Bradley Family of Vehicles. An out the box GCV.

At 50 seconds into the video BAE shows the vehicle with the turret removed.  With the upgrades found in the CV90 Armadillo applied to some legacy Bradley's you have a low cost solution.  BAE is ready to move on this.  The US Army should take them up on it.

Army Chief of Staff wants lighter GCV.

via Defense News.

Gen. George Casey said he thinks the future replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle needs to be much lighter than the estimated 70 tons program officials are projecting that the new GCV will weigh. 
"I keep saying, 'Look, man, an MRAP [mine-resistant ambush-protected] is about 23 tons, and you're telling me this is going to be 70 tons, which is the same as an [M1] Abrams. Surely we can get a level of protection between that, that is closer to the MRAP than it is the M1,' " Casey said June 7. "It's not going to be a super heavyweight vehicle."
Casey's comments come less than a month after Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli said at the Armor Conference at Fort Knox, Ky., that the GCV would weigh 50 to 70 tons.

After we all said WTF!  a 70 ton IFV, it seems that the Army Chief of Staff is walking this cluster back.  Good for him.  If the US Army actually stayed with a 70 ton IFV, then the USMC would be doing all the fighting ...well the USMC and the 82nd....

Casey might have just saved his service.

US Warships to intercept Iranian Flotilla.

Major Hat Tip to Resident Author.

Via Israeli National News.

Despite Egypt’s reported refusal to block the canal to Iranian boats, the clearance for the American-Israeli fleet may be a warning to Iran it may face military opposition if the Iranian Red Crescent ship continues on course to Gaza.
The warships may exercise the right to inspect the Iranian boat for the illegal transport or weapons. Newsweek reported that Egyptian authorities could stop the ship for weeks, using technicalities such as requiring that any official documents be translated from Farsi into Arabic.  
The magazine’s website also reported that the Iranian navy is the weakest part of its armed forces. Tehran has already backed down from announced intentions to escort the Iranian ships with "volunteer marines” from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Read the whole thing but I smell a public relations move by the US Administration rather than an escalation towards possible action at sea.

Obama is attempting to balance two conflicting truths.  First he's sympathetic to the Muslim world and seeks to bolster his image in the region.  Second, he needs to bolster his standing with the Jewish community here in America or a valued source of campaign contributions goes away.

Playing Russian Roulette with warships on the high seas is a dangerous game to play.  Lets hope he has a better plan for this "possibility" than he did after 50 days of oil spilling into the gulf.

You want to fight in the Littoral Zone? Retask the Riverine Units.

 Keeping with the theme of warfare in the Littoral Zone.

If you REALLY want to fight in this area then the LCS is not the answer.  No, the answer is to retask the Riverine Units and have them operate in Green and Brown water.

This is going to be a major undertaking however.

 First you have to re-equip them with CB-90's or equal boats.  Their rigid raiders can operate far afield but in order for them to be effective they need a slightly larger boat.

Next you need to provide them with some type of mother ship.  I really hate the idea of dedicating an amphib to the mission of supporting these Littoral Action Groups (my new name for the organization) but its necessary.  We should take an LPD that is to be retired, service life extend it (again) and have it act in this role...we'll need three.  One for action in the Pacific, Atlantic and Middle East.

Lastly you need to have dedicated air assets devoted to fighting in the Littoral Zones, supporting these Littoral Action Groups yet capable of operating from the decks of the mothership.  In other words bring back the Sea Wolves.  The US Navy should bring back its attack helicopter component.  Ideally it would simply be additional CH-60's armed with hellfires.  This would allow a fast response when necessary to emerging threats detected by radar or recon UAVs/aircraft and it would simplify logistics.

This would give you a force capable of operating in the Littoral Zone effectively.  If its a counter-insurgency at sea then this force will be optimal.  If its full scale warfare then hand the issue back to the big boys---Burke's, Subs and Aircraft Carriers.

Lets not fool ourselves.  Full scale combat in the littoral zone will shred LCS and this new organization I propose.  This will also bring our doctrine in line with common sense.  The littorals are dangerous.  If its less than full scale war then the Littoral Action Group, equipped with CB-90s, LPD motherships and dedicated CH-60's can handle it.

This leaves the question.  What do we do with the LCS?  I'm sad to say, we scrap it and move to a cheaper solution.  It is looking more and more like the Navy's version of the FCS...a concept that was designed in haste to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Please Explain.

I was reading an article by Chris Rawley over at Information Dissemination and I'm a bit confused.  Read his article here.  But he makes this statement...

In an hybrid warfare environment, a stateless enemy with only a handful of higher end, state-provided, sea denial capabilities such as anti-ship cruise missiles will likely choose his targets carefully to maximize impact at a minimal cost. A capital surface combatant off the coast makes a more tempting and high profile target than a larger number of smaller green water combatants.

