Its time.
Time to get protectionist with US defense spending.
We might not have the best product for a given task.
We might not have the best gear for our troops.
But it needs to be American made. I'm a fan of the CV90. I'm a fan of the Patria AMV. I'm a fan of the Force Protection Europe Ocelot.
But our defense dollars need to be spent on and for US products. Sad fact. We are the biggest market in the world and every corporation in the world is trying to wiggle in on it. Sad fact. If we had even a semi functioning Attorney General Office, then all these mergers/acquisitions wouldn't have gone through. We're allowing legalized monopolies that are destroying our defense base. Sad fact. Our gear will get the job done. There is no need to go overseas for it.
Its time to play this game the way the Chinese, Europeans and other countries around the globe play it. Free Trade is free for some but not for the US. Want a strange take on things? Read the Early Warning Blog. On one of his posts he speaks up mightily for the Beechcraft product in the USAF light attack program vs. the offering from Embraer.
What is that except protectionism?
Its mainstream and its right. Time to protect US industry.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Modest proposal. SHUT down US European (all) Commands.
Modest proposal to piggy back on the SecDef's words to NATO...Shut down the European Commands and bring every service member home and shutter every base.
Shut down.
US European Command.
US Army Europe.
US Air Force Europe.
US Navy Europe.
USMC Europe.
Why am I so convinced that this is the proper course of action? Check out this chart from Wikipedia just covering USAF bases in Europe. While you're looking at it consider the economic activity that could be generated from bringing just the USAF home, building housing for them and the extra business that would be generated in whatever base they're sent to.
Secondary and Support Facilities:
That my friends is just the USAF!
Bring all our forces home. Let Europe be responsible for Europe and lets get some common sense back into our defense spending.
UPDATE:
Don't think that I would stop at shutting down bases in Europe. I'm talking about a global re-alignment. Shut down bases in S. Korea (they can handle N. Korea just fine thank you)...Shut down bases in Japan. Guam is fine. The only new base I would seek is one in the Northern Territories of Australia. Northern Australia is lightly populated and I would ask the Australians if they would look kindly on a joint base housing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Units on it. I would also seek to make use of the vast terrain for training opportunities.
Shut down.
US European Command.
US Army Europe.
US Air Force Europe.
US Navy Europe.
USMC Europe.
Why am I so convinced that this is the proper course of action? Check out this chart from Wikipedia just covering USAF bases in Europe. While you're looking at it consider the economic activity that could be generated from bringing just the USAF home, building housing for them and the extra business that would be generated in whatever base they're sent to.
Operating bases via Wikipedia.
The command has five main operating bases along with 80 geographically separated locations. These are:
|
|
|
|
That my friends is just the USAF!
Bring all our forces home. Let Europe be responsible for Europe and lets get some common sense back into our defense spending.
UPDATE:
Don't think that I would stop at shutting down bases in Europe. I'm talking about a global re-alignment. Shut down bases in S. Korea (they can handle N. Korea just fine thank you)...Shut down bases in Japan. Guam is fine. The only new base I would seek is one in the Northern Territories of Australia. Northern Australia is lightly populated and I would ask the Australians if they would look kindly on a joint base housing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Units on it. I would also seek to make use of the vast terrain for training opportunities.
EFV replacement...another view.
In an ideal world, then, the Marines would be able to take the things they know worked well about the EFV, including its weapons, for example, or engine and other components, and graft them onto a new, more reliable swimming hull. But that goal of reliability may mean the new vehicle doesn’t have the transforming bow ramp that the EFV had, and as such may not be able to skim over the water at its same high speeds.What has me spinning is that I thought the discussions were over. That the threshold had been breached and that Navy ships would move closer to the beach.
What’ll be interesting is whether the Navy and Marines update their amphibious doctrines to make room for their new vehicle, or whether they’ll keep the same assumptions and try to somehow get a cheaper EFV Lite. The Navy and Marines believe that in tomorrow’s amphibious operations, the proliferation of guided anti-ship missiles will make it too dangerous for Navy assault ships to stand very close to the coast. So the Marines needed the high-speed EFV to get to shore quickly on the assumption the fleet would take station over the horizon, far away from the beach.
That one requirement will make or break the EFV replacement. This definitely bears watching.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
USMC Sea Basing Docs.
The USMC Sea Basing Site is back up...but unfortunately its been scaled back to obscene proportions. What drove this is beyond me but they did put up 3 new documents. A Why, How and What in regards to the Sea Base.
