Thursday, March 02, 2017
Crazy idea of the day. The US Army should make the 25th ID amphibious.
Crazy idea of the day. The US Army should seriously consider buying the 25th Infantry Division amphibious combat vehicles!
You say I gest? You say I've lost my mind? Then you don't know your history! The US Army has a proud but mostly underplayed amphibious assault story. Oh and I'm not talking about Rangers landing in zodiac boats, or the Normandy landings but of them having amphibious assault battalions during WW2, during the Korean War and even up till the beginning of the Vietnam War. Don't believe me? Check out the official Army history of "Amphibian Tractor and Tank Battalions during the Battle of Saipan" (here).
So why is a Marine that jealously guards Marine Corps roles and functions want the Army to make this move? Simple. There is no such thing as a crowded battlefield when it comes to allies.
Giving the Tropical Lightning boys some ACVs will allow them to supplement and exploit initial Marine Corps landings more quickly. It will allow them to easily integrate into the sea base. It will foster closer ties between the Marine Corps, Navy and the Army...and finally it will allow us to more easily blunt what I see as an overwhelming advantage that Chinese armored formations will have against a Marine Corps that is becoming "aviation centric".
I won't even touch on the idea of getting the Army to bite on a Marine Corps vehicle which will make training/supply chain much more manageable and the upgrade/family of vehicles easier on the budget!
One Army division that is amphibious in nature? Against a backdrop where Air Assault is no longer viable as a forcible entry option? Against the backdrop of the Marine Corps shedding armor and becoming more aviation centric? As a backup if distributed operations/expeditionary squad thinking fails horribly? I think that time has finally come. Especially if we ever have to cross swords with China...a fight I think is coming sooner rather than later.
Bell offering Australia AH-1Z/UH-1Y helicopters.
via Shepard News.
Keith Flail, VP of global military business development, outlined for Shephard Bell Helicopter's offering to Australia. He said that, for less than the price of sustaining and upgrading the current Tiger fleet, the army could buy 22 AH-1Z attack helicopters and 15 UH-1Y Venoms.Interesting.
Bell Helicopter is adding the Venom to the package because there is a future requirement to introduce a deployable helicopter for special forces use. Flail highlighted the 85% commonality between the Viper and Venom that would offer synergies in training and maintenance.
Bell provided a comparative analysis to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in July 2016 after the White Paper was released. Then last November it submitted a preliminary risk report. More recently, Bell Helicopter was asked to address funding options if an early Tiger retirement and early Viper procurement were pursued.
Regarding discussions over the Viper, the company said there had been 'good back and forth' with the ADF.
With the Royal Australian Navy having commissioned two Canberra-class landing helicopter dock ships, the marinised features of the Viper and Venom would be a good fit. Furthermore, the H-1 family would offer interoperability with the US Marine Corps (USMC).
This will be another one of those fascinating Australian procurement decisions. They operate in the Pacific, they have an LHD but will they go for the Apache or the helicopter designed to operate from the sea.
The fact that the Australian Army operates these aircraft instead of the Air Force or the Navy add confusion to the issue. If it was the Navy or Air Force we'd probably see more of a push to achieve commonality with the USMC and achieve NAVAIR operating standards aboard their LHD. Because it's the Australian Army then I see them opting for the Apache (and going the Brit route when it comes to operating procedure) even though the USMC has a strong presence on the continent.
Australia. The land with weird animals that will kill you on the spot and even weirder procurement practices.
F-35 wins 24-0? Why do we need so many?
via Australian Defense.
LTGEN Davis, who had been an instructor and also commander of the USMC air weapons school, said he had not seen anything like what the pilots were doing with this airplane in his 37 years as a Marine pilot.This is the usual boilerplate that I've come to expect from General Davis. He talks all the time about the plane being so freaking awesome that it probably pleasures the pilot while he or she flies it (does that make the F-35 a hermaphrodite?) but he never tells how it's accomplishing this amazing feat.
He compared the fighter to a quarterback: “it sees everything, it's very bright, it controls the play”. But whereas in traditional mission scenarios there were aircraft performing different roles (he used the analogy of linebackers, running backs, receivers), the F-35 more closely represented a soccer player: “every single player in that match is empowered to score, it's very agile and can put iself in a position to score so it's a very dynamic fight.”
At the annual Exercise Red Flag recently, in which elements of the RAAF participated, the USAF had reported kill ratios of at least 15:1 with the F-35A according to the General.
