Is combat making Ranger school unnecessary?

via Stars and Stripes...

After a decade of extended war deployments and with little time back home for training, there is now a “critical” shortage of Rangers needed to fill hundreds of crucial combat leadership positions intended for them across the Army, school officials say.
The dearth is particularly noticeable among noncommissioned officers — the sergeants, staff sergeants and sergeants first class who lead small units of enlisted soldiers through combat — and among all ranks of combat maneuver operators — the infantry, armor, field artillery and cavalry units fighting at the front lines.
Because of the shortage, soldiers without Ranger training increasingly are filling those leadership positions. Officials at the Army’s exclusive Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga., and elsewhere said lives may be at risk because soldiers are going into battle without the best possible leaders.
“The best life insurance policy that a person can have ... is his leader being Ranger qualified,” said Command Sgt. Maj. Dennis Smith, who heads Fort Benning’s Ranger Training Brigade.
But others, including some who are Ranger qualified, believe that combat trumps training, that the hard-earned Ranger tab worn on the left shoulder after completing a brutal 61-day regimen through mountains, woods and swamps, on minimal food and sleep, is no substitute for years spent fighting real-life enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq.
NCOs with extensive combat experience are good enough for some.
“They’re as qualified as anybody else,” said Sgt. Maj. Thomas Dartez, who earned his tab in 1985, served with the 2nd Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, and taught at the school twice, most recently in 2004.

Advertisement

Combat is ultimately the best teacher “because you learn from experience,” Dartez said, using roadside bombs as an example. “Having a tab doesn’t prepare you for that.”

Read the whole thing...fascinating.  It makes the massive push by the former SecDef to get the Marines into the Special Ops arena make more sense.

Misery...

Lance Cpl. Andrew S. Puckett, a rifleman and Aitkin, Minn., native with Fox Company, Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, sits in his fighting hole watching a nearby tree line during a defensive training exercise aboard Fort Pickett, Va., Dec. 10, 2010. The BLT defended a small village against enemy sniper teams and by locating weapons caches. The 22nd MEU is a multi-mission capable force of 2,200 Marines and sailors and comprised of Aviation Combat Element, Marine Tilt Rotor Squadron 263 (Reinforced); Logistics Combat Element, Combat Logistics Battalion 22; Ground Combat Element, Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment; and its command element.

EMALS works!

Outstanding!  via NAVAIR!

Navy launches first aircraft using EMALS

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The Navy made history Saturday when it launched the first aircraft from the Naval Air Systems Command, Lakehurst, N.J., test site using the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, technology.

The Navy has been using steam for more than 50 years to launch aircraft from carriers. Saturday, the Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE) program launched an F/A-18E Super Hornet using the EMALS technology that will replace steam catapults on future aircraft carriers.

“This is a tremendous achievement not just for the ALRE team, but for the entire Navy,” said Capt. James Donnelly, ALRE program manager. “Saturday’s EMALS launch demonstrates an evolution in carrier flight deck operations using advanced computer control, system monitoring and automation for tomorrow’s carrier air wings.”

EMALS is a complete carrier-based launch system designed for Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and future Ford-class carriers.

“I thought the launch went great,” said Lt. Daniel Radocaj, the test pilot from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) who made the first EMALS manned launch. “I got excited once I was on the catapult but I went through the same procedures as on a steam catapult. The catapult stroke felt similar to a steam catapult and EMALS met all of the expectations I had.”

The current aircraft launch system for Navy aircraft carriers is the steam catapult. Newer, heavier and faster aircraft will result in launch energy requirements approaching the limits of the steam catapult system.

The mission and function of EMALS remain the same as the steam catapult; however, EMALS employs entirely different technologies. EMALS will deliver the necessary higher launch energy capacity as well as substantial improvements in system weight, maintenance, increased efficiency, and more accurate end-speed control.

“I felt honored to be chosen as the Shooter to help launch the first live aircraft tested on the new EMALS track at Lakehurst,” said Chief Petty Officer Brandon Barr, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Test Department, Lakehurst. “It was very exciting to knowingly be a part of naval aviation history. Petty Officers 1st Class Hunsaker and Robinson, Petty Officers 2nd Class Williams, Wong, and Simmons, were the sailors on my team who worked together to help make this test a success. We all look forward to seeing this cutting edge technology deployed on the Gerald R. Ford."

“I’m excited about the improvement EMALS will bring to the fleet from a capability and reliability perspective,” said Cmdr. Russ McCormack, ALRE, PMA-251, deputy program manager for future systems. “EMALS was designed for just that purpose, and the team is delivering that requirement.”