What is Seabasing
Why We Seabase
How We Seabase
The beauty of the Sea Base is that it codifies the turn toward the Pacific and away from Europe/Middle East. The bad thing about the Sea Base is that its still being promoted to allies that bring nothing to the table and will allow those same 'allies' to continue to sit on the sidelines with token forces...in this instance Naval Forces...while the US and its real partners will be engaging in real work---be it humanitarian assistance (Remember the Japanese Nuclear Crisis? Who didn't you see there? Many European countries!) to peace keeping and of course war.
UPDATE:
USMC Seabasing Website.
What is Seabasing
Why We Seabase
How We Seabase
The beauty of the Sea Base is that it codifies the turn toward the Pacific and away from Europe/Middle East. The bad thing about the Sea Base is that its still being promoted to allies that bring nothing to the table and will allow those same 'allies' to continue to sit on the sidelines with token forces...in this instance Naval Forces...while the US and its real partners will be engaging in real work---be it humanitarian assistance (Remember the Japanese Nuclear Crisis? Who didn't you see there? Many European countries!) to peace keeping and of course war.
UPDATE:
USMC Seabasing Website.
Mid Rats.
Want to hear what military bloggers have to say about the mess that is NATO? Listen to Blog Talk radio.
UPDATE:
What a disappointment! Little talk about NATO...and when it was covered the 'guest' sounded like an apologist for Russia.
When does the US ever get someone to ever speak up for our own interests? This 'guest' also talked in glowing terms about NATO and stated that they need to aim for small wars! If Libya isn't a small war then what the fuck is!
Even more of a kick in the nuts is the fact that the hosts didn't sufficiently challenge this guys assertions. To be honest I felt like I was listening to a college lecture. No debate, just opinion. And liberal opinion at that.
What a complete 180 degree difference from the hosts writing.
Never again will I invest an hour listening. Never again.
UPDATE:
What a disappointment! Little talk about NATO...and when it was covered the 'guest' sounded like an apologist for Russia.
When does the US ever get someone to ever speak up for our own interests? This 'guest' also talked in glowing terms about NATO and stated that they need to aim for small wars! If Libya isn't a small war then what the fuck is!
Even more of a kick in the nuts is the fact that the hosts didn't sufficiently challenge this guys assertions. To be honest I felt like I was listening to a college lecture. No debate, just opinion. And liberal opinion at that.
What a complete 180 degree difference from the hosts writing.
Never again will I invest an hour listening. Never again.
The US SecDef---and Bloggers telling Europe an uwelcome truth.
As usual the Euros (yes I know you consider it money on the other side of the Atlantic--I'm using it as a collective nickname for the pacifist set) over at Think Defense are blaming everyone and there mother for the lack of European 'guts' when it comes to fighting a 9th rate power like Libya and coming up short.
In a nut shell. Europe needs to man the fuck up.
Well, its just not me saying this...others are too...of course they're alot more diplomatic but the results are the same.
European Defense is an oxymoron.
First up... CDR Salamander's Website...
And then this from DOD Buzz...
In a nut shell. Europe needs to man the fuck up.
Well, its just not me saying this...others are too...of course they're alot more diplomatic but the results are the same.
European Defense is an oxymoron.
First up... CDR Salamander's Website...
We have been too polite for too long.Read the whole thing----please read the whole thing and follow his links. He makes the argument much better than I ever could.
And then this from DOD Buzz...
The defense secretary was even harsher in his critique of NATO’s command of the Libya operation. After an initial bombing campaign run by the Americans, the alliance took over the air war and Mr. Gates warned that NATO may not be up to the task.NATO is a lost cause. Its another of the many money pits that's draining the US treasury. It's beyond time we put that old war horse out of its misery.
“The mightiest military alliance in history is only eleven weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.
While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.
“Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t,” Mr. Gates said. “The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”
Assault Breacher Vehicle. Perfect except for one thing.
Above you see the Assault Breacher Vehicle. Perfect except for one thing. One pretty big thing I would imagine if I were a Combat Engineer. What is it you ask? For the answer lets look at what came before.
The M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle (CEV) had a 165mm Assault Gun designed to knock out enemy fortifications. The ABV doesn't have that.
Perhaps it isn't as important these days due to precision artillery, precision air strikes and guided anti-tank missiles that can be used in the bunker busting role.
I'm not sure of the rationale for not including an assault gun on the ABV but it would be nice if it could be explained.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
SEAL/SWCC Training.
Got this vid from their FaceBook page.
Navy SEAL Qualification Training [SQT] from Navy SEALs on Vimeo.
Navy SEAL Qualification Training [SQT] from Navy SEALs on Vimeo.