“In our own analysis we're seeing a consistent ratio more like 24:0 – we're not losing aircraft at all in our scenarios, and we set the conditions for other legacy fighters to be successful where we can.”
The USMC will be equipped with 16 and four squadrons of the B and C variants respectively. LTGEN Davis said he expected to see the same maturation occurring with the F-35 as happened with the F/A-18, three squadrons of which have been earmarked for imminent replacement by the F-35B.
Put that aside. That's his usual stump speech.
Focus on the kill claims. The USAF came out with that 15-1 claim at Red Flag and then bumped it up to 20-1. Now we're hearing Davis claiming 24-0. If that's the case then why do we need so many? If it can play quarterback then we can get by with far fewer of them and save the money to bolster our other defense related needs!
I was monitoring a conversation and one of the respondents said this...
In the presentation, Lt Gen Davis and Lt Gen Harris collectively claim that the final Loss-Exchange-Rate (LER) from 145 kills and 7 losses (all WVR) was 1: 20.7 (1:21 rounded). Lt Gen Davis claims that the F-35B was making most of the kills.The person (note the gender is nonspecific) went on to say this.
Let's take this at face value for a moment. Strategists use a carefully researched LERs to 'size' the number of combat aircraft and the number of missiles required - they need to because of the high costs of the platforms and weapons. Too many aircraft = lost money, too few = lost Nation.
AW&ST 20 Feb - 5 Mar 2017 'Flanker Fixation' has the Chinese Fighter Force size at 1,438, so dividing by the LER (as we do) sizes the required F-35 at 1,4,38 / 20.7 = 69.4 or 70 rounded. Double that to 140 to allow some margin of error, and add another 60 to account for the rest of the world and the 'required' JSF fleet is 200. Somewhat less than the planned US fleet of 2,443. DJT will be pleased at the potential savings!
Lt Gen Davis describes the result as 'incredible'. Probably one of the truer words of the presentation, as the oft misused word 'incredible' literal meaning is 'impossible to believe'.
All the more incredible when contemplating ACC's Gen Mike Hostage's assessment: 'The F-35 was not designed as an air superiority platform', and 'The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after.'
The JSF Joint Operational Requirements Document of 2002 was drawn from the air combat environment that existed at the time. When the JSF Project breached the Nunn-McCurdy provisions, an update of the JORD to reflect current and future air combat environments was declined - so the JSF JORD is firmly rooted in the long-gone world of 2002.I am constantly told to listen to the experts and to believe the generals.
Here is list (comprehensive but by no means complete) of what in now deployed (or close to) and hence what our future war-fighters must contend with: Su-35S, T-50 (not the trainer), J-20, J-31, Su-30MKx, J-10A&B, R-172, R-27 AR/IR/PH&HOJ, R-77 AR/IR/PH&HOJ, R-73/74, PL-12, PL-10, PL-21, DRFM Jammers, Towed Decoys, Forward-Firing chaff in the GSH-301, HF Skywave, HF Surface Wave, Nebo-M, Nebo-SVU, Kolchuga, Vera-E, S-300VM, S-300PMU2, S-350, S-400, S-500, HQ-9, HQ-12, Pantsir -S1 - you get the picture.
So, it it fair to wonder if the Red Flag 2017 was scripted using a JORD 2002 environment, not a realistic 2022 environment. If it was, why waste a lot of money ( these exercises are very expensive) emulating a world that no longer exists.
Could DJT's threat of changing the air combat mix to include a sizable number of F/A-18XTs in the US's future air combat fleet created a need to conduct a phony Red Flag to 'prove' the superiority of the 'not designed as an air superiority platform' JSF? Seems like they have over-egged the exercise, by 'proving' that a fleet of 200 JSFs will rule the world.
Ok.
So if we're to believe General Davis, Harris, Hostage and Bogdan about the capabilities of the F-35. If we're suppose to honestly believe them when they tell us that the F-35 can achieve kill ratios of as high as 24-0 and assuming it's actually as reliable as Bogdan has alleged (remember he blamed poor reliability rates on early production F-35's) then why do we need so many?
