Viral Video: Animated Homage To Star Trek Title Intro

One Million Pounds for K-MAX

Two unmanned K-MAX helicopters have delivered more than one million pounds of cargo in less than four months of service in Afghanistan, the US Marine Corps announced on 9 May 2012. The helicopters will now remain in theater until September on a deployment extension. The aircraft, a joint effort by Lockheed Martin and Kaman Aerospace, is the first unmanned helicopter to deliver cargo and resupply troops in a combat zone. The two helos have been averaging six missions per day, with record load deliveries ranging from a single 4,200-pound sling load to 28,800 pounds lifted in a single day. The two K—MAX helicopters are averaging less than one maintenance man-hour per flight hour during the deployment.

Now explain to me why the Army isn't all over this program like a dog on a bone!

Of all the UAV programs that have failed the test, the K-Max can't be on that list.  In the field and ship board ops are the future for UAVs...long distance patrol over the Pacific?  Not so much.

Official Centennial of Naval Aviation video

Centennial of Naval Aviation celebration.

Take a look at the website (revamped?) here.

There is also a pretty nice pdf book on the site worth a look. 

UAV's stunning loss rate.

via Bloomberg.

The BGOV Barometer shows Northrop’s Global Hawk and General Atomics’s Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles have had a combined 9.31 accidents for every 100,000 hours of flying. That’s the highest rate of any category of aircraft and more than triple the fleet-wide average of 3.03, according to military data compiled by Bloomberg.
The June 11 crash of a drone near Bloodsworth Island on Maryland’s Eastern Shore illustrated the vehicles’ propensity for accidents, known as “mishaps” in military parlance. The concern is that drones’ safety record won’t improve as they’re increasingly deployed for testing, border surveillance and other missions in U.S. airspace, said Jay Stanley, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington.
“If we have 30,000 flying pieces of robotic hardware buzzing above our heads, Americans are going to want to be very certain that it’s safe, in addition to putting in place good rules to protect our privacy,” Stanley said in a telephone interview.

Read the whole thing but it points to a larger issue with the DoD.

They're latching onto technology for technology sake and aren't carefully examining whether or not its effective or wise to be using it in its intended roles....or whether those roles they perform today will be applicable in the future.

Another consideration?  The Global Hawk costs 233 million dollars each.  And with a loss rate of 15.6 per 100,000 that's going to add up real quick.

I look forward to seeing what the aviation guys have to say about this.  Might be time to hit Elements of Power up to get his opinion.

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 6 - Bill Gigliott

Before all the critics go high and to the left, remember that a whole host of naval fighters and attack aircraft have been single engined.  One of my favorites from the past the A-4 was a single engined airplane that flew into the teeth of North Vietnamese defenses and accounted itself rather well.



Note...we will take some of the tech from the F-35 and put it into the F-22!

ACV surprise via General Dynamics or BAE. Is it possible?

Are we about to witness a General Dynamics version of an October surprise?

What I'm getting at is this.  Are we about to see what I've always requested...an EFV without the complicated hydraulics and high waterspeed?
Its big boy procurement after all...but would the Marine Corps bite?

But if the surprise doesn't come from GD, could it come from BAE?  They have the specs on the AAV.  Instead of bidding for an upgraded model what if they were to offer new builds within a few hundred thousand dollars of the refurbed vehicles...would the Marine Corps bite?

This and the MPC will come down to price.  The ACV, MPC and AAV upgrade program is all in one office.  On reflection that indicates to me that not only are the competitors competing against each other but that the vehicle concepts are fighting to win the day too.

Meet the Jaguar.

Thanks for the pic and article Jonathan....I've been looking for a high rez pic of this vehicle since Eurosatory.

via DefenseIQ.

This week armoured vehicle manufacturer Streit Group unveiled its latest offering: a "semi-military" armoured personnel carrier called the Jaguar.
The name is of course synonymous with automotive excellence and has an engineering pedigree second to none. I anticipate the name is not just the result of a happy coincidence: Streit is attempting to emulate the same mark of quality in the armoured sector of the industry.
Guerman Goutorov, the Chairman of Streit Group, explained to Defence IQ that the Jaguar was the vehicle that completed the company’s collection. At 7 tonnes the Jaguar sits in the middle of Streit’s other armoured vehicle offerings and is aimed at being a diverse, modular all-rounder.
It’s a semi-military vehicle Goutorov said and can be adapted for a number of threat landscapes. As the future for militaries around the globe becomes less certain, particularly as the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and begins to look towards Asia, the requirement for multi-role vehicles such as the Jaguar is on the up.