Marine Corps Mechanized History Sites.
 | |
| Marine Corps Mechanized Museum |
 |
| Amtrac.Org |
A very brief history of Marine direct fire systems.
LVT(A)1
LVT(A)4/5
LVTH6
M4 Sherman
M103
LVTPX-12* Note I found this photo on the internet but am having trouble finding information. The issue lies in its designation. When the Marine Corps was developing an LVTP-5 replacement, it came up with two different sized vehicles in its evaluation phase. One was a larger (some would say full sized APC) and the other is pictured here...more of an M-113 sized purpose built amphibian. From what I've read they both fell under the LVTPX-12 designation but history only records information on the victory...the vehicle that would eventually become the AAV. No worries, I'm still looking for more information. See the update below.
The rest of the history everyone already knows. The M-60 MBT, the LVTP-7/AAV and the M1 Abrams MBT. What I wanted to show in this brief over view is the startling fact that the Marine Corps once insisted on Direct Fires to be amphibious. Even if that requirement no longer applies, then certainly new constraints are appropriate. Weight, logistics tail...being where the Infantry needs it, when the Infantry needs it.
These are things that the current MBT just can't do.
How do we know this? Quite simply by the way that these vehicles are being utilized in Afghanistan. They're not working with and protecting the Infantry...the guarding MSRs. A properly equipped MRAP can do that ---mount the proper sensors, put a few designated Marksmen on it and you have your guard.
We need INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLES...not MBTs. More to come.
UPDATE:
Got this from BB1984.
The rest of the history everyone already knows. The M-60 MBT, the LVTP-7/AAV and the M1 Abrams MBT. What I wanted to show in this brief over view is the startling fact that the Marine Corps once insisted on Direct Fires to be amphibious. Even if that requirement no longer applies, then certainly new constraints are appropriate. Weight, logistics tail...being where the Infantry needs it, when the Infantry needs it.
These are things that the current MBT just can't do.
How do we know this? Quite simply by the way that these vehicles are being utilized in Afghanistan. They're not working with and protecting the Infantry...the guarding MSRs. A properly equipped MRAP can do that ---mount the proper sensors, put a few designated Marksmen on it and you have your guard.
We need INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLES...not MBTs. More to come.
UPDATE:
Got this from BB1984.
It's off topic but I believe the last pic you have is actually of the LVTHX4, an armed development of the earlier M59 based LVTPX2, so yes roughly the size of an M113. There was also a twin 40mm armed AA version that was sort of in between the two called the LVTAAX2. As the designations suggest, these were all developed before the LVTP5.I stand corrected. This does bring up another point though. Our armor history is being lost. Alot of the sources for this type of material are withering away. FAS and others are becoming pay sites...the only hope is that the US Army Armor Center and Marine Corps History stay in the fight to preserve our military history.
About the only reference I have seen for the LVTPX-12 says it was the designation given to LVTP-7 prototypes delivered in '67-'68 before the production run started in '70.
Just FYI, FMC did propose an AAV version of the M113 called the LVT(X). It looked like a smaller LVTP-7, carrying 13 troops, and had a fire support variant with a turreted low pressure 90mm gun and troop carrying cut to 6 to make room for the turret and ammunition. The Italian San Marco brigade also deploys a modified M113, which again looks like a mini-LVTP-7, for amphibious work.
A day without Heavy Armor. Could the MEU survive???
Later today I'm going to expand on a discussion that me and B. Smitty have been having on heavy armor and the Marine Corps.
B. Smitty is a heavy armor advocate and I'm just not so sure.
Want to know what Infantry...what USMC Infantry fears (we're talking conventional warfare...not an insurgency)? Its not tanks...modern Infantry can handle tanks...what modern infantry fears is artillery fire.
With that in mind I penned an article stating that the BAE CV90120 should be the Marines next MBT.
But barring that a few other items come to mind....if we can't get the CV90120, then how about the turret from the Stryker MGS mounted to a Marine Corps vehicle...say the MPC or even the AAV?
Give the mission (if its ever required) to an Army detachment assigned to the Marines and find a smaller lighter vehicle to get it done.
Gates..the Ugly American and Europe.
I originally posted my thoughts on this subject. No need. And this is purely for American readers. Want to know how Europeans feel about you?
About your spending for their defense?
About the expense of basing units on their soil to defend their interests?
Read ....
Think Defense
Especially the comments...and...
Defense and Freedom
Long story short. This marriage is dead. Leave Europe to their own devices. The UK, and the rest of them. Lets see how they do in their next war. The bastards will be begging for help. Personally, I'm tired of the America bashing.
