Tuesday, October 01, 2013

“Headquarters Marine Corps is undercutting a hero,”

via Washington Times.
The Marine Corps officer who filed a complaint against the commandant for intervening in the Taliban urination cases against eight Marines is now the target of reprisals from superiors, his attorney says.
Retired Marine Col. Jane Siegel, who is representing Maj. James Weirick, said superiors have subjected the major to retaliations since it became known that he filed a whistleblower complaint against Gen. James Amos, the commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.
“Headquarters Marine Corps is undercutting a hero,” Col. Siegel said. “He did the right thing, and they are trying to bury it and him.”
Read it all here...

Monday, September 30, 2013

About FUCKING time!!!! Two Marine General's fired for security lapses!

via The Washington Post.
The commandant of the Marine Corps on Monday took the extraordinary step of firing two generals for not adequately protecting a giant base in southern Afghanistan that Taliban fighters stormed last year, resulting in the deaths of two Marines and the destruction of a half a dozen U.S. fighter jets.
It is the first time since the Vietnam War that a general, let alone two, has been sacked for negligence after a successful enemy attack. But the assault also was unprecedented: Fifteen insurgents entered a NATO airfield and destroyed almost an entire squadron of Marine AV-8B Harrier jets, the largest single loss of allied materiel in the almost 12-year Afghan war.
The commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, said the two generals did not deploy enough troops to guard the base and take other measures to prepare for a ground attack by the Taliban. The two, Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, the top Marine commander in southern Afghanistan at the time, and Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, the senior Marine aviation officer in the area, “failed to exercise the level of judgment expected of commanders of their rank,” Amos said.
“It was unrealistic to think that a determined enemy would not be able to penetrate the perimeter fence,” Amos said.

The incident brings into stark relief the unique challenges of waging war in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of thousands of U.S. troops over the past two years has forced commanders to triage, sometimes leading them to thin out defenses. The U.S. military also has been forced to rely on other nations’ troops, who often are not as well trained or equipped, to safeguard American personnel and supplies.
The attack occurred at Camp Bastion, a British-run NATO air base in Helmand province that adjoins Camp Leatherneck, a vast U.S. facility that serves as the NATO headquarters for southwestern Afghanistan. Because Leatherneck does not have a runway, the Marines use Bastion as their principal air hub in the country. Several hundred Marines live and work on the British side, and dozens of U.S. helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are parked there.
The British are responsible for guarding Bastion, which is ringed by a chain-link fence, triple coils of razor wire and watchtowers from which sentries can scan the horizon for any potential attackers. British commanders had assigned the task of manning the towers to troops from Tonga, which has sent 55 soldiers to Afghanistan.
On the night of the attack, the Tongans left unmanned the nearest watchtower to the point of the Taliban breach, according to an investigation by the U.S. Central Command.
Other aspects of the U.S.-British security plan were “sub-optimal,” the investigation found, with no single officer in charge of security for both Bastion and Leatherneck. The security arrangement created command-and-control relationships “contrary to the war-fighting principles of simplicity,” Amos wrote in a memo accepting the investigation.
Troop reductions also affected security measures. When Gurganus took command in 2011, about 17,000 U.S. troops were in his area of operations. By the time of the attack, in September 2012, the American contingent had dropped to 7,400 because of troop-withdrawal requirements imposed by President Obama.
No sympathy on this.

Marines at this base were making videos.  Asking movie stars out on dates.  SNCO's weren't simply away doing paperwork.  They appeared in the videos with LCpls.

This was a no brainer.

This is what needed to happen looooong ago.

NOTE:  Below is one of the many videos that were produced on Camp Leatherneck.  This is the activities that were encouraged instead of fortifying the base and doing patrols.  Check out the Marines in the video.  I counted at least 2 Marines with rockers and I even think I saw one of our TBS boys acting an ass (he needs to be recycled...).  Popularity and laxity with your Marines isn't doing them a favor.  Its lining them up to get killed.

Note 1:  I won't even get into the rash of stupidity surrounding Marines asking celebrities out on dates.  Instead of squashing the insanity, HQMC encouraged it.  Now the Wing Commander that happens to be Commandant wants to get tough.  Too late cowboy.  You set all this in motion.  Time to reap the whirlwind.