Please tell me why we need almost 2000 F-35 for the USAF alone if its capable of 15-1 loss ratios (help me out cause my math is terrible but doesn't this mean that 133 flag waving F-35's could easily knock down 2000 enemy fighters...want a kick in the nuts?....this means that taking Davis' ratio of 24-0 and assuming a nugget is gonna fuck it up so we make it 24-1, means that the USMC needs only 250 of these ass kickers to KILL 6000 enemy planes!!!!)? By that math the United States God Bless Marine Corps alone could take on the combined air fleets of the entire world and lose only a few dozen airplanes at worst!
Don't be shy. Tell me why I'm wrong to believe the Generals now!
US Army pushing to get more Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) sooner.
Thanks to Joe for the link!
via Bloomberg.
The first of the new combat vehicles are expected to be deployed as part of the European Reassurance Initiative starting around October 2019, the first quarter of fiscal 2020, service spokeswoman Ashley Givens said in an email. They would be the vanguard of up to 258 of the new, better-armored, more spacious vehicles, according to a service document. The service wants to field two brigades of the vehicles to Europe over four years, Givens said.I was on the verge of raging about the Marine Corps being so slow that the Army could develop a new vehicle and get it into service before the Corps could buy an off the shelf model.
The accelerated fielding “recognizes the shortcomings of the M113 in almost every possible way” in terms of protection, commonality with the Bradley Fighting Vehicles it must fight alongside and additional room for soldiers, Major General David Bassett, program executive for ground combat vehicles, said in an interview. Bassett recalled the M113 was removed from the Iraq War because of its inadequate armor protection.
Accelerating deployment for Europe “is just an acknowledgment that whatever acquisition risks exist with some early production” of the new vehicles that are now in prototyping, “it pales in comparison to the operational risk offered by an obsolete, legacy vehicle,” he said.
I'll table that critique though.
The Army's justification holds weight and I don't think we can say the same about the AAV-SU in comparison to the ACV versus the AMPV in comparison the M-113 (sorry Mike...don't rage bro, just an opinion!).
This does have me revolving back to the ACV vs. AAV-SU debate. Does the ACV give us enough to go with a family of vehicles? Is the ability to develop a family of vehicles based on whichever ACV candidate wins worth the expense?
I personally think it does but its worthy of debate.
The Warrior IFV Upgrade...the never talked about program.
Quick.
Name the IFV that we NEVER talk about. Name the IFV that has been in service as long as the Bradley, seen more combat than the German Puma, been thru more changes than a walkway model but never gets talked about in the military blogging community.
If you said the Brit Warrior IFV then you'd be right!

The pushback will be that the AJAX Scout has taken center stage but I haven't seen anything that the Warrior IFV Upgrade has been cancelled and that they're pushing forward with that vehicle assuming its roles.
The latest news I have is that the Warrior is slated to remain in service till 2040. So if my theory is wrong, then why isn't anyone talking about the Warrior IFV?
Open Comment Post. March 2, 2017.
Just a heads up guys. Do you like the illustration above? If so then you need to head over to Mike Spark's page! Yeah. That guy. Disagree if you like but his site is a treasure trove of old skool concepts that for one reason or another never made it. Additionally take a look at the military sites on Tumblr. From what I can tell it's like Reddit. It's got a bad reputation and yeah it's filled with porn and anime but once you get past the nonsense there are some pretty interesting things to take a look at.
ITX 2-17 (pics)
Editor's note: Either they mislabeled these photos over at DVIDS or the Marine Corps was running exercises at Yuma, Kaneohe Bay and 29 Palms simultaneously. Ordinarily that's no big deal. Everyone goes out to play at the same time occasionally. What makes this different is the label. It's all ITX 2-17. I can't determine the unit sizes at the different locations but it seems that the Marine Corps is doing distributed operations on a big scale across crazy distances. If this is the future then we could see one Marine Expeditionary Brigade controlling units involved in battles in three different continents. If I'm reading this right that is. I retain the right to be full of shit.
Wednesday, March 01, 2017
Is the Main Stream News Media coordinating their attacks on Trump? UPDATE!
Editor's note: The timing is too perfect. Right after an extremely successful speech by Trump that was extremely well received by the public (73% favorable). The coordination too perfect. Three major news organizations launch attacks which beat this drum? This is an obvious attempt to derail the Trump administration. It's so obvious that it's gross and obscene. That's my take. What's yours?
I'm gonna throw this out there and let you guys decide. Tonight MSNBC ran a special report titled "The Trump - Putin Power Play". They're not more than 10 minutes into their show and then there is breaking news that Obama White House wanted Trump intel on the record before change of administration from the New York Times. Then we have a story from the Washington Post stating that on background Justice Dept officials say that Sessions met with Russian officials.