The system’s technology allows for a smooth acceleration at both high and low speeds, increasing the carrier’s ability to launch aircraft in support of the warfighter.

The system will provide the capability for launching all current and future carrier air wing platforms – lightweight unmanned to heavy strike fighters.

Engineers will continue system functional demonstration testing at NAVAIR Lakehurst. The team will expand aircraft launches with the addition of T-45 and C-2 aircraft next year.

You have the watches. We have the time...

Digital Art from Cool Vibe...Afghanistan 2025?  I really hope not...

A proposal to share the UK's 2nd carrier with NATO or France or the US?

I wonder what THINK DEFENCE, GvG, Marcase and other European readers think about this...via the Financial Times...This is a snippet...read the whole thing here...

The first is to offer the second carrier to Nato, designating it a Nato asset with the modifications and operational costs underwritten jointly by all Nato countries, in the way that the Alliance’s Awacs fleet is operated today. The Royal Navy could supply the crew, or the carrier could be manned by a multinational Nato crew. Cost-sharing, the crewing arrangements and deployment patterns would present challenges, but not insuperable ones. A month after the alliance reaffirmed its commitment to common defence at the Lisbon summit, this may be an idea whose time has come. Sharing a carrier’s costs would project Nato’s power in defence of the sea lanes and would be striking affirmation of its purpose. It would be a way of challenging Nato members whose defence spending falls short of the target of 2 per cent of GDP to take a fairer share of the strain. This option is one that Nato defence ministers could discuss at their meeting next March.A second option would be to share the carrier with France. The UK/France summit in November at which David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy signed might make this viable. The carrier would need to be configured to take French naval planes as well as JSFs; and both countries would need to agree that when either had its exclusively national carrier in refit the second carrier would be immediately available as a replacement.A third option is sharing the carrier with America. The huge budget deficit confronting the Obama administrationmakes cuts to the US defence budget all but inevitable. The US navy’s carrier fleet is a likely target. One way of easing the strain on both US and UK naval budgets would be to share the second carrier, perhaps for a year at a time; perhaps with a UK starboard crew and a US port one. This would be a bi-national variation of the two-crew system currently used by each nation when deploying Trident submarines.

Modest proposal...revamp the Marine Personnel Carrier scheme.

The Marine Corps wanted a vehicle that was amphibious across streams and lakes...could transport around 7 to  9 Marines and had a remotely operated weapons station.  It began settling on wheeled transports (out of a desire to reduce logistics costs I assume).

But what happens when we marry the idea of a Marine Personnel Carrier with the idea of distributed operations.

We come up with a whole different set of requirements...

1.  A vehicle that is air transportable by CH-53 or even the MV-22.
2.  A vehicle that is amphibious ... across rivers and lakes is awesome but in sea state 1 or 2 from a ship would be fantastic (even if its in an adhoc situation).
3.  A RWS is still desirable.

So where does that lead us?  It leads to the BVS-10 or a modified Marine Corps version of it anyway.  Why the BVS-10?  Because its in production....because it has already been tested with numerous weapons/mounts...because its amphibious and lastly because BAE has production facilities rolling in the US which would mean that we could get the vehicle to our forces now, not 10 years from now.

Pic is courtesy of THINK DEFENCE.

Marine Personnel Carrier...mystery vehicle that no one talks about...

photo via Marine Corps Times...

Of all the issues on procurement that the USMC faces, one vehicle has virtually disappeared from the discussion...the Marine Personnel Carrier...this from Marine Corps Systems...

