Too cool...

I'm assuming this is the UK judging by the accents...

25th CAB Pathfinders

Sgt. Kaylub Divine, A Team leader, F Company, 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, designates a sector of security to Pfc. Samuel Corsolini, a gunner with F Company, 2-25 AVN, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, during Operation Pranoo Verbena in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, March 16.  Photo by Sgt. Daniel Schroeder

Pfc. Bryce Sterling, a rifleman with F Company, 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, keeps a watchful eye during a search mission with members of 2nd Afghan National Civil Order Patrol Special Weapons and Tactics Team as part of Operation Pranoo Verbena in order to disrupt Taliban operations in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, March 16.  Photo by Sgt. Daniel Schroeder

 

Pfc. Samuel Corsolini, a gunner assigned to F Company, 2nd Battalion, 25th Aviation Regiment, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, pulls security for members of 2nd Afghan National Civil Order Patrol Special Weapons and Tactics Team during a vehicle interdiction as part of Operation Pranoo Verbena in order to disrupt Taliban operations in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, March 16.
25th Combat Aviation Brigade Public Affairs
Photo by Sgt. Daniel Schroeder

 

There are many more pics but they contain ANA personnel in them.  My choice, right or wrong is to not include them on these pages.  My opinion...my decision. 

The "Nanny" Commandant.

I'm not a fan of Amos.

Something about him rubs me the wrong way.  When I see him all I think is that this guy is a politician and he wasn't/isn't ready for the big chair.

Now we have this coming down the pike and it confirms my impressions.  This guy wants Marines to be warrior and to close with and destroy the enemy, wants them to fight tooth and nail to be the best Marine possible...and this is what he's worried about????

3/21/2012  By Keith Hayes, Public Affairs Specialist  , Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow 

MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW, Calif.  — The punishment has increased for not wearing a seatbelt while driving aboard a Marine Corps installation under Marine Corps Traffic Safety Program Drivesafe Order 5100.19F. The enhanced MCO signed by Commandant of the Marine Corps, General John F. Amos, Nov. 29, 2011, adds to the already existing burden of losing private automobile driving privileges aboard base for a period of time, said Brian Korves, safety officer, MCLB Barstow.
“The first violation (for driving without a license) is a 30 day suspension of all base driving privileges to include privately owned vehicles and government owned vehicles, so if you drive for work you can’t drive for 30 days,” Korves said, “plus attendance of an improved remedial driver improvement course.”
For those drivers who still refuse to obey traffic laws by driving without a seatbelt, Korves said the penalties increase.
“The second offense is loss of driving privileges aboard base for six months,” he said. “The third offense is one year without driving a POV or GOV on the base.”
That means an offending driver’s employment could be severely affected.
“If you’re a forklift operator you’re out of a job,” Korves said.
The harsher across the board policy is being implemented, Korves said, because many drivers still are not getting the message.
“The seatbelt laws have been in place since the ‘80s and you still have people refusing to wear their seatbelts, that’s one of the reasons I believe they’re making the punishment harsher,” he said.
The stiffer penalties will inspire most drivers to not take a chance by driving without one.
“If they make this painful for a person then a person is more likely to comply with the laws,” Korves said.
“Let’s look at it this way,” he continued. “You get caught not wearing your seatbelt you get 30 days not driving. You get in to an accident not wearing your seatbelt and you’re dead. Which one is harsher?”
The bottom line is simple, Korves said.
“Seat belts save lives. I believe that this increased penalty for not wearing your seatbelt will make the base a safer place to drive,” he said.

Hey. I get it!

Seat belts save lives. 

But this kind of micro management. 

This crazy ass punishment for not wearing a seat belt has gone too far.  We need a warrior Commandant, not a damn safety Nazi.

Time for you to go buddy.

F-35B BF-10 First Flight

Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti flew F-35B BF-10 (Navy Bureau Number 168061), on its inaugural flight on 15 March 2012 from NAS Fort Worth JRB

OH SHIT!!!!

MASSIVE HAT TIP TO JACKSON!!!

I couldn't believe this shit when I first saw it!

Marine Art.

Battle of Belleauwood

"I had just read Ernst Jünger's brutal World War I memoirs, 'Storm of
Steel', and was really inspired to do some imagery from that time
period. Naturally, I went looking for the Marine Corps' side of the
story and read up more on the Battle of Belleau Wood. Initially I
thought about doing this with traditional paints, but there's already
a lot of incredible paintings depicting Belleau Wood. So I did a
sketch in ink brush, which I then scanned and colored in Adobe
Photoshop. Although I do love doing drawings from real life, with this
image I deliberately took a more exaggeratedly stylized approach to
make something that looked like it could be a screencap from an
animated film about Belleau Wood."
(U.S. Marine Corps Artwork by Cpl. Reagan Lodge)

I'm really digging some of the art work that these guys are putting out.  Who knew but they even have a combat art school.  Cool.

