5-4 ADAR Supports Formidable Shield 25...Photos by Capt. Alexander Watkins (ground forces are still not getting it)

Note. I've been watching the Army and Marine Corps provide solutions to drone swarms. These short range, last mile, defense systems just won't get it. They're not looking at the threat as it exists. What do I mean? The focus is so targeted toward defeating drones that they're not factoring in ground support aircraft that will launch missiles from tens of miles away. If an enemy is on the ball (and we have to assume that they are) then they would launch drone swarms, tie up our air defense while attack aircraft are making runs at our ground forces. Shoulder fired missiles that are mounted on vehicles, with LIMITED engagements per load aren't gonna cut it. So what does that mean? For better or worse (especially since our air arms have practically said ground forces are on their own) we have to get medium ranged missiles as part of our formations. How do you put AIM-120s on a ground platform to protect the force? I don't know. But we need longer ranged systems rather than systems biased to take out drones.

Rheinmetall Mobile Air Defence – Oerlikon Skyranger®30

Mission: Ready - Layered Defense at a Moment's Notice (Aspirational?)

Late Open Comment Post. 27 May 25

SA-35 self-propelled gun

The SA-35

@PITRADWAR_PGZ

self-propelled gun on the 3rd generation 6x6 Jelcz chassis has been integrated with a programmable ammunition system, an independent ZGS-35K optoelectronic target tracking system, a hybrid fire control system with the TUGA radar and optoelectronic sensors.

Samobieżna armata SA-35 @PITRADWAR_PGZ na podwoziu 6x6 Jelcz 3 generacji została zintegrowana z systemem amunicji programowalnej, niezależnym optoelektronicznym systemem śledzenia celów ZGS-35K, hybrydowym systemem kierowania ogniem z radarem TUGA i sensorami optoelektronicznymi. pic.twitter.com/a0D3jyuqKK

— Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa🇵🇱 (@PGZ_pl) May 23, 2025

Memorial Day 2025. Honoring the fallen...

The PLA Navy Comes of Age: Big Decks and More

 

Exclusive Report: U.S. Marines shift from old tracked AAV to modern 8x8 ACV Amphibious Combat Vehicle...via Army Recognition

via Army Recognition

The United States Marine Corps is undergoing a pivotal transformation in its amphibious assault capabilities, marked by the replacement of its long-serving Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) tracked armored vehicle with the modern Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), an 8x8 wheeled armored vehicle. This shift is not only about updating old hardware; it represents a strategic recalibration to meet the demands of contemporary and future conflicts, particularly in littoral and Indo-Pacific environments.

Article here 

I've finally hit upon what gives me so many misgivings and doubts about the ACV (after initially being a huge supporter).

The first is that its not a true amphibious assault vehicle (they rebranded it but that's its purpose...should have been AAV-8 or LVTP-8 if we were being historically correct).  In task and purpose, especially if your TRUE focus is fighting in the littorals is to build up combat power as rapidly as possible and to be able to cross ALL beaches.  In order to do that you have to have tracks.  Spare me the talk about modern tech giving wheels the same mobility as tracks.  With today's tech that just ain't true.  This applies in the desert, mud, marshes and ACROSS BEACHES!

Next there is the fact that the ACV was built as a supplementary vehicle and due to the cost of the EFV it was thrust into the role of our primary combat vehicle. Its the same trash we saw the Army do with the Stryker.  It wasn't best of breed when it was bought but it was cheap and available.

Lastly I'm really not digging its development curve.  We aren't buying a 1 for 1 replacement for AAVs so why are we skimping on adding the necessary gear as we acquire them?  Anti-missile/drone defense should have been baked into the cake but now I have to wonder if its swim capability will be undermined by making it capable on a modern battlefield.

Very few Marines today remember the LVTP-5 outside of the few remaining OLD SKOOL Vietnam era dudes, but I fear we're buying the modern day equivalent of that vehicle.

Whereas the LVTP-5 was awesome (or so I've been told) in going from ship to shore and back (you should see some of the seas those guys drove those things in....not for the faint of heart!) they're sucked ass on land. I think we're gonna see the opposite at a time when ship to shore will be the main focus (at least as HQMC is seeing things).

Get to the point and shut the fuck up?  I have to wonder if new built but MODERNIZED  AAVs wasn't the better way to go.

