Joe Stremph and a historical perspective on VMFA-122.

The photo and narrative are from Joe Stremph's Flickr Page.

Mine eyes have seen the glory...

For those not familiar with the story of VMFA-122, they're a Marine Corps F/A-18 squadron that was known for decades as the "Crusaders." A few years back, they deployed to Iraq, and it was felt that, given the sensitivity of our Muslim hosts in that country, it might not be good to conjure up images of knights of Christendom if we're serious about all that hearts-and-minds stuff that is so essential to nation-building and counterinsurgency. So they changed the name to the "Werewolves," which was actually what -122 was called during WWII, so there a legacy there worth preserving. While I'm not as upset about the name change as many others, it is kind of a bummer, as I loved the old shield/cross emblem they used to wear on their tails. While I've photographed several Werewolves' F/A-18s since the change, I never noticed until today that the eyes of the Werewolf on the tail have crosses for pupils, discretely keeping the Crusader legacy alive.

Bravo Zulu, Semper Fi, etc. etc.

Oh, and for the Brits and the Dutch, this was BuNo 164268/DC-14 @ Phoenix-Mesa Gateway.

Silence when it comes to the next Commandant.

Have you noticed the complete silence from our next Commandant?

We've heard nothing.

No agenda.

No plans for the future of the Marine Corps.

No comment on the recently released Marine Operating Concepts.

No guidance to or expectations of the lower ranks.

No articles in the Gazette.

No interviews with the news media.

Complete and utter silence.

This is not good.  General Conway came in with a vision and a plan.  General Gray had an road map and warrior spirit.  General Krulak saw the future.

This guy has nothing.  I hope I'm wrong, but this feels so wrong...and at a time when strong leadership is needed from the man who sits in that chair, it appears that we're about to get a 'coalition builder' instead of a warrior.

Think I'm wrong?  Compare the fanfare that arrived with appointment of General Mattis to CENTCOM with that of this guy to be the next Commandant.

Long story short...I think we're screwed.

Why enemy pilots don't sleep well!

Latest from Terminal Lance.

Funny as hell and sadly---all too true.

Fox 5 San Diego on the EFV.

 

The USMC must not repeat the mistake of the 80's.

Few people remember the reason for the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV-25) to enter Marine Corps service.

Flashback to the 1980's and its the time of the Rapid Deployment Force.  Already their is concern that the Marines will be fighting in the Middle East as a foot mobile force.

No matter how rapidly Marine Forces could deploy to the war zone, they would be disadvantaged in a war against even a moderately competent foe that was mechanized.

That was when the experiment with the LAV-25 came around.

They were first designated as Light Armored Vehicle Battalions....then Light Armored Infantry Battalions...then Light Armored Reconnaissance...

The final designation indicates a realization that although the LAV-25 meets the requirements of being light wt, fast, strategically and tactically mobile and has decent firepower, it failed in the desire of the Marine Corps to have a motorized fist.

Light Armored Recon Battalions have reverted to the typical roles of wheeled vehicles...screening, recon and raids of limited duration.

That is why another wheeled vehicle for our Infantry Battalions just won't do.  The Marine Personnel Carrier is not (as currently designed) the vehicle that our forces need.

What is?

I contend that the BVS-10 fits the bill.  Its helicopter transportable.  Its amphibious.  It takes less space aboard ship.  Its been redesigned to have IED protection.  Its proven and its already in limited service with the Marines already.

Armoured All Terrain Vehicle

Gates throws a bone to the Marine Corps.

Many in the circles that I run in were PISSED that General Mattis didn't get picked to be the next Commandant.  Seems like Gates was paying attention (which means that my opinion was probably more widespread than I thought) and did the next best thing.

He's sending General Mattis to CENTCOM.  Outstanding. 

Read more at Defense Tech.

A little overblown.

Craig Hooper --of Defense Tech?!?!---(wow, God save us, the liberals have a foothold in Defense Tech) has a great article up that you must read here....but this caught my eye.

But what does it mean? Putting PGS into the VLS does something far more interesting than just “add capability”. It changes everything. PGS on a surface ship transforms the largely defensive nature of the U.S. surface combatant/carrier escort to, well, “offense”. And that shift from the “Missile Defense” destroyer or “Air Defense” cruiser of old to a “Global Strike Combatant” will pose a real conceptual challenge for everybody–from those walking Aegis deckplates to any potential adversaries. The idea that America’s 7,804 VLS cells may soon gain the ability to rain almost instant havoc on targets some 2,000 nm away should put a bit of a damper on those who counted on overwhelming a hunkered-down and relatively passive “defense-oriented” AEGIS fleet. It’s a big deal. You heard it here first–A shift of the U.S. surface combatant fleet from defense to offense is a real game changer.

