The return of trench warfare.

Thanks Mr. T for the article!

I consider this to be an unusual phenomenon...we're seeing the return of trench warfare.  Check out the pics below....

Uzbek authorities have started digging trenches in the disputed areas along the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border, RFE/RL's Kyrgyz and Uzbek services report.

Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region is digging a trench along its border with Syria to prevent the infiltration of militants and smuggling from the war-racked country, officials say.

Odessa region vidhorodytsya 450-kilometer "Transnistrian ditch." To block the movement of heavy military equipment and moving contraband goods on the Transnistrian segment of the Ukrainian-Moldovan border began work on engineering enhancement - to 450-km boundary proryyut trench width 3.5 meters and a depth of 2-3 meters.

I really can't explain it.

This isn't even a difficult field problem and you would expect a good Marine just out of boot camp to be able to lead a crossing of such an obstacle.

So why is it suddenly popular again?

I can only imagine that it has to do with moderately mechanized units.  In Western or advanced military forces engineers, bridging and obstacle clearing equipment is a given.  In many of the world's forces they're an extravagance that can't be afforded.

So as primitive as it might seem, it does appear that this extremely old skool type of warfare is making a comeback.


NOTE:  I made a couple of assumptions when I posted this.  The first assumption was that people would understand that the term "trench warfare" was tongue in cheek and did not refer to WW1 battle type tactics but to what we're seeing in these pics.  The second assumption was that even if people didn't get the "tongue in cheek" aspect of this then they would have enough sense to realize that I do know what actual trench warfare is.  Seems I was wrong on both counts.  

4th Tanks amphibious training...video by Lance Cpl. Angel Serna

Marines with 4th Tank Battalion, 4th Marine Division, conduct amphibious training aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. Marines with 4th Tank Battalion, the Navy’s Assault Craft Unit-5 and the Army’s 481st Heavy Boat Company teamed together to conduct several rehearsed amphibious landings. Through integrating Marines, Sailors and Soldiers as well as equipment, small unit leaders gained familiarity with operating in a joint environment as well as exercise senior leader’s ability to communicate and effectively manage operations across three service platforms.

The Army is making sure that it will have a role in the Pacific.  Between this exercise, paratroopers making 15 hour flights to Australia and suiting up inside the plane before the drop and then inviting Indian forces to the US to train, its obvious that they're serious about a seat at the table.

LCU (F). Damnit! Just build it and test it already!

via Proceedings...

An alternative conceptual craft with its pedigree in the LCU-1610 class is the LCU (F). This design was described in Proceedings in the summer of 2013 (see “A Landing Craft for the 21st Century,” by Susanne Altenburger; Commander Michael Bosworth, U.S. Navy (Retired); and Captain Michael Junge, U.S. Navy, July 2013, pp. 60–64) and currently only exists in PowerPoint, but appears worthy of further examination. It promises to provide the higher speed, larger payload capacity, greater fuel efficiency, and better beach-landing ability needed to fulfill today’s amphibious-force requirements, yet the LCU (F) could be hydraulically folded in a “transformer-like” manner to fit neatly into the standard well-decks of major amphibious transport ships. In theory, conceptual connectors like this could also be flexible enough to aggregate via nonconventional means, similar to how we bring lighterage into theater via container ships today. Additionally, the LCU (F) is envisioned to carry up to 200 tons of personnel and equipment at a speed of almost 20 knots—an improvement of more than 20 tons and 10 knots when comparing it to the LCU-1610 class.

That article has the current Commandant's name on it.  Read it here.

My take on it?

Enough dithering.  Give these people some coin and have them prove the concept.  If it works then we've solved a number of issues....They can be carried aboard the deck of MPS ships, Amphibious Ships and in the right conditions self deploy.

Do I believe in Amos' 200 miles off shore sea base?  Nope.  Do I believe that we need an LCU 1600 replacement?  You bet your ass.

So again.  Enough talk.  We've seen MCDCC waste enough money on several dubious projects.  This one makes sense.  Lets get on it.

Sidenote:  I continue to be unimpressed with the L-CAT and wonder why it has so many fans.  Read its stats here but its payload is unimpressive and its speed mediocre when compared to the LCAC or what the designers say the LCU(F) will deliver.  The Marine Corps has a fascination with foreign designs...and sometimes they deliver.  The L-CAT in my opinion doesn't and should be dropped from further consideration.

Details on the Libya Embassy Evacuation.

We're still not getting the real story on the force that was sent to evacuate the embassy.  Check this out from Marine Times...

Overhead, three Air Force F-16 fighters and two Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys kept watch on the convoy, said Tom Saunders, a spokesman for U.S. Africa Command in Germany. The aircraft were accompanied by an unspecified number of surveillance drones.
“We did provide [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] support,” Saunders said, “but as a matter of policy we don't discuss ISR operations, to include the number of assets supporting a mission.”
The F-16s, which flew out of Aviano Air Base in Italy, were supported by a KC-135 aerial refueling tanker from RAF Mildenhall in England, Saunders said.
A 24-man Marine quick reaction force and a two-person medical team were inside the Ospreys, Saunders said. They were supported by a KC-130 refueling tanker. All of those personnel are assigned to Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response based in Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy.

