping with our history and yet will once again set USMC units apart from others.

Dump "expeditionary" and go to the Vietnam standard "amphibious"!

What do I mean?  During the Vietnam War the USMC changed the name of its MEU's to MAU...Marine Amphibious Units.  The name change was to prevent form offending the locals that had a bad experience with French expeditionary units (if I'm remembering my history....correct me if I'm wrong, I'm tossing this up on the fly).

So in essence we went from MEU, MEB, MEF to MAU, MAB and MAF.  Marine Amphibious Units instead of Marine Expeditionary Units might seem contrary to Marine Corps history but we've used it before and it would be in keeping with the idea of the Corps returning to the sea.

Either way its just an idea and if it costs too much to change the letterhead then it should be rejected on those grounds alone.

Pic of the day....USS Makin underway