VBTP 6x6 is now in the hands of the Lebanese Army!

Pic via Defense Blog, story here.

General Amos. I'm not a fan but his vision of the USMC was spot on...

Thanks to John for the link!

via San Diego Tribune.

"The Marine Corps is America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness * a balanced air-ground-logistics team. We are forward-deployed and forward-engaged * shaping, training, deterring and responding to all manner of crises and contingencies. We create options and decision space for our Nation's leaders. Alert and ready, we respond to today's crisis, with today's force...TODAY. Teaming with other services, allies and interagency partners, we enable and participate in joint and combined operations of any magnitude. Responsive and scalable, we operate independent of local infrastructure. A middleweight force, we are light enough to get there quickly, but heavy enough to carry the day upon arrival. We operate throughout the spectrum of threats * irregular, hybrid, or conventional * or the shady areas where they overlap. Marines are ready to respond whenever the Nation calls...wherever the President may direct."

Then this...

 Factoring all aspects of our role in the Nation's defense, the United States Marine Corps affords the following three strategic advantages:

* We provide a versatile ‘middleweight' capability to respond across the range of military operations.

* We possess an inherent agility that buys time for national leaders and provides them decision space to better analyze developing situations.

* And finally, we bring an enabling and partnering capability to joint and combined operations of any magnitude.

So tell me something readers.  Remember my post from yesterday?  You can check it out here but focus on the part where a serving General is describing the USMC.

 Lt. Gen. Gary Thomas, deputy commandant for programs and resources, said the Marines had not invested as much money into modernization overall as the service would have liked, due to spending caps and near-term readiness challenges, but he said in terms of the aviation versus ground force spending “we do feel like we are balanced.”
“We are a light general purpose force. 

If we're changing from a medium weight general purpose force that can scale up and down the spectrum of combat to a light general purpose force then we need to re-do roles and missions and let the Army know that they're gonna be taking on a bigger slice of the ground combat pie.

What's worse?  It appears that there is no confusion and that the goal IS to become a light general purpose force (if the old adage of "don't listen to words, watch what they spend money on" applies).

General Thomas is the Deputy Commandant for programs and resources.  It's his job to build the Marine Corps to plan.  Either he lied, misspoke or doesn't know what the hell he's doing.  You pick which one.

5 takeaways from the Marines landing in Syria via Washington Examiner.

via Washington Examiner.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that U.S. Marines of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are now deployed in northern Syria to fight the Islamic State. They are likely proximate to the U.S. rebel ally-held town of Ayn Issa, about 50 kilometers north of the Islamic State capital, Raqqah. This is significant news for five reasons.

First, it shows the final battle for Raqqah is imminent. This deployment is too large to mean nothing. With more than 2,100 Marines in complement, each MEU is also endowed with tanks, around 20 helicopters (including Ospreys), close air support jets, and armored assault vehicles. An MEU, in short, really packs a punch. The Pentagon would never amass such military power unless for something significant. That something, as I noted recently, is the seizure of Raqqa.

Second, It shows Trump believes boots on the ground can be positive. Until now, Trump has railed against significant U.S. military ground force actions in the Middle East. This action suggests he has changed his mind. Requesting Trump's authority to send the Marines ashore, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regional CENTCOM commander, General Votel, would have made clear the risks.

Third, this deployment shows the Pentagon is preparing for the post-Islamic State Syrian environment.

Read the whole thing here. 

The entire article is worth the read, but I highlighted the third point for a reason.

It worries the hell outta me.

Winning battles is something that the US military does well.  Stabilizing and rebuilding countries is a Pentagon fascination and they keep doing it (rather trying to do it) and failing.

I don't know how tight a grip on the wheel Trump has on this military operation, but I hope to God that he doesn't get us caught in building another nation...no matter how much his General's beg him to.

JESUS! The CH-53K is now more expensive than the F-35A!

via Inside Defense (behind a paywall)

The Marine Corps CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter program's cost has increased by 22 percent over the baseline estimate and the price is higher than the Air Force F-35 variant, according to House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee Ranking Member Niki Tsongas (D-MA). Tsongas said during a March 10 hearing the 22 percent cost growth equates to $122 million per copy. The F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing jet costs the taxpayer $94.6 million per copy in the Lot 10 buy. 

The Marine Corps cancelled the EFV because of its high cost.  Slow walked the ACV because they prioritized aviation over the ground component.

Now?

Now we see costs for a freaking helicopter exploding to over 100 million dollars per!  I'd rant but I'm frankly too shocked for words.  I thought the CH-53K would be the one aviation program that delivered on time and at a reasonable price.  I was wrong.

Open Comment Post. March 11, 2017

via IVANgraphics.com (click here)

The Shooter by Mauricioabril

mauricioabril“The Shooter” - A story that I came up with two years ago actually but only just now got to draw it out. As a fan of storytelling I always let the art dictate the medium and this one seemed like it could only live as a comic. Hope you all have a great weekend!