F-35. The military lost control of the plane's contractors.

via ABC News.
The military's watchdog has found hundreds of flaws in the way giant defense contractors produced the F-35 fighter jet – flaws that made what was already the most expensive weapons system in history even more costly to American taxpayers and flaws that should have been caught by the program's military overseers.
The Department of Defense Inspector General released a 126-page report today describing 719 "issues" it found with the jet's primary manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, and five other major contractors as they assembled planes for the estimated nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. It also listed failures of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), the military-led organization in charge of putting the planes in the air for three services in the American military, for not ensuring "Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors were applying rigor to design, manufacturing, and quality assurance" among other things. Both Lockheed Martin and the JPO said the report was old news and that the issues have been mostly addressed.
Flaws found on the production line, according to the DOD IG, included "uncontrolled or unapproved" design changes in production planning, contractor personnel who were not following written manufacturing and assembly process instructions, inadequate calibration management systems that could hinder testing and employees with expired certifications for critical tasks like ejection seat installation or "explosives care."
A few things.

*  When you walk onto a truck lot and fall in love with that big F-250 4x4 and the salesman sees it, you can bet that any bargain you might have had is gone...unless you're willing to walk away.
*  Design changes that weren't approved?  Expired certifications?

Lockheed Martin is fleecing the public.  This is beyond criminal...this is insanity on steroids.  Not only is this airplane dragging the Marine Corps budget into an alley and raping it, but its gonna end up killing it too. 

 There is only one solution to the problems with this program... take off and nuke it from orbit.  Its the only way to be sure.... 

An Update from Don.
**"Congress notified that first F-35 jets have cost overruns of $771M. "**See, what they do is award a lo-ball contract, crow about the low contract unit cost (forgetting to tell us it's the airframe only with no GFE engine), then later when nobody's looking reach down into the 'contingency fund' to add the necessary dollars the glutinous F35 really needs.
Here it is again in yesterday's news from the Lockheed/Pentagon/media cabal:"The arrangement calls for 23 F-35As, the Air Force’s version of the plane that takes off in a conventional manner, at $103 million apiece; 6 F-35Bs, the Marine Corps’ variant that can fly like a plane and lands like a helicopter, at $109 million a piece; and 7 F-35Cs, the Navy’s version designed to take off from aircraft carriers, at $120 million apiece."
Actual costs from the FY2014 budget request:--F-35A $176m, F-35B $237m, F-35C $236mhttp://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/amendment/fy2014_p1a.pdf 

Bell Boeing V-22 Aerial Refueling Proof of Concept Flight

Russian Advanced Stealth Bomber concept via War Machine.


155-mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP). Naval Guns set for rebirth.


via Press Release.
During the recent tests, nine LRLAPs were successfully fired at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. These tests were designed to demonstrate accuracy, reliability, lethality, and time of arrival control. In addition, six of the nine rounds were subjected to an environmental qualification, which included temperature variation and vibration tests that proved the LRLAP’s reliability after exposure to different transportation situations and storage environments. Test requirements were met or exceeded, and all objectives were successfully demonstrated.
“I am incredibly proud of the success our team has had on this crucial development program,” said Chris Hughes, vice president and general manager of Weapon Systems at BAE Systems. “We have made significant progress in qualifying the LRLAP in support of the deployment of the Advanced Gun System aboard the DDG 1000. The LRLAP will provide the Navy with an affordable, ship-launched alternative to currently used missiles.” BAE Systems’ 155-mm LRLAP is effective against a variety of targets in multiple mission areas. The LRLAP is guided by a GPS and Inertial Measurement Unit, allowing for high levels of accuracy at ranges up to, and in excess of, 63 nautical miles. This capability reduces costs by requiring fewer rounds to achieve desired effects on targets and is effective where collateral damage is an issue.
Missiles aren't cost effective for most targets. Aircraft might not (probably not in the future...yeah lookin at you F-35) be available.  Which means that for Marines and Army units operating in the Pacific, naval guns are more important than ever.
Looks like we're finally taking a step toward seeing a real rebirth in the field...bout time. 