Craig is pumping up the value of every Burke class DDG being able to provide offensive firepower...he even goes on to claim that its a game changer but in reality he over blows the issue.  This is simply an evolution of the Tomahawk.  That missile is now too slow for the threat environment.  All they're doing is developing a missile that gets back the advantage that was had when that missile system first came online.

Game changer?  Not bloody likely.  Don't believe me?  Stats for the Tomahawk are below.  All we're getting is what we once had...before time and technology caught up with it.  Also note how small the warhead is on the new missile.  I realize that the speed of the weapon will help with effect on target but still...

A BGM-109 Tomahawk
Type	Long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile
Place of origin	United States
Service history
In service	1983-present
Production history
Manufacturer	General Dynamics (initially) Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost	$US 569,000[1]
Specifications
Weight	1,440 kilograms (3,200 lb)
Length	Without booster: 5.56 m With booster: 6.25 m
Diameter	0.52 m
Warhead	Conventional: 1,000 lb (450 kg) Bullpup, or submunitions dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb, or a 200kt (840 Tj) W80 nuclear device (inactivated in accordance with SALT)
Detonation mechanism	FMU-148 since TLAM Block III, others for special applications
Engine	Williams International F107-WR-402 turbofan using TH-dimer fuel and a solid-fuel booster
Wingspan	2.67 m
Operational range	2,500km
Speed	Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Guidance system	GPS, TERCOM, DSMAC
Launch platform	Vertical Launch System (VLS) and horizontal submarine torpedo tubes (known as TTL (torpedo tube launch))

Did Marcus Luttrell get a video game?

I don't know.  The body language and type looks like it could be him.  I wonder...

The Warlords are back!

CH-53K already beating out CH-47D for orders.

via Flight Global.

The upgrade path had been considered in preference to buying new aircraft from Boeing. But despite the decision not to proceed, a senior air force source says the service's current fleets of Apaches and Bell AH-1 Cobras are able "to do the missions" required.
Meanwhile, the air force will continue to operate its current Sikorsky CH-53 transport helicopters until it can acquire the next-generation CH-53K. All other alternatives "were evaluated and dismissed", an air force source says.
Israel is already conducting a 2025 upgrade programme to its CH-53s, and the source says: "If needed we will prolong the life of this excellent platform until its successor is ready."
The US Marine Corps has a requirement for 200 CH-53Ks, with the service expecting the programme to undergo its critical design review "this summer".
Sikorsky should fly its first prototype in fiscal year 2013, with deliveries to the USMC anticipated to start in FY2015-16 and initial operating capability to be declared in 2018.

Awesome.  Even if the budget axe comes out for the MV-22, a capable lifter is already in development...and with Germany, France, Israel, Taiwan, Singapore and the Marines ready to buy the airplane, its a bet to escape the hangman's noose.

The Queen bitch slaps the Navy by mistake.

I'm sure the Queen didn't realize it when she was speaking to the UN, but by saying that the UN is the "real force for good" she sorta (in my opinion) bitch slapped the US Navy.  After all that's their new motto.  This from SkyNews.

"You have helped to reduce conflict, you have offered humanitarian assistance to millions of people affected by natural disasters and other emergencies, and you have been deeply committed to tackling the effects of poverty in many parts of the world."
But the Queen warned "much remains to be done".
She explained: "Former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once said that 'constant attention by a good nurse may be just as important as a major operation by a surgeon'.
"Good nurses get better with practice; sadly the supply of patients never ceases."
She went on: "In my lifetime, the United Nations has moved from being a high-minded aspiration to being a real force for common good.

Wow, I knew the new Navy motto struck me as being odd, off and not worthy of a military organization...I knew that the new 'partnership' doctrine seems out of place....now I know why.

The Naval Services...US Marine Corps included...are beginning to act as if they were an armed NGOs.

Warfighting has to become central to our mission again.  Any and everything else MUST remain secondary...even partnership and war prevention efforts.

UPDATE!!!!!
My feelings on the Navy's Motto are well known.  What I didn't know is where the phrase..."a force for good" came from. 

Think Defence has his theory.  This is his statement from the comments...

A 'force for good' unfortunately started to creep into UK doctrine and strategy publications about a decade ago.

It originated with Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary, when discussing ethical foreign policy.

Robin Cook resigned over Iraq, one of the very few politicians with any sense of honour or conviction I disagreed with a lot of what he said but he was a formidable and very well respected politician, a rare breed these days.

Wow, I can see it now.  10 years ago a Lt. Commander was on exchange duty in the UK and heard Robin Cook a few times and got inspired.  He comes back stateside and is put in the puzzle palace and the call goes out to revamp the Navy's image with a new slogan...

Amazing.  Pure conjecture on my part but it feels right.