Congress Critter asks why the Marine Corps spends so much on aviation, so little on ground component!

via USNI News

The Marine Corps’ top financial officer told lawmakers that the service considers its modernization programs properly balanced between aviation and ground needs, while acknowledging that there hasn’t been enough money in recent years to buy the ground assets at a proper pace.
The Marine Corps has faced the challenge in recent years of having to replace all its aircraft types, while simultaneously having to replace ground vehicles and amphibious vehicles and connectors. None are cheap, and having nearly a dozen modernization programs at once – plus across-the-board sequester cuts and then annual spending caps – has further complicated the service’s modernization outlook.
House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee ranking member Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) asked during a Marine Corps modernization hearing today whether too much priority had gone to aviation in recent years instead of ground vehicles and equipment.
“While the Marine Corps certainly has a need for aircraft of many types, the ratio of spending on aircraft compared to ground equipment is striking. The Fiscal Year 2017 budget request was no exception to this trend: in it the Marine Corps requested approximately $1.5 billion for procurement of ground equipment and ammunition, however in the same president’s budget it requested $5.3 billion for just five aircraft programs: the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, the CH-53K King Stallion helicopter, the V-22 Osprey, the AH-1 attack helicopter and the KC-130 refueler,” she said during the hearing.
“While the individual aircraft programs in question are likely very important when taken individually, the scale of the imbalance – more than three to one in just this fiscal year – suggests that upgrading aircraft is currently valued higher than upgrading ground equipment. I have some concerns about this ratio of spending on aircraft versus ground equipment, given the Marine Corps’ mission to be the premiere force in readiness and the historical reliance that the nation has placed on the Marine Corps’ role in ground combat.”
Lt. Gen. Gary Thomas, deputy commandant for programs and resources, said the Marines had not invested as much money into modernization overall as the service would have liked, due to spending caps and near-term readiness challenges, but he said in terms of the aviation versus ground force spending “we do feel like we are balanced.”
“We are a light general purpose force. One of the things that gives the Marine Corps an advantage on the battlefield is its mobility and its fires. Much of that comes from aviation,” he said.
“The ground side, in terms of fires, mobility – those are equally as important, but if we were just to look relatively how we’re investing across aviation and ground, without looking at the cost – although there are significant differences there – but in terms of capability and capacity, we think we’re balanced.”

First.  WELL DONE TO Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.)!!!

Second.  The ratio is off, has been off since Amos and the concept for operations hasn't kept up with the changing battlefield.  Too many eggs are being placed in the aviation basket.

Third.  Since when is the Marine Corps a "light general purpose force"????  I have always been taught, told, and preached that the Marine Corps is a medium weight force able to scale up and down the spectrum of warfare.  America's Shock Troops!

This is good news.  Someone in Congress gets it.  

Rosomak 6x6 is born!

Thanks to Galvars for the link!

Story here (you'll need a translator).

USMC F-35 performance at Red Flag not what we were told?

via The Drive.

 A reading between the lines would seem to prove Marine F-35Bs were still far from ready for actual combat a year after the service declared the aircraft had achieved initial operational capability (IOC). It's especially enlightening to read after the Air Force's impressive claims about its own F-35As at Red Flag 17-1 in February 2017, where pilots reportedly racked up an impressive kill ratio of 15-to-1, a figure that was later revised to 20-to-1.

Interesting.  What else does the article have to say?

Bardo did not include his squadron’s win/loss ratio for Red Flag 16-3, but blamed all losses on pilot error or the exercise’s constraints. The limits of Nellis’ training range, artificial no-fly areas, and rules that confined the jets in a 1,000 foot “altitude block,” meant the F-35s could play to their strengths, he wrote. Based on the available information, we cannot independently assess those claims.
Even with these limitations, VMFA-121’s aviators had “the ability to use the aircraft's high fidelity sensors to share data over Link-16 [data link] with fourth-generation assets with less capable sensors/radars,” Bardo explained. “This type of non-kinetic support was a force multiplier and enabled fourth generation escort assets to be more lethal and survivable.” 

The whole story is here..read the article before you comment!

SAIC/ST Kinetics Terrex 2 ACV highlighted on Breaking Defense.

Breaking Defense has a "how it came to be" story on the Terrex 2 ACV and why SAIC teamed with ST Kinetics to offer it to the Marine Corps.

While I'm truly conflicted on which vehicle is best (swim test will be the deciding factor I believe...I wonder why BAE has gone dark when it comes to talking about the SuperAV?) I truly think we're at a point where we can't go wrong in the pick.

What still irks is how long it's taking to get this off the shelf vehicle into production (yeah...I know off the shelf is a talking point and not reality especially when it comes to the Terrex 2, but you get what I mean).

Regardless, its a neat little article and worth a few minutes of your time.

Open Comment Post. March 10, 2017.

Thanks to Anthony 256 for the pics!

US Army Rangers in Syria...does this mean a change in SOCOM operating philosophy?

via Army Times

A team from the 75th Ranger Regiment is operating in Syria as American forces ramp up the fight against ISIS in its capital city. 
The special operators and a Marine artillery unit are positioned in Syria to provide support to the commander of Operation Inherent Resolve in the effort to liberate Raqqa, according to a U.S. Central Command spokesman. 
"The exact numbers and locations of these forces are sensitive in order to protect our forces, but there will be approximately an additional 400 enabling forces deployed for a temporary period to enable our Syrian partnered forces to defeat ISIS in Raqqah," Air Force Lt. Col. John Dorrian told Marine Corps Times in a statement Wednesday. 