2nd Battalion, 8th Marines guarding the consulate in Herat.

Marines with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, stand guard on the outside wall of the U.S. Consulate in Herat, Afghanistan, Sept. 14, 2013. The Marines are currently guarding the U.S. Consulate following the Sept. 13 attack which caused significant damage to the building's infrastructure and left six insurgents dead.  (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Bobby J. Yarbrough/Released)
I wonder if the hit was harder than we're all being told.  I do remember the attack was downplayed in the media when it occurred.


French receive their first A-400M Grizzly




Blast from the past. LVTEX-3


Yeah.  That's a turret from a M551 Sheridan Airborne Tank attached to an LVTP-7.  Interesting concept.  Its a shame it didn't make it into service.

T-90S Main Battle Tank being demonstrated in Peru.




via Press Release.
On September 19 a firing range in Peru saw demonstration of the T-90C tank of the Uralvagonzavod produce for Gen. Ricardo Moncada Novoa, Commander-in-Chief Land Forces and 300 officers.
The command authorities of the South American republic were shown the T-90C tank combat and running capabilities by day and at night as well as accuracy of fire with all types of weapons at different ranges from a halt and on the move under conditions of limited visibility and mountainous terrain.
The combat vehicle crew completed all missions successfully having demonstrated high potential of the Russian tank manufactured by Uralvagonzavod.
After the major demonstration one of the Peruvian drivers of the T-55s being in service with the Peruvian Army was offered to “take a drive” of the T-90C tank. After a 5-min briefing, he made a run showing a good skill level and brought the tank to a halt by the Commander-in-Chief. The experiment is a proof that the advanced T-90C tank is as resoponsive and simple as its predecessor T-55 produced by Uralvagonzavod 40 years ago.
Senior officers of the Peruvian Army appreciated the T-90C tank capabilities and the skill of the tank crew members.
The Peruvian Military is running an unusual competition.  They've disqualified Spanish 2A4 Leopards,  Dutch 2E6 Leopards, Ukrainian T-64E and T-84...mainly due to cost and logistic considerations.  BUT!  US M1A1 Abrams and Russian T-90 and T-80 are still being considered.

I know the Spaniards and Dutch would practically give away the tanks...and I don't understand how the M1A1 is considered to be logistically more palatable than Ukrainian tanks.

Very interesting.  

BMPT Tank Support Fighting Vehicle








Obrum - PL-01 Stealth Main Battle Tank Concept Simulation

Thanks Dwi!!!

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Ship to shore logistics.


Think Defence has a write up on US ship to shore logistics that's worth a read.  Its in the finest of European articles on defense issues...long, quite detailed, yet thought provoking nonetheless.

What I find fascinating is that he links extensive offshore logistics to the sea base and amphibious assaults instead of seeing it as a natural extension of a military that has and will probably fight future wars far from home.

Its about keeping large numbers of US troops well supplied in far off lands...not amphibious assault.

Read it here.

OV-10G+ Bronco testing ends.



OV-10G+ testing ends this month (don't know how I missed it).  Read about it here.

Warning! Extremely Graphic! Sniper in Syria kills 2 Rebels with one shot.



338 or 50 cal.  One second you're the hunter.  The next you're the prey.

Note:  Thanks to JR for the new link after YouTube pulled the first vid...

Note 1:  If you die first we're dividing your stuff.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Isn't it past time to boycott anti gun states?



I was watching the above video and it dawned on me.

Zulu Nylon is made in the US!  Good!  But in Illinois.  Bad!

So I wonder out loud here.  Is it time to boycott guns and gear made in anti gun states?  I mean a hardcore, Smith and Wesson back in the day boycott.  Not because the manufacturer did anything wrong but because we're supporting anti gun Senators that will vote against our rights by supporting the state economy that keeps electing them.

I think we should.  The problem is simple though.  We'll end up tagging alot of guns and gear that have been our friends for a greater good.  It'll hurt us and them but pain is weakness leaving the body so its pain we should embrace.

Agree?


China demonstrates reach...

via Chinese Military Review.





How not to plant a roadside bomb. via Marine Corps Aviation Association.

Chinese Mechanized Infantry Brigade vs. US Army Stryker Brigade.