Aviation

Sgt. Shawn P. Sales created this graphite and charcoal drawing on Strathmore Cold Press watercolor paper. The drawing was created as a training tool for an in-house class on how to create depth in a drawing.December 11, 2010
(U.S. Marine Corps Artwork by Sgt. Shawn P. Sales)

Rockets from Rooftops

Sgt. Shawn P. Sales created this ink and graphite drawing depicting a United States Marine Holding an AT4 weapon system. The drawing was created on 11X17 drawing paper to to gain Proficiencies in shading techniques. Oct .23 2011, Fort George G. Meade, MD.
(U.S. Marine Corps Artwork by Sgt. Shawn P. Sales)

Night Ops.

Jointness at a cost.

Check out this story from the Royal Navy...

Daring enjoys ‘truly amazing’ experience working with American carriers
21 March 2012

Britain’s most advanced warship, HMS Daring, has worked with two American aircraft carrier groups as her Gulf mission steps up a gear.
The new destroyer has been showing off her air defence and fighter control prowess with the USS Carl Vinson and Abraham Lincoln and their task groups.

On her maiden deployment, HMS Daring has worked with not one but two US Carrier Strike Groups – here the USS Carl Vinson, but also her sister Abraham Lincoln.
The Portsmouth-based warship – the first of six cutting-edge Type 45 destroyers – has been exercising with both 100,000-ton flattops as she integrates with our closest allies.
That integration has taken the form of swapping sailors with several American ships, notably cruisers USS Cape St George and Bunker Hill, as well as the two carriers, allowing the two navies to share expertise and ideas and forge good working relationships.

The Carl Vinson leads US Carrier Strike Group One, while the Lincoln is the flagship of Group Nine (there are 11 such groups in all, comprising one carrier, one cruiser, two destroyers, one hunter-killer submarine and a support ship, plus an air group of more than 60 jets, helicopters and pistol-engined aircraft).
The culmination of this effort was HMS Daring working fully with the Carl Vinson and her impressive air wing of fast jets.
The Sampson radar (the spiky spinning egg atop Daring’s main mast) and command and control system allow multiple targets to be tracked to ranges of up to hundreds of kilometres. That information is fed to the Aster missiles in the silo on the ship’s forecastle. 
With the Long Range Radar (the large black slab just forward of the ship’s hangar) it means Daring can track many thousands of air contacts giving her unprecedented surveillance of huge areas of air space.
Which means that she is a valuable asset for a US Carrier Strike Group providing such a comprehensive air picture of the complex Gulf airspace.
“Working with the US carriers and their air wings is the culmination of many months of training and hard work for the ship’s company,” explained Lt David Berry, one of two fighter controllers aboard Daring.

“For me, this is the pinnacle of my fighter controlling career and it is truly amazing to watch it all come together in this operational theatre. Taking control of F-18 Super Hornets in this busy operational environment is hugely rewarding.”

Daring is attached to the Combined Maritime Task Forces on a wide-ranging maritime security – tackling piracy, smuggling, people-trafficking, terrorism and other criminal activities – as well as working with Coalition and regional allies.
Daring’s not the only Royal Navy vessel to link up with a US carrier group. In the Arabian Sea – outside the Gulf – the Abraham Lincoln joined forces with Britain’s capital ship, HMS Westminster.
The Portsmouth-based frigate is also on a maritime security patrol of waters east of Suez while ‘Abe’ is conducting both that mission and supporting operations in Afghanistan, codenamed Enduring Freedom.

Awesome.

Another joint training exercise.

But the part about a Destroyer taking operational control of fighters struck me as odd.  Does the US Navy work this way?  Do our Aegis Destroyers take operational control of our fighter wings or is this a purely British way of doing business?

The issue is this.

If its how we do business then awesome.  Works for me.

If its not how we do business then being joint is STUPID!  Would I take a Marine Rifle Squad and deploy them in a way that's foreign to them?  No I wouldn't.  So if we don't hand operational control of our fighters to our own destroyers then why are we doing it with our good friends the Brits?

If we're going to be joint then we need to be able to slot a destroyer from the UK into one of our battle formations and have it operate to our standards...and vice versa once they get their carrier in the water. 

Changing tactics and operational models for the sake of being joint is just not worth the loss of efficiency.

But I wait to be corrected.

Exercise Sea Lion: Australia develops its amphibious force.

