AVX updates.

AVX is upping the communication on their efforts to modernize the OH-58.  One of their biggest selling points is the ability to hover out of ground effect and the virtual elimination of brownouts when landing.  The info below is from their website.

AVX 509.

Remember the AVX Aircraft Corporation.  They're the makers of the innovative OH-58 ducted fan design, but they've also come up with a beautiful civilian derivative.

Quotes of the day. May 24, 2010.

My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military.

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.

 War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corps.

Russians are ready to build the Mistral. Which one?

Ria Novosti is reporting that the Russians are ready to build Mistral class vessels.  Read it here.  My question is ...Which one?  I never realized but in the video above, the Mistral comes in 4 different classes.  From a small 16000 tons to a large 21000 tons version.

In the end it really makes little difference, but the implications are clear.  The Russians are trying to get into the power projection game and they seek to have the ability to have a sustainable presence whenever they decide to project that power.  

The Russian military has a powerful airborne force which makes this move even more telling.  Sustainable power arrives by sea...not by air.  We should remember that fact.

EFV is it a fighting vehicle or a high speed connector?

Is the EFV a fighting vehicle in the mold of the Bradley or simply a high speed connector?  The reason I ask is borne out by a quick examination of the pictures above.  Notice the AAV's above.  Not only are provisions made for the stowage of gear on their surface but they are also quite comfortable living with the infantry out in the field.

On the march, the Infantry can fight heads out.  Or more precisely they can gain situational awareness because they're able to open the upper hatches to gain visibility.

Provisions are made for the carrying of rucksacks on the sides and tops of the vehicle.  Even water cans have mounts made for them.

Even at this late stage of the EFV's development we see no such provisions.

What we do see is a high speed amphibious armored vehicle, able to transit rapidly from ship to shore.  We see less emphasis on its end state role.  Fighting with the Infantry once the landing has been completed.  We see a vehicle with a formidable cannon.  But even that has to be called into question.  If our EFV's are engaging ground vehicles with its cannon then something has gone wrong (and yes I know things go wrong but you catch my meaning).  In an assault against an objective do we really want a 30mm airburst rounds hitting it or would Javelin, SMAW, TOW or Hellfire missiles be more appropriate?  If we have EFV's in the assault would we have our M1's with them?  Or even the LAV-25A2?  What about our artillery or Marine Aviation?

The problem and the reason why I ask these questions is because we've been down this road before in Marine Corps history.  After the Korean War, the Marine Corps felt a need to get "feet wet" again.  The Marines fell into the role of Second Land Army and decided  that its equipment should be tailored to amphibious operations.

kr.blog.yahoo.com

Understandable but the result was the less than impressive LVTP-5. 

LVTP-5 Specifications
Weight	37.4 t
Length	9.04 m
Width	3.57 m
Height	2.92 m
Crew	3+34 passengers
Armor	6-16 mm
Primary armament	.30 caliber MG
Engine	Continental LV-1790-1 V-12 gasoline 704 hp
Power/weight	19 hp/tonne
Suspension	Torsilastic
Operational range	306 km (road), 92 km (water)
Speed	48 km/h, in water 11 km/h

The LVTP-5 was a star in the water but history indicates it was much less than stellar on land. The war in Vietnam exposed all of its weaknesses.

Are we about to make the same mistake with the EFV?  A vehicle that's a technological marvel but has proven to be maintenance intensive with an unfriendly Infantry interior?  I wonder.

But back to the high speed connector issue.  Is the role of the EFV simply to be a high speed connector from the Sea Base?  If so then V-22's and LCAC's would be better options.  Heck even the forth coming CH-53K would be a better option.  How does the EFV fit into Distributed Operations?  I have yet to read how the Marine Corps mechanized forces are to be utilized with that concept.  Until all these questions are answered, maybe we should simply buy product improved AAV's instead.

USMC fields more lethal round.

via Marine Corps Times.

The round uses an open-tip match-round design common in sniper ammunition, and is considered “barrier blind,” meaning its aim stays truer through windshields, walls and other barriers. Initially, it was considered as a way to increase the lethality of Marines carrying the M4 carbine, which has less stopping power than the M16A4 because of its shorter barrel, but was approved for use in January with both rifles.

Outstanding.  The Marine Corps wisely stuck with the M-16A4 instead of going with the 'trendy' and 'fashionable' M4 (don't misunderstand me, I realize that the M4 is being issued to Officers and SNCO's and others in select positions)...but a Rifleman needs a Rifle, not a carbine.

PS.  Go to Marine Times to read the entire article.  

Think Tanks says Britan should bail on the JSF.

Via DefPro.com

A reassessment of “big ticket” projects, which are inappropriate for Britain’s security needs in the 21st Century. The aircraft carrier/F-35 programme should be cancelled and Trident scaled down before more money is wasted.

Once they cancel these programs.  Once the HMS Ocean is retired.  What then?