I'm just the messenger but check this out.
We have three old skool main stream media organizations that miraculously released information on the "Russia" story on the same night at practically the same time.
Additionally it's happening after Trump's speech when he was basking in the glow of a well received performance and was being lauded for trying to bring the nation together.
I smell a steaming pile.
I sense we're being subjected to an information campaign. I'll even go out on a limb and say that this whole thing is much ado about nothing.
This is designed to freeze the Trump administration and to wreck his agenda. I only hope that they're strong enough to push thru. What do you guys think?
I'm gonna throw this out there and let you guys decide. Tonight MSNBC ran a special report titled "The Trump - Putin Power Play". They're not more than 10 minutes into their show and then there is breaking news that Obama White House wanted Trump intel on the record before change of administration from the New York Times. Then we have a story from the Washington Post stating that on background Justice Dept officials say that Sessions met with Russian officials.
I'm just the messenger but check this out.
We have three old skool main stream media organizations that miraculously released information on the "Russia" story on the same night at practically the same time.
Additionally it's happening after Trump's speech when he was basking in the glow of a well received performance and was being lauded for trying to bring the nation together.
I smell a steaming pile.
I sense we're being subjected to an information campaign. I'll even go out on a limb and say that this whole thing is much ado about nothing.
This is designed to freeze the Trump administration and to wreck his agenda. I only hope that they're strong enough to push thru. What do you guys think?
Wow. Dude lost his job because of that crazy tweet...UPDATED!
Editor's note: Hey guys let me be clear (as if I wasn't clear enough in the article). I am not saying that I shed one tear for this guy. I'm not saying that this isn't perfect karma. I'm not saying that he was wronged. What I am trying to do is to take a wider look at the implications here. This guy made an idiotic tweet. My thinking is that he thought he was only talking to friends and others that shared his point of view. The tweet got into the wild and one broadcasted "oh shit" moment has turned into a life altering event (oh shit moments have a tendency to do that). The question in my mind is if a private corporation has the right to fire someone over thoughts/views that although offensive are still protected even if they're broadcast to the world on your private time...is it right/in keeping with workers rights. If they do have that right (and many of you seem to think they do) then what is the line that they can't cross? If they provide healthcare can they keep you from drinking alcohol? It affects the bottom line and is a factor in performance, even if you drink only on the weekends. What about fat bodies? Can they demand fat people lose weight for professional looks, and health reasons? I was trying to present this from a bird's eye level and hoped that the discussion would look at the bigger picture.
Remember this disgusting tweet that I blogged about earlier? Well the company that he works for "Liberty Advisors Group" issued a statement. Check it out below.
This does bring up a few interesting questions though. I'm sure this guy will be ok, after all he's a former Hillary staffer. They'll find him a cushy position somewhere in the Democrat party and when the heat dies down he'll worm his way back into corporate America (I wish to God I had recorded all the talking heads on MSNBC that practically said the same last night....it would be good to thin the herd over at that joint).
But think about this. What if it was a normal guy or gal? How far can corporations go to "inspect" your Twitter account to make sure it sings the company line? At what point can unpleasant speech or even contrary opinions go before they cross a line where a corporation can legally separate an individual over them? Is this the brave new world we live in or a one off?
I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong. I shed no tears for this bastard but it is an eye opening situation. Free speech...even if its speech we/I disagree with is still freely expressed. But it does have a price if you're unaware of the invisible line that corporate America has laid out.
Remember this disgusting tweet that I blogged about earlier? Well the company that he works for "Liberty Advisors Group" issued a statement. Check it out below.
Last night during President Trump’s speech, a Liberty Advisor Group employee sent out an offensive and inappropriate tweet regarding the Gold Star family that was being rightly honored before Congress and the Nation. The personal views of this individual do not represent Liberty and we vigorously disavow them. Although the message and subsequent apologies were sent from an individual’s personal account, and bore no connection to his work with Liberty, his comments were inconsistent with the Company’s values and the unyielding respect it has for the members of our Nation’s Armed Forces. Regardless of whether the comments in the tweet were intended to cause the hurt and anger that they ultimately generated, they were unacceptable to us, and the individual who issued the tweet is no longer affiliated with Liberty. Liberty’s culture places a high value on the men and women of America's military who fight to defend us and our families. We honor them. We want to express our sincere condolences to Mrs. Owens. We also apologize to all those who have served this nation, including those Liberty employees who have themselves served, and anyone else who was offended by these comments.How hot are things over at Liberty? Well it took me about 30 seconds for the website to open. I imagine the traffic load is pretty damn heavy.