Australia once had amphibious ships.  

Now its developing an amphibious force.  

Below are pics of the HMAS Choules (former British Bay Class LPD) in action. 

The Afghan "Shooter" and multiple deployments.

Been catching bits and pieces of the news today and one thing they keep hitting on is multiple deployments.

This is a raw point.  Not for me but mainly for Soldiers.

A deployment is a different thing for different services, occupational specialties etc...

For a Special Ops member a deployment MIGHT be 3 months or less.

For a Marine it could be 6 to 9 months.

For a Soldier.

It could be a year...I've heard for some its been more than a year.

And then you have the style of your deployment.  Are you living in a war zone like you'd live if you were stateside?  Meaning are you on one of the big bases that have fast food restuaraunts, mall like PX's etc????

Or are you out in the boonies keeping fleas and ticks off your nut sack?  Ok, that might have been a little much but you get the idea.

So just a word to the news media.  Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start mouthing off.

Pic of the day.

1st Tank Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 6, M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks pass a Combat Logistics Battalion 4, 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward), AMK31 Refueler on a combat logistics patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, March 13. The combat logistics patrol supported counter-insurgency operations in the area.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Mark Stroud)

StrikeRazor

A thinly disguised hit piece.

I read an article this morning over at Information Dissemination and it touts the lethality of cruisers and destroyers over that of aircraft carriers.

Or so the author would like you to believe.

It is in essence an F-35 hit piece.  Read the whole thing but check this out.

Until I see a US Navy CVW with a fixed wing ASW platform or a legitimate carrier based tanker capability tested and fielded, I am going to find it very difficult to take the naval aviation community seriously when all threat analysis from every corner of the globe highlights submarines as the fastest growing threat to the maritime domain, and the tyranny of range as the greatest threat to naval forces in the Pacific. The Navy is spending about $50 million more on the JSF than the F-18 to get less range with a moderate increase in stealth. And the CVW will still be left with no fixed wing ASW and no organic tanking.

First.  Dude is wrong about the F-18 having better range than the F-35.  But he doesn't care because he's following the talking points of others who would play with numbers and juice such important details.  He talks about the F-35 having moderate stealth?  Exactly how the fuck did he arrive at that?

Second, he slams the carriers by stating that they're vulnerable to subs.  But if a carriers helicopter ASW's won't help out and he demands fixed wing ASW from carriers then his vaunted cruisers and destroyers are just as vulnerable.

Overall its a real hot debate the way that he framed it but it fails in so many areas its not even funny.  But this part has me scratching my head.

And btw, you'll still need the 4 major surface combatants to protect the carrier, just so the Navy can hit targets at greater cost and at a slower pace.

Don't they realize in that shop that if cruisers become the next capital ship then they'll be the ships in the fleet that need protecting.

Again, read the whole thing.  This is gonna be fun to watch...and laugh at.

Be a Gear Head, not a Gear Whore...Eagle Tac Flashlight.

Are you a Gear Head or a Gear Whore.

A Gear Head goes after the best gear at the best price possible.  A Gear Whore buys the latest, trendiest items out there no matter the cost.  In essence he plays follow the leader.

You know the type of guy who's all into the CHE (Costa-Haley Effect) method of gear buying.  If Costa or Haley has it...If Special Ops has it...then he must too.

Well I'm a Gear Head and I like value for my money.  Because I want the best bang for my buck I'm not impressed by names.  Names like SureFire.

Yeah they were good back in the day but they've fallen behind other makers...both in quality, capability and price.  The Eagle Tac is just one example in the flashlight realm.  Read a great review of the product over at "Jerking the Trigger."

Australia improves its amphib capability.

Australia has a new amphibious support ship.

And they got it cheap.

Read about it over at Think Defense.

Blast from the past. Rigid Raiding Craft.

I have yelled at the critics that claim that the USMC became a second land army during the war on terror.

Perhaps they were right.  It pains me to say so but perhaps they had a point.

Small boat raids.

Special Operations Training Groups.

Performing a mission the approved "Special Ops" way...not the Marine way.

Before the Marine Corps did away with the Riverine mission set (because of lack of manpower), we had a very effective and innovative Boat Office at Camp Lejeune.

One piece of gear that went away along with the riverine mission was the rigid raiding craft.  We need it back.  The rigid raider is faster, can be beached on the fly and has almost equal carrying ability.  The following data is from the USMC Family of Small Craft Website...