This leads me to my confusion.

1.  Why would we build ships that are in other words designed to be lost...along with the crews...in order to preserve our capital ships...
2.  How can the SecDef question the relevance of Amphibious Assault while at the same time pushing the concept of the building Littoral Combat Ships if amphibious assault can't occur because of anti-ship missiles, shore batteries etc???

This is almost idiotic! 

Greg over at Defense Tech penned an article you can read here.  In it he made this statement.

The proliferation of low-cost, precision anti-ship missiles into the arsenals of potential enemies means large deck amphibious ships are becoming “wasting assets.”

So amphibious assault doctrine is to operate 50 miles or more off shore and now the US Navy is designing a class of ships to push in closer???  We are actually embarking on a path where we will have 50 or more 600 million dollar a piece throw away ships to operate in hostile, congested waters with small crews and limited defensive countermeasures and its the path of the future?

Wow.

I DON'T GET IT!

Pic of the day. June 19, 2010.

100617-N-7948R-125 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 17, 2010) Marine pilots assigned to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (15th MEU) fly an AH-1W Super Cobra during flight operations aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5). Peleliu is part of Peleliu Amphibious Ready Group, on a scheduled deployment to the western Pacific Ocean. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Russell/Released)

100617-N-7948R-175 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 17, 2010) A Marine pilot assigned to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (15th MEU) flies an AH-1W Super Cobra during flight operations aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5). Taylor is participating in theater security cooperation activities in the Adriatic Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Edward Kessler/Released)

100617-N-1200S-947 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 17, 2010) The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) conducts a replenishment at sea with the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6). Freedom and Bonhomme Richard are scheduled to participate in RIMPAC 2010, the world's largest international maritime exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Marcus L. Stanley/Released)

100617-N-1200S-914 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 17, 2010) The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) conducts a replenishment at sea with the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6). Freedom and Bonhomme Richard are scheduled to participate in RIMPAC 2010, the world's largest international maritime exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Marcus L. Stanley/Released)

NOTE: Is it just me or does it seem like everytime the LCS goes out to sea for more than a day its conducting replenishment exercises to keep it in the game? It has no endurance to speak of and it seems like a dedicated mothership might be necessary if the Navy goes ahead with procurement of these ships...or old fashioned forward bases.

Interactive displays.

Major hat tip to Bob for the Hawkei site.  I've already heaped praise on the effort put out by BAE and Thales Australia for providing the public with information on their new vehicles.

You can see the BAE interactive CV90 Armadillo site here.


and...

You can see the Thales Australia interactive Hawkei site here.

Hagglunds SEP is now BAE Alligator!

Ground Combat Vehicle. 70 tons? Really? Really!

A commenter made this statement on a previous post.

H.G. Rickover said... No IFV will weigh up to 70 tons, Sol. That is an exaggeration.

Armor adds weight, but not in the same manner as old-fashioned steel plates. Besides, APS is a sound attempt to reverse the weight-gain spiral.

Trophy and IronFist are both mature APS currently being adapted across IDF armor fleet.

He also used this Army Times article to back up his assertions...

“We’re looking at a vehicle that ranges in weight between 50 and 70 tons,” Chiarelli said Wednesday at the Army’s armor conference.
He said he’s been involved in some heated discussions lately about the GCV and the debate “always comes down to the weight of the vehicle.”
Critics point out that at 70 tons, the GCV would be the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle in existence and as heavy as the Abrams tank. Chiarelli said the extra weight in armor protection would be used only when needed.
“We’re not talking about a 70-ton vehicle, we’re talking about a 70-ton vehicle when we need it,” Chiarelli said.

The Army has been walking back the weight on this vehicle ever since people got wind of it and collectively said WTF!!!!

As a matter of fact, my buddy Johnathan (it would be nice if you included the author and publication!) sent me an article where the Army Chief of Staff is quoted as saying that he wants the GCV to weigh less than projected.

Parts of the Army is aware that this is a non-starter.  Parts of the Army is disturbed by the possibility of having a vehicle that will not be strategically mobile.

Parts of the Army (it appears) wants a different set of requirements.

The curse of FCS strikes again.

But back to the point of this entire exercise.  The GCV is slated to weigh up to 70 tons.  That my friends is a fact.

USAF rejects Pentagon price estimate for the F-35.

More bad news for the anti F-35 goons!  Via Defense News.

The U.S. Air Force's top acquisition official said June 18 that the service is not using the Pentagon's latest cost estimates as its baseline price in its negotiations for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter."There is no vectoring by the [F-35] negotiating team" based on estimates by the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office released this month predicting that the overall costs of the airplanes could reach as high as $92 million each, David Van Buren, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said during a briefing. "We're focused on the instant contract proposal at hand."
The Pentagon's top weapon buyer, Ashton Carter, "holds us accountable not to accept a will cost [estimate] but to drive for the lowest cost across the board," added Van Buren.
This means that Air Force negotiators are pushing aggressively for what "we believe is the appropriate cost" for the jets, Van Buren said. He did not elaborate on those numbers.