This does bring up a few interesting questions though. I'm sure this guy will be ok, after all he's a former Hillary staffer. They'll find him a cushy position somewhere in the Democrat party and when the heat dies down he'll worm his way back into corporate America (I wish to God I had recorded all the talking heads on MSNBC that practically said the same last night....it would be good to thin the herd over at that joint).
But think about this. What if it was a normal guy or gal? How far can corporations go to "inspect" your Twitter account to make sure it sings the company line? At what point can unpleasant speech or even contrary opinions go before they cross a line where a corporation can legally separate an individual over them? Is this the brave new world we live in or a one off?
I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong. I shed no tears for this bastard but it is an eye opening situation. Free speech...even if its speech we/I disagree with is still freely expressed. But it does have a price if you're unaware of the invisible line that corporate America has laid out.
1st Battalion 66th Armor MBT's are getting reactive armor...
Thanks to Jokuvaan for the link!
Interesting. This armor package has been out forever. Why do they need contractor support? Must be nice though! You supervise the installation of gear that should be taught at the Armor schoolhouse?
Want to reform the Pentagon? Start with contractors!
Interesting. This armor package has been out forever. Why do they need contractor support? Must be nice though! You supervise the installation of gear that should be taught at the Armor schoolhouse?
Want to reform the Pentagon? Start with contractors!
F-35 reliability issues? Blame early jets...
Thanks to Joe for the link!
via Reuters.
The overall reliability of Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets is being pulled down by initial versions of the aircraft which do not perform as well as more recently delivered jets, the Pentagon's head of the F-35 program said on Tuesday.What is going on here?
The program has experienced extensive delays and cost overruns, but the price per jet has steadily declined as production increased, Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan of the U.S. Department of Defense said at Australia's Avalon Airshow.
As U.S. President Donald Trump pushes Lockheed Martin and its suppliers to cut costs, Bogdan said the price per jet should fall to $80 million by 2020 from $94.6 million at present.
The first F-35 aircraft were delivered to the U.S. military in 2011. With some of those earlier aircraft, production advances means they underperform newer models, Bogdan said.
"Unfortunately today the aircraft reliability and maintainability of the airplane is what I would call flat," he said. "It is not bad. It is just not getting a whole lot better really fast. You separate out their (Lockheed Martin's) good airplanes, they are getting better, faster. But not if you include the older airplanes. We have to work on that."
"Eventually when we modify those older airplanes up to the standards of the newer airplanes we will have a fleet that is fairly robust," Bogdan told reporters.
My guess?
I think someone, somewhere is taking a real hard look at the reliability numbers on the F-35. Remember when I said that cost was no longer a talking point and that we needed to shift to capabilities? I was right and wrong. This pre-emptive strike on the reliability issue indicates that capabilities might be the wrong target (at least in the short term).
This is doubly amazing because the USAF is crowing about the amazing reliability of the airplane at Red Flag. Same with the USMC with regard to its performance at exercises and during deployments.
This bears watching.
Attacking the wife of a slain service member? A line has been crossed.
pics via Daily Caller
I watched MSNBC to see the liberal reaction to the Trump speech and it was as expected. Non stop criticism. Ok. I can live with that. They have a different point of view.
What shocked me was the attacks on the widow of the slain Navy SEAL. I held fire and didn't blog about his father going off on Trump. The guy was grieving and it's his right. Now fast forward to Trump's speech. Liberals were foaming at the mouth. Not only did they take aim at Trump but they took aim at her. To hear liberal commentators spew such unmitigated hatred toward this grieving wife is beyond my comprehension.
This is unsat.
A line has been crossed.
But forget my contempt for their behavior. What I'd like to know is how we fix this so it doesn't happen again.
I watched MSNBC to see the liberal reaction to the Trump speech and it was as expected. Non stop criticism. Ok. I can live with that. They have a different point of view.
What shocked me was the attacks on the widow of the slain Navy SEAL. I held fire and didn't blog about his father going off on Trump. The guy was grieving and it's his right. Now fast forward to Trump's speech. Liberals were foaming at the mouth. Not only did they take aim at Trump but they took aim at her. To hear liberal commentators spew such unmitigated hatred toward this grieving wife is beyond my comprehension.