The V-shaped monocoque composite-steel hull is designed to withstand a 10kg blast although official testing under STANAG 4569 conditions will be undertaken later this year. The company is also specifying ballistic protection from a heavy machine gun (HMG), which is a protection level up to and including the Russian 14.5mm B32 anti-tank round.

Ask any vehicle manufacturer what’s more important to concentrate on with a new machine and they’ll stumble. Is it cost, weight or performance? Streit is no different – it’s clear that only a balance of all three is acceptable. Goutorov knows this and couldn’t pin down one capability over another. He did, however, say that the Jaguar is the most affordable vehicle in its class.

A couple of manufacturers stated that they were looking to the Middle East and Africa for new business.  This offering from the Streit Group shows even that game plan is dicey at best.

Shotgun Blast

Cpl. Adeoluwa Sopade, a meteorology and oceanography analyst with Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force 12.2, and native of East Windsor, N.J., fires non-lethal rounds from a Mossberg 590 shotgun with other Marines during an exercise designed to familiarize them with the weapon system. The service members participated in non-lethal weapons and familiarization exercises June 8 and 9, 2012. The training, which included firing multiple weapon systems and different fire maneuvers, is to prepare the Marines to provide limited support in the event of a crisis in the U.S. Africom area of responsibility.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Adwin Esters)

Interesting turn of events when it comes to shotguns in the Marine Corps. The M1014 is suppose to be the successor to the Mossberg but is only seeing limited service in the Corps.  Meanwhile the Mossberg continues to serve but obviously without the modifications that were once part of its upgrade package.  Ghost ring sights, extended magazine tube and a rail system.

Small arms appears to be another part of the Marine Corps procurement system that needs refinement...or at the very least rationalization.

Foxhound...Brit vehicle done right.

This vehicle just looks right, is a decent weight and can perform numerous roles.  Perhaps the Brits are onto something that we should take a closer look at.  I wonder why it wasn't offered for the JLTV program.

ThinkDefence has more information on the Foxhound here.  Check it out!

Fly Navy!

Check out the Aviationist review here....

F-35

First F-35C Night Flight

Merkava Mark IV speedpaint by galanpang

Marine Personnel Carrier. Do we still have a valid reason for it?

Lane and I have been take a solid look at the Marine Personnel Carrier program and he stated this in one of his comments....

I'd suggest the whole thing hasn't been properly conceptualized. The present AAV is an APC as is the MPC. The AAV replacement (EFV) was supposed to be an IFV, carry 17 Marines, and meet a very high water speed requirement that required it water plane and thus have a 2,700hp engine. The MPC as compared to EFV was seen as an infantry carrier (APC) to complement EFV.

Until we see what the new ACV looks like it's not at all clear MPC is required. How about a comparative analysis of two MPC's vs one ACV equipped as an APC not an IFV?

The entire original notion of having a heavy, medium, and light infantry carrier (EFV, MPC, and JLTV) seemed odd and entirely as a response to not being able to afford enough EFVs.

The thing that actually concerns me the most is the natural pressure when operating a 9 man infantry carrier to go to a 9 man squad. MPC carrying 9 makes a lot less sense for the Corp than other organizations that use a 9 man squad. In the US Army's case moving to the 9 man squad in a new IFV is a big improvement from the current Bradley platoon.

I'd rather see ACV finalized before decisions are made on MPC. Otherwise there's going to be too much pressure to just cut ACV and use the "cheaper" MPC, even though twice as many are needed.

Just a quick trip down memory lane for everyone.

1.  The EFV was suppose to replace the AAV on a one for one basis as the primary Marine Corps IFV/personnel carrier.
2.  During development the cost of the EFV ballooned to such an extent that the full buy of EFV could not be made.
3.  As a solution to the problem of the EFV not being affordable enough to replace the AAV on a one for one basis, the MPC concept was born.
4.  The EFV was cancelled and the MPC concept continued.
5.  The Marine Corps has revived the EFV in a new supposedly affordable form named the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.  Initial impressions make it out to be the EFV but without the high water speed requirement.
6.  The Marine Corps has also decided to approach industry for information on how an update to the legacy AAV would work.

That's the procurement history in a nutshell.  The question remains.  Are we correct in continuing with the MPC?

Does it make sense?

If we are to continue with the MPC then do we shelve the AAV upgrades?  Do we shelve the ACV?  If the answer to either one of those questions is to continue with the MPC then justification must be made for the AAV upgrade/ACV procurement.