RRC Craft Data
 

Hull Type:	Rigid Hull, GRP
Length:	18 feet, 6 inches
Beam:	7 feet, 2 inches
Draft:	10 inches
Fuel Capacity:	63 gallons, Gasoline
Max Payload:	3,010 pounds
Speed:	25+ knots
Max Personnel:	8-10 Passengers, excluding crew members
Draft, On Plane:	Eight inches
Propulsion:	Twin 70 Horsepower Pump Jet, OMC
Crew:	Two
Range:	75 Nautical miles
Transportability:	Trailer

CRRC Craft Data

Primary function:	A standard small, lightweight, inflatable, rugged boat to be used in performing various reconnaissance missions.
Operational configurations
Length:	185 in.
Width:	75 in.
Height:	30 in.
Weight:	265 lbs.
Storage/Shipping configurations
Length:	59 in.
Width:	28.5 in.
Height:	24 in.
Weight:	265 lbs.
Power requirements:	Improved Military Amphibious Reconnaissance System (I-MARS) 35 horsepower engine. - Being phased out Small Craft Propulsion System (SCPS) 55 horsepower engine - replacement for I-MARS.
Background:	The CRRC was fielded to fill the Marine Corps' requirement for a small, lightweight, inflatable, rugged boat for use in performing various raid, and reconnaissance missions.
Inventory:	Active - 424; Reserve - 46; Supporting Establishment - 75

For the Small Boat Company mission set the CRRC brings no advantages and is not the right tool for the job.

Following Special Operations Command is a mistake.

We need gear suited to Marine Corps operations, not SOCOMs.

Bring back the Rigid Raider.  We need it, and should have it.

NOTE:
Time to do something with the Special Operations Training Groups.  A misnomer if I ever heard one.  We need a Marine Expeditionary Training Group.  A unit that's tailored to train Marines to a Marine standard across the board.  The Marine Corps needs to once again recognize itself as an elite military outfit.

The worship of Special Operations that some Marine Generals are engaged in is not only pathetic but its also detrimental to the Marine Corps.  A first step in repairing the damage done to us by our own is to disband the Special Operations Training Groups and reform them with a new mission and mindset.

Put the Special Operations Capable back into the BLT.

WHITE BEACH, OKINAWA, Japan-Lance Cpl. Alejandro Carbajal, scout swimmer and rifleman with Company A, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 4th Marines, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, scouts ahead before the primary raid force lands on the shoreline during a small boat raid here, March 17. The raid was conducted during the MEU’s Certification Exercise, which upon completion certifies that the MEU is capable to respond to any scenario that may arise. The 31st MEU is the only continuously forward-deployed MEU and is the nation’s force in readiness in the Asia-Pacific region., Lance Cpl. Michael S. Oxton, 3/16/2012 1:53 PM

I've been watching the 31st MEU from a distance while they've been going through certification.

My main question is why the reliance on the Maritime Raid Force?

Why has the BLT been relegated to providing support for such a small subsection of the MEU?

The BLT which was once the muscle of the MEU with Force Recon and Amphibious Recon in support has suddenly been relegated to step child.

This is unsat.

A dynamic Marine Corps need dynamic BLT's.

Relevant BLT's. 

And don't feel picked on 31st MEU...its a Marine Corps wide problem.  And it stems from Rummy's edict which wasn't fought by General Pace and is affecting Marine ops to this very day.

What makes Special Ops special?

Is it mission set?  Why?  Rangers have tasked themselves with airfield seizure.  Did you know that was once an 82nd mission?  SEALs have taken beach recon.  Did you know that was once a Recon mission and before that a Scout Swimmer mission?

What is raiding except an Infantry skill that needs to be practiced?

What is recon except an Infantry skill that needs to be practiced?

What is training of foreign militaries except a skill that needs to be practiced?

You get the point.

The Marine Corps needs to get hard again and part of that is to put the Special Operations Capable back into the MEU in general and the Battalion Landing Team in particular.  If need be we can return Force Recon to SOCOM and get it done with our BLT's.  We just need to train them to a higher standard.

Scout Swimmers should be able to do beach recon.  With additional training, recon further inland should not be difficult.

The only thing that's lacking is institutional will.  The current trend of bending knee to everything SOCOM goes against Marine Corps tradition and ethos.  We are an elite force and have no need for an elite inside an elite.

How leadership forgot that is beyond me, but it can still be corrected.

All it takes is a little bravery and conviction.

Grand Logistics Blog nails the RAF...

The battle between the Harrier and the Tornado continues.

Or perhaps better stated, the war between the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm continues...

Grand Logistics has a great write up on the issue and says in pictures whats obvious to any observer...the Air Marshal lied...or at least stretched the truth till it was unrecognizable.  Go to his site for the juicy details but before you head there check out this statement...