IDF aims to capture 75% of Gaza Strip in 2 months in NEW offensive. Ok, I'm pausing up now. Netanyahu doesn't want to turn this war off...

IDF aims to capture 75% of Gaza Strip in 2 months in new offensive against Hamas / @manniefabian https://t.co/8MqZMfOVlk

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) May 25, 2025

I have alot of anti-Israel folks in my audience and for the most part I read what is said but ignore it. Now? Now I'm paused up. Netanyahu doesn't want to turn off the war in Gaza. From my chair this is DEFINITELY not good for Israel. Their economy is taking a beating on this thing and it makes no sense diplomatically because all signs show that Trump is trying to put the accords back together. I don't understand what their leadership is thinking.

Open Comment Post. 25 May 25

German Helicopter Brigade @ Exercise Griffin Lightning

The armored vehicles of the Guzmanel Bueno Brigade

Military exercises "Crystal Arrow 2025 (Latvian Land Forces Mechanized Infantry Brigade)

Balikatan 25: 3d MLR...Video by Cpl. Malia Sparks

KAMANDAG 9: 3d LCT, 3d LAAB, and 3d LLB conduct beach rehearsals...Video by Cpl. Malia Sparks

KAMANDAG 9: 3d LCT , 3d LLB, 3d LAAB conduct beach rehearsals with NMESIS and MADIS...Photos by Cpl. Malia Sparks

 

USAF states it is the primary force in the Pacific and needs a lion's share of the defense budget...

 via Breaking Defense

America’s shifting focus towards countering China demands increased investment in air power — which may ultimately require taking resources from other military services who are not as well suited to the challenge, according to Air Force Chief of Staff David Allvin. 

In an exclusive May 16 interview with Breaking Defense at the Pentagon, Allvin took the unusual step of directly contrasting the capabilities of his service against those of the other military branches, as part of his argument that the Air Force is better equipped to lead in a conflict in the Indo-Pacific. 

He also said an eight percent reallocation of the DoD’s budget is an opportunity to “break out of the inertia” that has dominated military budgeting in the past, with the clear implication that the Air Force could grab a greater share of spending as a result. 

Asked specifically if the threat environment means the Air Force needs to be prioritized, even if that must come at expense of other services, Allvin replied, “That would be my case.” 

Here 

Read the whole thing but one point is clear.  Billy Mitchell's attitude of airpower dominating all is alive and well in the USAF.

The Pentagon is making the same mistake that was done before the Korean War.

Why do I say that?

Before the Korean War kicked off every service was moving to develop forces that would survive on the Atomic Battlefield.

History shows they were wrong.

Before the Vietnam War kicked off every service was moving to develop forces that would stop the Warsaw Pact from killing Western Europe.

History shows they were wrong.

Now?

Now the Pentagon has the services jumping thru hoops to fight China in the Pacific.

I believe history will show that they're wrong again.

The laser focus on a China fight will see us caught short when the fight kicks off in another part of the world (I believe it will be Africa).

U.S. Withdrawal Would Force Europe to Acquire 400 Fighter Jets, 600 Tanks, and $300 Billion in Additional Arms

 via Defense.UA

Should the United States ultimately decide to pull back and relinquish its role in ensuring European security, European countries would need to invest an additional $1 trillion to build the necessary military capabilities.

According to a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), around one-third of that amount (at least $344 billion) would need to be spent directly on weapons and military hardware. The list of required systems is staggering, including a minimum of 400 fighter aircraft and 600 main battle tanks, along with numerous other types of armament.

Here 

Many of my readers in the EU will disagree with this article but one thing can't be denied.

The amount of treasure and resources spent by the USA to prop up European defense has been STAGGERING!

The EU is larger than the US, has a bigger population and has better infrastructure.

Time for the EU to stand on its own.

Open Comment Post. 23 May 25

The Army is going the way of the Marine Corps

So the Army is cutting the Stryker, AMPV, JLTV, HUMVEE, and Apache. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are going to be cut hard. No more JLTVs for medium formations. Heavy units won't see a M-113 replacement. Transformationalist have taken charge and they're running with the future of warfare theme again. Forces on the ground without protection or riding in militarized ATVs will be eviscerated on the modern battlefield. There won't be wounded on future battlefields...only the dead.