Sunday, March 12, 2017
China puts the J-20 into service because they fear the F-35?
via National Interest.
China made the decision to operationally deploy the J-20 despite its technical problems because of the threat posed the by Lockheed Martin F-35, according to the SCMP’s source. Indeed, more of the stealth fighters are scheduled to join the PLAAF later this year. “It’s urgent for China to show off its achievements as soon as possible,” the source said.Story here.
However, while Beijing is trying to rush the J-20 into service to counter the F-35, the Chinese machine is not likely to be a directly analogue to the American jet or its stablemate, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The J-20—which appears to be larger than Raptor—is more likely designed to attack the support elements that hold American air operations together such as tankers, AWACS and JSTARs radar planes. Over the vast reaches of the Pacific, where fuel is at a premium, destroying a tanker could achieve the same result as shooting down an enemy fighter.
China is developing the ramjet-powered PL-15 that could have a range as great as 120 miles. The PL-15 weapon has caused consternation within the top-ranks of the U.S. Air Force with Air Combat Command commander Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle citing the Chinese weapon as one of the pressing reasons for the United States to develop a next-generation replacement for the decades-old AIM-120 AMRAAM.
“How do we counter that and what are we going to do to continue to meet that threat?” Carlisle asked during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2015. Later, during an interview with Flightglobal, Carlisle said that countering the new Chinese missile was an “exceedingly high priority” for the U.S. Air Force. “The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” Carlisle said.
Indeed, the problem is not just that the PL-15 would out-range the AMRAAM, when coupled with the J-20, the Chinese could attack the tankers and ISR aircraft that would be the key enablers during any air campaign over the Pacific. A 2008 RAND briefing suggested that in order to sustain F-22 operations over Taiwan from Guam, the U.S. Air Force would need to launch three to four tanker sorties per hour to deliver 2.6 million gallons of fuel. That’s a fact that has not likely escaped Beijing’s notice.
I like Dave and he's played it as down the middle as possible when it comes to the F-35 controversy, but this article is curious as hell.
And I think he's missed the reasoning behind China's move.
The Chinese are as aware of the F-35's shortcomings as anyone in the West. I'm sure they scour websites and forums looking for info on the F-35. They truly understand that the plane is not ready for primetime.
So if the F-35 isn't a threat then why did they rush the J-20 into service?
Simple.
To save face.
Asian culture is fascinating to me. To be publicly embarrassed, humiliated etc...will not stand. Wait. It's a bit more complicated than that and words escape me to properly describe it, but saving face is very important. It dates back centuries but is still common enough to help understand actions on a personal and even international level.
That's one reason why Trump doesn't worry me on any issue except China. If the Chinese leadership are backed into a corner they will hit back. Don't get me wrong. I don't fear the Chinese but I think I understand them. Things that would require the turning of the cheek by US presidents and population to prevent hostilities are the same issues in reverse that would start WW3 if we did it to the Chinese.
Take the artificial islands for example.
If Japan, S. Korea or God forbid the US did the same to them in international waters the Chinese leadership would have sent warships to destroy the construction equipment.
Which brings me back to the F-35.
The Chinese don't fear it, but they did see a need to show the world and their own population that they aren't scared and that they could match us. So what are we left with? Two stealth fighters operating in the Pacific that aren't ready for combat. Two countries that are posturing with equipment that doesn't work. This boys and girls is how you stumble into wars you aren't ready for.
Elements of the 82nd are in Kuwait. US order of battle against ISIS is becoming clear.
via Army Times
The U.S. military is sending an additional 2,500 ground combat troops to a staging base in Kuwait from which they could be called upon to back up coalition forces battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.So why send the 82nd to Kuwait?
The deployment will include elements of the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team, which is based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. About 1,700 soldiers from the same unit are overseas now, spread between Iraq and Kuwait. They're focused on the U.S.-led effort to train and assist the Iraqi troops doing much of the fighting against ISIS there.
Theater Reserve?
Special Operations Support? They are spread all over Kuwait so they might be doing the Army's version of distributed operations.
Rescue force for US units in danger of being over run? Kinda far away for that, but I'm sure they have elements that have pushed forward and are setup in remote parts of the desert.
Occupation troops for Mosul or parts of Syria when ISIS is finally killed? Doubt it. They're too lightly equipped for that nonsense and Trump has stated that he isn't interested in nation building (ignore that "take the oil" stuff...it won't fly and even if it did we'd have to send Divisions not a Brigade Combat Team).
I don't know.
The Pentagon way of doing this is kinda curious. Why send parts of your global response force when the 173rd is sitting in Europe waiting to do their job here. With the distances involved and with the force being so light why not use the 101st (they are truly the forgotten division in the Army right now).
We see the outlines of the end game with regard to ISIS and the US order of battle is starting to take shape but the plan that's to be implemented is still murky. I guess we need to be patient and see how this goes.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
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: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.
* 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.
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.”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.
“We are a light general purpose force.
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.
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!
Friday, March 10, 2017
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.First. WELL DONE TO Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.)!!!
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.”
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.
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.The whole story is here..read the article before you comment!
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.”
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.
Thursday, March 09, 2017
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.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.
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.
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”
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)