Read the whole thing here...but to sum it up, the F-35 will meet the original costs estimates.  The news of the F-35's demise has been exaggerated.

Exercise Desert Vortex 2010.

Photography: SAC Andy Masson/ SAC Neil Chapman/RAF/MOD/Crown Copyright 2010.

Terminal Lance for the Gear Freaks...

Terminal Lance says it much better than I ever could.  This passage from TL says it all...

Well this is a pretty easy subject, I suppose. Everyone knows the guys that go out and spend all of their money on any new piece of gear they can find. Anything that makes them look like someone out of a videogame or some BLACKHAWK! ad in Leatherneck Magazine. It’s the stuff that usually no one needs, but somehow it always finds it’s way into the hands of the guys who go outside the wire the least–if at all.

Go to his site to read the whole thing...and subscribe to the guy...you'll love his military humor.

Pic of the day. June 18, 2010.

Major Hat tip to StrategyPage.com

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (June 4, 2010) Marines assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Platoon of the 3rd Assault Amphibious Battalion (3rd AABN) conduct amphibious assault vehicle maneuvers on Red Beach at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif. during Dawn Blitz 10. Dawn Blitz is a series of amphibious operations involving Sailors and Marines to reinvigorate the core competency of amphibious operations and enhance interaction between the Navy and the Marine Corps. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Joshua A. Rucker)

Australian Special Forces Vid.

Via Australian Ministry of Defense. I tried 3 different labels to describe this vid. It ranged from Propaganda to After Action Report. I didn't know how to classify it other than a General being proud of his troops.

You decide.

Christopher F. Foss on the Ground Combat Vehicle.

via Janes.

Combat weight could be more than 60 tonnes because of the high levels of protection required as a result of operational experience in Iraq and more recently Afghanistan. With such a heavy platform, there will be constraints as to where the vehicle can be deployed. It is expected that the GCV will be fitted with a remote-controlled turret armed with a 30/40mm ATK MK44 cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.

I am so happy to see the "experts" finally weighing in on this concepts extreme weight.  Foss is the first of (I believe others will join him) many voices raising concerns about the strategic mobility of this vehicle.

As a side note, I wasn't aware that the Puma was 42 tons...a better option might be to simply upgrade Bradley's.  This GCV concept is sounding more and more like a terrible idea.

Piranha V Brochure.

Another follow up on some of the vehicles that caught my eye at Eurosatory.  The Piranha V has crossed the threshold.  A 30 ton wheeled armored vehicle?  I can't wait to see how it performs operationally.  The Germans are pushing the class with the 'Boxer' but I'm still not sold.  I wonder if it would be cheaper for the Army to buy new built Piranha's instead of doing a radical upgrade to their Strykers.

Piranha Clas5 En

380th Air Expeditionary Wing Unit Poster.

"The mission is and 18-year-old with a rifle. All else is support" is a sentiment expressed by wing leadership at the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing which is home to 1,900 personnel supporting one of the most diverse combat wings in the Air Force. The wing's mission is to provide high-altitude all-weather intelligence, surveillance, reconaissance, airborne command and control and air refueling for Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa. To accomplish its mission the wing is equipped with four diverse weapons systems which are shown as silhouttes. From top to bottom, The RQ-4 Global Hawk, E-3 Sentry, U-2 Dragon Lady and the KC-10 Extender. They are a unique combination of aircraft which act as the "eyes and ears" serving as guardians of the sky for troops on the ground and providing greater range and endurance for coalition aircraft over the battlefield.
Photo by Captain Cathleen Snow.

More AH-1Z's.

via DefPro.

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $546,001,600 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the manufacture and delivery of lot seven UH-1Y and AH-1Z helicopters for the Marine Corps, to include 18 UH-1Y build new aircraft; nine AH-1Z remanufactured aircraft; and two AH-1Z build new aircraft. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (60 percent), and Amarillo, Texas (40 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-10-C-0035).

Another program operating in the background that's getting the  job done.  The change from the AH-1W to AH-1Z is progressing nicely (to include the upgraded UH-1Y).  After a rough start its nice to see them hitting stride.

New NH-90 TTH pics.

courtesy EuroCopter.

BAE TRT-25mm Turret.

Of all the products that are currently being displayed at Eurosatory, the one that is perhaps as exciting as any other is the TRT 25mm turret.
bae_pdf_trt25mm_ds

Compact, modular and able to accommodate weapons up to the 30mm Bushmaster, this could be a system that the US military can finally standardize on.

I like it!