If the answer is no then we should cancel the MPC NOW and circle our wagons around the AAV and ACV.

To continue with all three of these programs makes no sense.  Either the AAV upgrade, ACV or MPC should go.  We cannot afford all three.

USS Wasp. What's the deal?

Thanks for the article Jonathan.

via Defense News.

So what is up with Wasp?
“USS Wasp is currently configured to serve as the Navy’s Joint Strike Fighter test platform,” Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command, wrote in an email. “As a result of Wasp’s assignment as the JSF test platform, she is not currently in the rotation of amphibious assault ships participating in scheduled routine overseas deployments. USS Wasp remains available for operational tasking; however, she will remain the test platform for JSF for the foreseeable future.”
But the JSF testing mission began only last year. A Marine Corps F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing aircraft — a model that eventually will operate from all assault ships — made the first JSF landing on the ship Oct. 3, the first day of about two weeks of tests that month. No more JSF flights have since taken place from the ship, and none is scheduled this year. Flight tests of the new jet aren’t scheduled to resume until the summer of 2013.
The dedicated JSF mission might explain why Wasp hasn’t deployed recently. But why didn’t Wasp deploy between 2005 and the advent of the JSF tests in 2011?

Read the whole thing but the thought of it is shocking.

The Marine Corps is crying for more amphibs and yet we have one sitting on the sidelines?

It just doesn't make sense.  Mark my words...this is a scandal in the makings...and don't you dare believe the trash that the Navy is tossing around about it being designated for F-35 workups.

Blog news....

Sorry guys, but I got hit with a mail virus (Huron Serenity...you got some explaining to do) so if you're on my list you might have gotten hit.  My bad.

This is my life...

Subtle, well done Marine propaganda.

Airborne HUMVEE drop...

Airborne forces foot mobile?  Not necessarily.  In this vid you get a chance to see the USAF in action doing a drop of a couple (or three) of HUMVEEs from what I assume is a C-17.  A Division Ready Brigade from the 82nd might not have the hitting power of a Stryker Brigade but they can get there much faster, has much greater strategic mobility and will be much easier to support once they get in the field. 

The 82nd Airborne and Light Infantry Divisions should lead the Army's Pacific policy.

The 82nd Airborne Division.

An Elite outfit.

Trained in rapid deployment,  and historically operated in "Little Groups of Paratroops" (LGOP)...they were doing distributed operations before distributed operations were cool.  If the question is who should lead the charge into the Pacific then the answer is the the 82nd Airborne Division.

Why?  Because they would fit in perfectly with the "Air" in Air-Sea Battle.  Because they would bring something to the table that the Marine Corps does not which is what the Joint Service concept is truly suppose to be about.  Because it would put one of our three forms of forcible entry into a region that has been deemed of national importance.

Alot of the benefits that the 82nd would bring are obvious -- besides being rapidly deployable they are co-located with USAF transport at the nearby Pope AFB and they train jointly with the USMC and foreign militaries.

My suggestion is simple.  The US Army should provide heavy forces for the Pacific under the umbrella of US Army Forces Korea and it should have Light Fighters led by the 82nd having a forward deployed Brigade colocated with USAF transports in Guam.

If this suggestion is followed then you would have a medium weight force capable of responding to crisis in the USMC MEU's....a light weight force that could arrive within hours of that crisis in the form of battalions from the 82nd and if it goes all crazy then you have forward deployed Army units out of Korea.

This makes sense, its builds on the capabilities already in the region, it allows the Army to plug one of its units into the Air Sea Battle concept and it gives the Army skin in the game.  Below is an old video on the 82nd.  Gone are the light tanks...and I don't know if the USAF still does LAPES but it gives a primer on their capabilities.

Ground Mobility Vehicle contestants so far...

Generaly Dynamics Jamma...well used to be Jamma.

Navistar Saratoga.

Navistar Special Operations Tactical Vehicle.

Legacy Ground Mobility Vehicle.

Armored Ground Mobility System.

The vehicles above are either in use or being considered for use by various units in SOCOM.  The Legacy Ground Mobility Vehicle is a favorite of the Rangers and SEALs, the Armored Ground Mobility System is supposedly used by the Rangers, Special Forces and Delta.

This contest will get crowded and should prove to be interesting.   I can't wait to see how this shakes out.  Oh and we can't forget the most popular Ground Mobility Vehicle in SOCOM.