This is unsat.
A line has been crossed.
But forget my contempt for their behavior. What I'd like to know is how we fix this so it doesn't happen again.
A letter from a South Korean Student Soldier to his mother just days before his death....
![]() |
A South Korean Student Soldier During the Korean War, Days Before he is Killed by Advancing North Korean Troops. His Letter for his Mother is Discovered on his Body via Historium Tumblr Page. |
Thursday, August 10th, 1950It's a shame he couldn't keep his word to his mom. War doesn't care about promises or hopes/dreams...or loved ones.
“Mother, today I killed a man
I threw a terrifying device called a grenade and it killed him instantly
The explosion nearly tore out my ear drums
Even as I write, my ear is filled with dreadful echo.
As much as an enemy they are to me, it pains my heart knowing that the people I’m shooting at are my people who I share the same blood and language with
And as if death is approaching, my fellow student comrades lay hopelessly in the sun, as if the enemy might advance any moment.
The enemy is dead silent, I do not know when they shall strike.
They have countless foes, we only have 71.
I am scared because I do not know what to do next.
Mother, there is a chance I might die today
It’s unlikely that those numerous soldiers would just ignore us
Mother, it’s not that I’m afraid of death
I’m afraid that I shall never see you or my siblings again.
However, I shall live
I promise I will survive
Mother, my heart is starting to settle now.
Mother, I shall survive and be at your side again.
I want to eat fresh lettuce wrap right now
I want to slurp down on cold noodles until my teeth fall off beside the waterfall.
Ah, the enemies are coming now.
I shall write again.
Mother goodbye! Goodbye! Ah, it’s not goodbye.
For I shall write again.
Until then.
Alien: Covenant | Official Trailer
I wanted to see Space Marines but instead we're getting a couples retreat to a planet infested with Xenomorphs?
Doggies snacks for bugs? No training to kill the baddies? This is just a space snuff film masquerading as Sci-Fi.
So disappointing. I'm hoping my read on this is wrong but this trailer does not inspire confidence.
Blast from the past...China is the clear and present danger!
Watch this video starting at the 19:00 mark. What you will hear is the unvarnished truth about China and the threat that they present. So what happens when a person stands up and states the obvious to the military hierarchy? They get smashed. Check this out via Navy Times.
A senior Navy intelligence leader whose provocative comments this year about Chinese bellicosity stirred an international controversy has been shelved in the wake of an investigation into his conduct, Navy Times has learned.Capt Fanell was punished for trying to warn the nation about a danger to its very existence. ISIS is a sideshow. Russia isn't a threat and even if they were the EU nations could handle it. China. China is the danger but few want to wrap their heads around that reality.
Capt. James Fanell, the director of intelligence and information operations at U.S. Pacific Fleet, has been removed from that position by PACFLT boss Adm. Harry Harris and reassigned within the command, Navy officials confirmed.
Fanell warned during a February public appearance that a recent Chinese amphibious exercise led naval intelligence to assess that China's strategy was to be able to launch a "short, sharp war" with Japan, an unusually frank assessment about a closely watched region.
His comments, which ran counter to the Pentagon's talking points on building ties to the increasingly assertive Chinese navy, were picked up by media outlets from The New York Times and Reuters to London's Financial Times and Daily Telegraph. Top defense officials, including the 4-star head of the Army and the Pentagon spokesman, were forced to respond to his comment in the following days.
US Navy buys more Growlers/Super Hornets...production line secure...
Thanks to Super Rhino for the link!
via GovWire
Boeing (NYSE: BA) has received a potential two-year, $678.7 million contract to build seven lot 40 EA-18G Growler aircraft, five F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter jets and related aerial electronic attack kits for the U.S. Navy.Some will undoubtedly focus on the number of aircraft procured. From my seat that's the wrong metric. I believe that the aircraft are needed but the main goal of this contract is to provide the seed corn necessary for Boeing to secure the production line/expertise/workforce. But even that isn't the real goal. I believe the US Navy is seeking to set the stage to ensure a quick ramp up in production when the new defense bill is signed.
The company will perform work in California, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, Texas, Arizona, Ohio and Canada through February 2019 under the sole-source, fixed-price contract, the Defense Department said Monday.