An MPC company lifts an infantry battalion in conjunction with the infantry’s organic wheeled assets. Like the planned Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), MPCs will be assigned to the Assault Amphibian Battalions of the Marine Division currently outfitted with Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs). The reconstituted Assault Amphibian battalion would tentatively consist of one MPC company (nominally 88 vehicles) and three EFV companies (about 45 vehicles each).
The MPC family of vehicles will consist of a base vehicle and two supporting mission role variants. The MPC-Personnel will be the base vehicle, two of which carry and support a reinforced rifle squad of 17 Marines (one EFV would do the same). Each vehicle would carry 9-10 combat-equipped Marines and a two-man crew. This meets the need to transport more Marine infantrymen than the existing Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) or Humvee platforms while providing greater protection. The eight-wheeled LAV is not employed as an armored personnel carrier and usually carries a four-person Marine scout/reconnaissance team in addition to its crew. The MPC-Command will be equipped to serve as a mobile command-echelon/ fire-support coordination center for the infantry battalion headquarters. The MPC-Recovery will be the maintenance and recovery variant of the MPC.
The MPC supports expeditionary maneuver by enhancing the Marine Air Ground Task Force’s (MAGTF) tactical and operational protected mobility. Conceptually, the MPC will complement the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and will be delivered to the fight as part of the reinforcing echelon of the MAGTF during forcible entry operations and in of support sustained operations ashore. The MPC will enable the GCE to maintain lift capacity requirements and provides an additional balanced platform that will be capable across the range of military operations.
The Marine Corps leadership deferred a Milestone A go-ahead for the MPC program in May 2008, saying the delay would allow it “to effectively prioritize near-term investment decisions, in order to provide a synchronized mobility strategy with respect to the capabilities the MPC, the EFV, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) offer in the future.” (See the separate EFV and JLTV chapters of this publication.) MPCs would be supported by JLTVs carrying heavy weapons, communications equipment, and cargo.
The MPC will be designed to cross rivers and inland bodies of water in a Marine Air-Ground Task Force’s littoral operational area. The MPC likely would have a remotely operated weapon station turret fitted with a .50 caliber machine gun, a 7.62 mm machine gun, or an automated Mk. 19 grenade launcher with a thermal sight. The MPC crew could provide direct fire in support of dismounted Marine infantrymen.'

Read the whole thing here...

But my questions are these...

1.  What will the MPC bring to the table that the current MRAP doesn't?
2.  If the vehicle is only required to cross inland water sources then is this really a must have for Marine forces?  A host of vehicles can perform the troop transport mission and the fact that the vehicle will perform the APC role and not that of the IFV reinforces this notion.
3.  How are we going to justify this vehicle in light of modifying the HUMVEE (and for that matter is the JLTV a must have)?  Can we not modify legacy Strykers to perform this mission at much reduced cost?

I guess in summation its time to get to budget crunching in a serious way.  If the EFV is a must then we've got to start tossing other programs into the garbage heap.  I submit that the MPC be the vehicle that gets tossed...

US Army Strykers (used) and slightly modified to have an amphibious (limited) capability would seem ideal.  They're already set up with Blue Force tracker, already have RWS and can be had fairly cheaply...with the added bonus of the Marine Corps being able to piggy back on the Army's supply system.

This seems like a no brainer.

Scrap the MPC and modify US Army Strykers for this mission.  Or..if you really want to be light and expeditionary...want a vehicle that you can fly to dispersed locations to give your infantry companies mobility then how about this...

Sheep Dog takes down wolves in Houston...

via Fox News...

Houston Store Owner Kills 3 Would-Be Robbers

Published December 17, 2010 | Associated Press

advertisement

HOUSTON -- Police say a Houston jewelry store owner has shot and killed three men who tried to rob his business.
Houston police spokesman Kese Smith says two men were in the store Thursday afternoon pretending to be customers when a third man burst into the store and stated, "This is a robbery."
All three men then pulled out pistols, tied up the store owner's wife and took her to a back room.
They were trying to tie up the owner, when he took a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects. Smith said he then grabbed a shotgun and shot and killed the other two suspects.
The store owner was shot in the stomach and taken to a Houston hospital. Smith says his wife was not hurt.

God Speed to the store owner...I hope he heals quickly and completely.  Do you wonder why I call people who take the time to defend themselves or others --- Sheep Dogs?  Its because there are wolves that walk on two feet that will prey on the weak.  The weak can be called sheep...but there are those out there that have the same qualities of the wolf, yet they defend themselves and others...they're the Sheep Dogs and this guy is one of them.

Defense Tech on General Dynamics Flyer...

Kinda makes the USMC's choice of the Growler look to be the wrong one. I guess the only real question is ... how much????  Oh and can it tow the 120mm Mortar?

Fire X first flight...

BBC News on the Harriers final flight.

This guy gets it!

via DOD Buzz...

Incoming House Armed Services Committee Chair, Howard “Buck” McKeon, today laid out his stance on defense spending as the top man on the committee, backing the embattled F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, its alternate engine program and the Pentagon’s efforts to reduce costs.
While the U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35B short take-off and vertical landing version of the jet has experienced numerous testing delays over the past year and is unlikely to meet its scheduled operational date of 2012, McKeon said he doesn’t want to see it cut.

“If you take that away then what plane are the Marines going to have,” asked the congressman. “I would not be supportive of cutting that.”

This guy so gets it.  

 

I wondered why we have been fairly drowned in F-35 news lately and now I think I'm putting it together.  It seems like the critics of the program once again were organizing a drum beat of negative news in an effort to influence policy makers...and as usual they've lost again.

AWESOME!