We've all been talking about the rise of China but its been mostly in the context of their air or sea power.  That's a luxury the Think Tanks that are trying to lay the groundwork for Air/Sea Battle can enjoy....Not professional Soldiers or Marines.

The first thing that should be done is a comparison of equipment on a 1 for 1 basis.  This is a first attempt to do just that.

Infantry Carriers.

ZBD -09 8x8 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle.  The quick and dirty rundown?  It has a 30mm cannon, a coax 7.62 and can be fitted with a 12.7mm cannon for use by the vehicle commander.  It carries a crew of 3 and 7 infantrymen.
vs.


Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle.  Quick and dirty?  12.7mm machinegun on a RWS mount with a crew of 2 and 9 dismounts.
Advantage?  Slight nod to the Chinese vehicle.  The 30mm cannon was the deciding factor.  .  You can't ignore the extra Infantrymen that the Stryker carries.  You also can't ignore the massive fire support that the 30mm cannon of the Chinese vehicle either.

Mobile Gun Systems.
Information is spotty when I tried my Google-foo.  In a way that makes it more dangerous, not less.  Its an unknown quantity.
vs.

The Mobile Gun System IS a known quantity.  Its underpowered, it sports an unusual for western armies 105mm cannon and it features an automatic loader.  Its very unreliable and we'll all know the Army is serious about its Stryker Brigades when it goes for a manned turret like the CV-90/120T sports.
Advantage?  China.  I am NOT a fan of what the Army did with this weapon system and hopefully they'll improve it.  Until then they're at BEST looking at a slight loss. Future combat might indicate that I was being extremely generous.

Artillery
Combat proven, light weight, air mobile and hard hitting.  Extremely long ranged when coupled with the right shells but vulnerable to counter battery fire.
vs.

In this configuration its shorter ranged than the US system but makes up for it by being mechanized.
Advantage?  China.  Mechanized artillery is a major advantage that the Chinese would have in a force on force encounter.  How the US Army failed to provide for this shortcoming in Stryker Brigades is beyond me but its a glaring mistake.  It probably has more to do with operations in Afghanistan than anything else, and I'll notch this oversight as another scalp that the COIN Mafia can claim...but it need to be fixed.

Anti-Air Systems.


Advantage?  Huge plus for China.  I don't even know of a system in development for US forces.  The USAF will keep enemies at bay?  That's your daddy's USAF.  The new guys will leave you hanging.  If the US Army isn't prepared to deal with the reality that support will be MUCH less than they've enjoyed in the past then they aren't paying attention.  Meanwhile China is working on something to kill drones AND keep Apaches from killing everything in sight.  It seems they studied the Deep Strike that Apaches attempted in Iraq.

Summation.  US ARMY LOSES.  As things stand right now, it looks like a Stryker Brigade could be facing a mismatch when up against a Chinese Mech unit.  The years of fighting a COIN war have really taken a toll.  In a perfect world I'd like to see the Stryker Brigade bite the bullet and integrate at least a company or two of Tanks...see some type of mobile air defense added and definitely a Stryker based artillery system added.

Blast from the past. Landkreuzer P. 1000 "Ratte" Tank



Sheer craziness.  Mixed with a little weirdness.  Shaken with a whole lotta cool.  Impractical, but cool.  Stats via Wikipedia.
Specifications
Weight1,000 tonnes (1,100 short tons; 980 long tons)
Length35 m (115 ft) hull
39 m (128 ft) guns forwards
Width14 m (46 ft)
Height11 m (36 ft)
Crew20+, possibly as many as 41

Armor150–360 mm (5.9–14 in)
Main
armament
2x 280 mm 54.5 SK C/34
Secondary
armament
1x 128 mm KwK 44 L/55
8x 20 mm Flak38
2x 15 mm MG 151/15
Engine8x Daimler-Benz MB501 20-cylinder marine diesel engines
or 2x MAN V12Z32/44 24-cylinder marine diesel engines
16,000 to 17,000 hp (12,000 to 13,000 kW)
Ground clearance2 m (79 in)
Operational
range
~120 miles (190 km)
Speed40 km/h (25 mph)