"The Tornados have delivered [MBDA] Storm Shadows to penetrate hardened buildings and the dual-mode Brimstone,neither of which could have been delivered by the Harrier."

"I am not knocking the Harrier,just those who have,often willfully,overstated its relative utility in this scenario,"

"In operations such as Ellamy,on the periphery of Europe,the access,basing and over-flight restrictions that would necessitate carrier strike do not apply.

 There is simply no comparison in terms of platform capability,time on station or versatility between Tornado GR4s operating from a well-found NATO airfield in Italy and Harriers operating from a CVS*."

*A Royal Navy aircraft carrier.

Wow huh?!

But then check out this statement from a Brit when talking about sea power...(Robert Farley of Information Dissemination brought it to my attention in an article about sea power in today's society)...

We're a maritime nation—we've grown by the sea and live by it; if we lose command of it we starve. We're unique in that way, just as our huge empire, only linked by the sea, is unique. And yet, read Brassey, Dilke, and those "Naval Annuals", and see what mountains of apathy and conceit have had to be tackled. It's not the people's fault. We've been safe so long, and grown so rich, that we've forgotten what we owe it to. But there's no excuse for those blockheads of statesmen, as they call themselves, who are paid to see things as they are. They have to go to an American to learn their A B C, and it's only when kicked and punched by civilian agitators, a mere handful of men who get sneered at for their pains, that they wake up, do some work, point proudly to it, and go to sleep again, till they get another kick. By Jove! we want a man like this Kaiser, who doesn't wait to be kicked, but works like a n----- for his country, and sees ahead.

The question I have is this.

How did the Royal Navy get to a position of being pushed around by the Royal Air Force?

Quite honestly, Air Forces of all nations have a tendency to be quite vicious when it comes to budget battles...the USAF included...but I haven't seen interservice warfare like I'm seeing between the RAF and RN in modern US history.  Last I recall seeing this type of "no holds barred" jabbing was before the Korean War when the very existence of the Marine Corps was threatened and the USAF was attempting to make carrier aviation irrelevant.

Grand Logistics has posted an outstanding rebuttal to the Air Marshal's statement.

Sharkey Ward battles continuously for the Fleet Air Arm.

But its going to take more than two voices in the wilderness.  FAA supporters are going to have to get much more vocal and vicious if they're going to even keep pace in this fight.

The RAF is playing for keeps and the RN should be too.

Subtle signs of US involvement in Africa...

Playing on Google Earth today and ran across a C-130 parked at the Moi Airport in Kenya.  What has me confused is what I'm seeing at the ports.  I'm spotting what I believe is a Perry Class Frigate along with another Frigate/Destroyer sized ship nearby.  There is also an additional ship that appears to be some type of LPD that I can't quite make out.

Between spotting this and taking another look at Camp Lemonnier (I think they might have frozen that pic....it hasn't changed in days now) it seems the presence is expanding.

If you have any hints or tips on where I should look for US or allied forces operating in out of the way places...hit me up!

UPDATE:

Joe (thanks buddy) found this pic of a C-130 at Moi Airport on PlanePictures.net taken on Feb 20, 2012.

 

Ops-Core vs. Artist dust up....

via Soldier Systems...

Ultimately, the Boston Globe story, “At Fort Point studios, artists feel betrayed” is really just gasoline on a fire. It doesn’t solve anything but rather fans the flames of discontent. Furthermore, it fails to mention the impact of the Ops-Core closure. 80 employees are collecting unemployment and it has caused a hiccup in the assembly of helmets. Finally, I doubt but few of the tenants have considered their actions. If Ops-Core leaves, it may well result in the closure of the facility altogether. Assuming that much of a loan would require guaranteed income. While there are numerous tenants at Midway Studios, it is doubtful that they would band together and form the business entity required to acquire the building and manage it. After all, they’re artists, if they wanted to manage real estate portfolios they wouldn’t be living in rent controlled spaces.
Overall, it’s a lot of venting, and posturing and well, “Occupy Ops-Core.” In the end, the artist tenants turn their outrage elsewhere. Hopefully, it will be before any more damage is done.

Go to their site to read the whole story and you might want to page back and read some of their previous coverage of this 'controversy'.

Personally I don't understand the actions of either side.  The artist are just some spoiled brats in my opinion but Ops-Core is dealing with the issue in an unusual way too.

They're a multi-million dollar company.  Its a down economy.  They could easily find any number of locations to move to and be welcomed with open arms.

Its got to be a "style" issue with the ownership.  Perhaps its the trendy place to live and work and that's what he's after. 

Either way this seems like a tempest in a tea pot.  A minor issue that is made up and should be easily solved.

Still for a Sunday afternoon, its pretty interesting.