The Naval Air Systems Command will obligate the full contract amount from the service branch’s aircraft procurement funds for fiscal 2016 at the time of award.
The Growler is a variant of the F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jet and has Advanced Electronically Scanned Array radar, air-to-air missiles, digital datalinks and tactical jamming platforms that work against hostile air defenses.
The Boeing-made Super Hornet is a twin-engine fighter jet that has enclosed weapons pod and conformal fuel tanks and is designed to land and take off from an aircraft carrier.
This is good news for Boeing and the US Navy.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The Roman "Art of Victory" by Publius Flavius Vegetius
via The Art Of Manliness
Sometime in the late 4th or early 5th century, as the late Roman Empire stumbled along in the twilight of its power, an author of whom almost nothing is known compiled a book on the art of war to present to the emperor.And then this.
Rome’s economy was soft, its politics corrupt, but what most concerned the author was the creeping disintegration of the one institution that at least kept those other two extant: the military.
Like the rest of Roman society, its once mighty fighting force had fallen victim to decadence. Whereas the army of the early empire had consisted of highly disciplined, well-trained Roman regulars, the standards of the legendary legionaries had fallen, as had their numbers; a much smaller standing army was now supplemented with auxiliary units composed of barbarian mercenaries.
Epitoma Rei Militaris (Epitome of Military Science) by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (known simply as Vegetius) was an attempt to get the emperor to remedy the military’s weaknesses before it was too late. “Epitome” here refers to a summary, as Vegetius’ work was not an entirely original composition, but rather a collection of “commentaries on the art of war abridged from authors of the highest repute.” The Epitome of Military Science collects the wisdom of Rome’s early military commanders on organization, equipment, arms, leadership, logistics, and more. The book contains both practical advice on how to recruit, train, and harden troops of excellence and courage, as well as pithy maxims on tactics and strategy. Vegetius said the work could be called a “Rule-Book of Battle” or the “Art of Victory.”
“For there is nothing stabler nor more fortunate or admirable than a State which has copious supplies of soldiers who are trained. For it is not fine raiment or stores of gold, silver and gems that bend out enemies to respect or support us; they are kept down solely by fear of our arms.”Gents, this one is a must read...there are no new issues, and we can look to history for solutions. Check it out here.
“He who wants victory, let him train soldiers diligently. He who wishes a successful outcome, let him fight with strategy, not at random. No one dares challenge or harm one who he realizes will win if he fights.”
Blast from the past...F-35 clubbed like baby seals...
via Next Big Future.
2008 RAND SimulationUS military leadership know a dirty secret that we've been talking about on the pages of SNAFU! for a couple of years now. Yesterday I posted a story brought to our attention from one of my eagle eyed readers about a RAND assessment that in their scenarios the US could lose a major war. That's the second assessment by RAND in a little less than a decade (I shutter at the thought of what the classified war games reveal). The story above was the first open source admission of the truth, but a critical view of other readily available information tells the tale.
In Stillion and Perdue’s August 2008 war simulation, a massive Chinese air and naval force bore down on Beijing’s longtime rival Taiwan amid rising tensions in the western Pacific. A sudden Chinese missile barrage wiped out the tiny, outdated Taiwanese air force, leaving American jet fighters based in Japan and Guam to do battle with Beijing’s own planes and, hopefully, forestall a bloody invasion.
In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles.
That left 16 of the smaller, single-engine F-35s to do battle with the Chinese. As they began exchanging fire with the enemy jets within the mathematical models of the mock conflict, the results were shocking.
America’s newest stealth warplane and the planned mainstay of the future Air Force and the air arms of the Navy and Marine Corps, was no match for Chinese warplanes. Despite their vaunted ability to evade detection by radar, the JSFs were blown out of the sky. “The F-35 is double-inferior,” Stillion and Perdue moaned in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press.
The analysts railed against the new plane, which to be fair played only a small role in the overall simulation. “Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” they wrote. “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” Once missiles and guns had been fired and avoiding detection was no longer an option — in all but the first few seconds of combat, in other words — the F-35 was unable to keep pace with rival planes.
And partly as a result, the U.S. lost the simulated war. Hundreds of computer-code American air crew perished. Taiwan fell to the 1s and 0s representing Chinese troops in Stillion and Perdue’s virtual world. Nearly a century of American air superiority ended among the wreckage of simulated warplanes, scattered across the Pacific
China has gained regional superiority in the Pacific. It's no longer a question but a provable fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)