So lets see.

80 USMC Infantrymen reinforced the Marine Security Guard at the embassy.  You add another 24 in the MV-22's flying overhead...probably Force Recon or MARSOC, they wouldn't dare let a regular line company get the mission.

But overhead you have three F-16's and probably a whole shitload of tankers to keep the MV-22's refueled since they're flying race track patterns over the convoy.

So what was the plan if they got hit?

I don't know how big the convoy was so you do the standard kill the lead, trail and command vehicle then go after the rest if you're a terrorist?  That's not much reaction time for the Marines flying overhead or the F-16's.  That means they had a shitload of UAVs scouting the route...probably armed too.  But you had to account for someone getting lucky and avoiding detection.  You also have to account for a mechanical problem in one of the vehicles causing you to have to abandon it and continue on without leaving personnel behind.

And finally you have to account for the possibility that sugar turns to shit and you have to get people out because all the vehicles are killed/disabled.

Yep.  They're not telling us the whole/real story on this plan...This package was light as hell, didn't have much redundancy built into it and doesn't account for worst case scenarios.  

Sidenote:  I'm guessing that this whole "drive out of Libya" was more a political decision than operational one.  The boys from the 160th could have flown in with their MH-47....say 6 of them for redundancy....landed at the embassy, been protected by UAVs and F-16s and been out of the country in much less time than this clusterfuck.  I'm smelling the fear of a Saigon Evacuation driving common sense military ops.

F-35 now restricted to a Cessna 310's flight profile?

I got a note from a little birdy and it made me sit up and say WHAT THE FUCK! in a crowded Starbucks I was enjoying a coffee in.  I won't include the entire note, just this section....

We understand JSF aircraft flight operations are now significantly restricted and limited to:
- minus one (-1) to plus three (+3) normal “g" envelope
(the equivalent of a FAR Part 23 Normal Category General Aviation aircraft envelope e.g. Cessna 310)
- maximum speed of 0.9 Mach
- 18 degrees angle of attack
- half deflection lateral stick
More critically, after every three (3) hours of flight time, each front fan section of each engine must undergo a full internal borescope inspection which will likely take a minimum of 4 to 6 man-hours.

I'm going to run all this down but if this is true then we're looking at a program that is far from the most open in history.

Something is very much wrong with this airplane and its being hid from the public.

More to come but if the above is true, then it isn't allowed to maneuver, its restricted to speeds just above that of modern airliners and its turning into a maintenance nightmare. 

SIDENOTE:  I'm keeping up with this program despite world events and in watching the different opinion pieces I've noticed one thing.  The supporters of this program are hanging their hats on the fact that we've spent so much money we have to continue.  No one is defending it as ground breaking anymore.  No one is saying that its war winning tech.  All they're saying is we have to continue because of how much we've spent.  THAT'S BULLSHIT!

MV-22 capabilities. Are they being purposefully overstated?

I'm getting a bit miffed by the spin being generated around the capabilities of the MV-22.  War is Boring Blog wrote a piece on it that had my blood pumping yesterday and then we have the fuzzy news of its use in an evacuation in Libya.  First check out this bit from WIB....

Contrary to the paper specifications McCain cites, no CH-46 I have ever flown in ever carried 14 troops over a distance of 160 miles. Marines planned for 12 combat-loaded troops, max—and often planned for just eight. Admittedly, the V-22 advertises 24 troops, but planners shoot for no more than 18 combat-loaded Marines.
The V-22 might be limited to 233 miles on a single tank, but surprisingly McCain doesn’t mention that it can also refuel in flight. This effectively gives the Osprey indefinite range, provided tankers are available.
Oh yeah, and it does it all at incredible speed. The CH-46 cruised at 140 knots while the Osprey moves at 240 knots in airplane mode—and maxes out over 300 knots.

On a sidenote, I really need to nail down the stats on the V-22.  I've read that max troop load is actually 12-16...not the 18 that the author states.  Additionally the range quoted has me scratching my head.  233 miles?  If thats true then Amos' mythical 200 miles off shore is as dead as disco.  Even the MV-22 doesn't have the range to get their without refueling.

And that brings me to the video above.

The number of personnel being evacuated indicates to me that the force package being quoted to the media is not even close to being real.  80 US Marines and 150 embassy personnel?  How many MV-22s would you need to be able to haul 230 people out of the desert if sugar turned to shit? 

And that has me turning back to the main question.

Why are they trying so hard to spin us on the MV-22?  The plane is being bought so is their pressure to cancel the remaining buys?  Is the SPMAGTF under pressure to be disbanded (as I've called for)?

Something is going on behind closed doors because the lobbying for the plane is in overdrive.

Flyer Gen III GMV 1.1 Advanced LSV