Apparently the Strykers were carrying markings that identified the unit as being Army Rangers.  I missed that part, but the idea that Rangers are on the ground and not Special Forces makes me wonder.

Are we seeing a change in philosophy?

Special Forces adopted the raid and only raids concept when the current fighting in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan should be their solo playground.  This is the kind of fight where "combat multipliers" should RULE the day.

But they switched to raids.

The same could be said of Navy SEALs.  It could be said that historically they've been more focused on recon than direct action, but they've recently embraced that as their primary mission.

They've also gone all raids.

There is a problem though.  Terrorists have formed much larger groups and its common to run across at least company sized group if not bigger.  6-8 man sized actions are no longer appropriate.  This can be seen in the sniper communities in both the Army and Marine Corps.  Two man teams have given way to six and now almost platoon sized groups go out hunting.

Is it possible that small unit (meaning smaller than platoon sized) actions are no longer viable?  Could my preaching that on the modern battlefield company sized elements are too vulnerable, even against terrorists and that conventional units should operate at battalion strength?

If the philosophy is changing then we're about to see Rangers and MARSOC come to the fore as the units of choice for special ops missions.  Special Forces and SEALs will have to re-evaluate and probably start operating in company sized elements.  The culture shock for these units will be extreme but I think it's the future...especially if the raids and only raids attitude persists!

Under Control by Marek Okon via Camerxn Tumblr Page!

“Don’t worry Ma'am, we have them under control”

Open Comment Post. March 9, 2017.

Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump (vid)

Levin makes a pretty good case.  I'm conservative so I'm biased but I believe this guy.

Defence Technology Review Magazine video tapes Boxer CRV heading out to the range

Australia.  Talk about a weird place.  The testing is taking place at Puckapunyal how do you even pronounce that?  What madman came up with a name like that?  Exactly how much crack do you have to digest to be able to pronounce that correctly?

Australia.  Beautiful country.  Beautiful women.  Fucked up animals and names of places.

United States Marines have landed in Syria!

Thanks to Filippo for the pics!

Pics are via Charles Lister's Twitter Page.

Trying to find out if this is just an artillery battalion (or smaller) and the infantry battalion (or smaller) providing security.  Either way it's apparent that after Dunford met with his Russian and Turkish counterparts that destroying ISIS is NOW the number one goal of the United States.

About fucking time!

This is how you end the refugee crisis.  This is how you arrange for the headchoppers to get their 72 goats!

Discussion. How effective is the Russian anti-air complex of the Pantsir S1-3 and S300v4?

Above you see infographics on the Pantsir S1-3 and S300v4 anti-air gun/missile systems.

Earlier today I got into a pissing match with a reader over a story regarding Israeli F-35's already having been in combat striking a warehouse in Syria.  The source of the story went on to say that the reason for the strike was to keep Hezbollah from obtaining Pantsir anti-air missile systems that he said would deny the Israeli Air Force access to Lebanon.

I took the story of Israeli F-35's being used in combat with a grain of salt.  Quite honestly I rate it as propaganda for the program.  What made me sit up and take notice was the claim that the Pantsir could give the terrorist a ready made anti-access aerial denial weapon.

If that system is that good then it would be a huge development for the region.  We're already seeing terrorist groups challenge nation state armies on the ground, but if they could do it in the air then that would be an alarming new "thing" that could change things in the ME in the near term.

Which brings me back to this.

How effective are these systems?  I want opinions.  Is the Frenchie right?  Could the Pantsir deny the Israeli Air Force entry into Lebanon?  Could the teaming of the Pantsir and S300v4 effectively nullify US efforts (if it came to that) of destroying Iranian nuclear weapon sites?

What do you think.

First to Fight | Marines land in Vietnam (vid) & Modest Proposal for a name change.

In today's military the "expeditionary" is applied to every damn thing.  It's been co-opted by every branch to such a point that even the USAF calls its air wing's "expeditionary".

The term has lost its flavor and is no longer distinctive.

I propose a name change that is in keeping with our history and yet will once again set USMC units apart from others.

Dump "expeditionary" and go to the Vietnam standard "amphibious"!

What do I mean?  During the Vietnam War the USMC changed the name of its MEU's to MAU...Marine Amphibious Units.  The name change was to prevent form offending the locals that had a bad experience with French expeditionary units (if I'm remembering my history....correct me if I'm wrong, I'm tossing this up on the fly).

So in essence we went from MEU, MEB, MEF to MAU, MAB and MAF.  Marine Amphibious Units instead of Marine Expeditionary Units might seem contrary to Marine Corps history but we've used it before and it would be in keeping with the idea of the Corps returning to the sea.

Either way its just an idea and if it costs too much to change the letterhead then it should be rejected on those grounds alone.

Pic of the day....USS Makin underway