About your spending for their defense?
About the expense of basing units on their soil to defend their interests?
Read ....
Think Defense
Especially the comments...and...
Defense and Freedom
Long story short. This marriage is dead. Leave Europe to their own devices. The UK, and the rest of them. Lets see how they do in their next war. The bastards will be begging for help. Personally, I'm tired of the America bashing.
Friday, June 10, 2011
GRAPHIC! DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE EASILY DISTURBED. Pakistani Police kill a young man for stealing a cell phone.
And these barbarians are suppose to be our ally? I don't think anything in the Middle East is worth our association with them...not even oil. Barbarism.
Armed Scout Helicopter...a tale of three companies.
 |
| AH-6I |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| OH-58II |
 |
| OH-58II |
 |
| OH-58 II |
The Armed Scout Helicopter competition is a tale of three companies. Two of those companies have the savy, have the knowledge of "publicity" and the modernity to realize that information on their products will help in the arena of public debate. One company is a dinosaur. Lost in the days when newspapers led the way and everyone sat in front of the TV to hear Walter Cronkite.
As much as I pound on EADS and Euro Copter they're doing it right. They're claiming market share on the civilian side of the market in the US and they're trying real hard to get into the military market here in a big way.
Bell Helicopter is a leader in the industry and has several projects its leading on. Its well established with the Department of Defense with its current offerings being the current Scout Helicopter, the AH-1Z, the UH-1Y and the V-22. Its maintaining market share in the civilian market with its offerings there.
Boeing is a dud. Its biggest military claim to fame is the F-15, its partnership with Bell on the V-22 and its Chinook helicopter.
But its playing the game old school. This time old school isn't good school.
I wanted this post to be a description of the three contenders for the contract after watching Trimble's video on the AH-6I that he posted today.
I can't do that. No information is publicly available on the AH-6I except from "established sources"...I won't play that game.
Check out the websites of the two companies that actually do care enough to make their information available to us lowly bloggers and those that happen to read them.
Websites you should check out.
This should be the USMC's next Main Battle Tank.
Advantages over the M-1
1. Lighter yet has the same firepower.
2. Has equal cross country mobility...maybe more mobility due to its lighter weight.
3. Lower fuel consumption.
4. Less cube space aboard ship.
5. Allows easier transportation to shore.
6. Compatible with Trophy defense system.
Liabilities in comparison to the M1.
1. Not able to stand up to other MBT's in combat.
Its quite clear. If the Marine Corps is to continue to operate all weather, direct fire weapon systems in support of the Infantry then tanks are a must. The M1 is too heavy, too thirsty and takes up too much space aboard ship to be compatible with continued Marine Corps service.
Time to give BAE a call.
Principal Characteristics
EFV will come back...
This story by Fabey illustrates a private thought that I've had and one that is being confirmed by HQ Marine Corps.
The EFV will be stripped of it complex drive system will be fitted with current but high tech jet pumps for its amphibious mission and will come online stripped down, and renamed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.
The whole story is worth a read but this caught the eye...
A speedy acquisition process isn't how things are usually done and points to a single sourced program. Another tidbit that caught my attention is that the Congressional delegation has suddenly stopped it protests and holding up of the Defense budget.Traditionally, an AOA of this type would take about 18 months, Flynn said June 9 at an event in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.“We’re trying to get to six to nine months,” Flynn says, adding that he hoped the aggressive schedule would “energize the acquisition process” for the vehicle.
All this points to General Dynamics winning the project through a sole sourced program probably to be announced either late this year or early next.
BAE fans shouldn't be too depressed though. If I was a betting man then I'd lay every cent in my pocket that they'll win the upgrade contract...which leads to the wildcard in this whole thing. If BAE is able to design an attractive enough upgrade package then it could essentially make the expense of a new EFV/ACV moot. The AAV could theoretically continue in service --- just with new built vehicles.
USS Freedom. Tired already?
 |
| 110607-N-DB113-082 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 7, 2011) An MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 77 prepares to land aboard the littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Aaron Burden/Released) |
Ignore the helicopter and blow the pic up and take a good look at this ship. It just entered service and its looking tired and worn out. I know visuals mean nothing but I wonder. Has limited manning finally caught up with ship upkeep? Is operating skeleton ships crews actually the way we want to go if we desire to keep these ships in service for 20 plus years?
I can't say because I don't have the facts or the skill sets to know for sure. What I do know is that the USS Freedom is looking tired...very tired.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)