Ounces = Pounds...Pounds = Pain...

I see a whole lot of pain in this pic. 

U.S. Marines with India Company, Battalion Landing Team 3/8, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Regimental Combat Team 2, prepare to board an MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (Reinforced), 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Camp Bastion, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 25, 2011. Elements of 26th MEU deployed to Afghanistan to provide regional security in Helmand province in support of the International Security Assistance Force. (DoD photo by Gunnery Sgt. Bryce Piper, U.S. Marine Corps/Released)

Super Hornet International...Way to go Trimble!

Stephen Trimble over at the Dew Line found this vid of the Super Hornet International.

Consider me impressed!

Seems to be quite capable and much further along than the Silent Eagle.  Maybe the USMC should....

Maybe a squadron or two????

Hardcore USAF thinks about airfield attacks and solutions...

Back in the 1950's that is...when thinking about warfare and future opponents was fashionable.

With a genuine threat from Communist China (as indicated from a Rand study) they still aren't on the STOVL bandwagon.

I wonder why?

Carbines as Combat Rifles...

Lee..love the article...hate the debate(yep, I agree with the other guy)...keep me in the loop..

The debate over the replacement/improvement of the M4 is once again raging.

How the US Army settled on a carbine to arm the majority of its troops is beyond me. 

How the US Marine Corps is slowly adopting this "FASHION" trend annoys the hell out of me!

The latest debate is raging on the pages of DefenseIndustryDaily.  Read the whole thing but make note of the following passages...

“The M4 Carbine is the Army’s primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces (editors note...WHAT THE FUCK HQ's ARMY!!!  You're actually calling a Carbine a Rifle now???  SNAFU edit). Since its introduction in 1991, the M4 carbine has proven its worth on the battlefield because it is accurate, easy to shoot and maintain. The M4’s collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for Soldiers operating in vehicles or within the confines associated with urban terrain. The M4 has been improved numerous times and employs the most current technology available on any rifle/carbine in general use today.

and this...

“My unit – B Company, 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment – was deployed to Afghanistan from April 2005 to March 2006. While there, we were attached to Special Forces at Camp Tillman on the Afghan border…. I saw first-hand what happens when your weapon jams up because of the harsh environments we have to call home there. An 18B weapons sergeant was shot in the face due directly to his weapon jamming. I just can’t believe that after things like this happen, the Army is still buying more M4s.

I only have one thing to add to all this nonsense. 

We have a perfectly reliable. 

Superbly lethal. 

Highly effective Rifle in service right now. 

Its called the M-16A4.


If you like nomenclature games then add a sufficiently robust adjustable butt stock to it and call it M-16A5 but the  point is the Army attempted to fix something that wasn't broken all for style points.

Do remember that this was part of General Shinseki's attempt to "Special Op" the entire Army by giving them all berets and a cool Spec Ops rifle.

This from Wikipedia...

Prior to World War II, Army Ordnance began to see the full-size infantry rifle as unworkable as an individual weapon for the increasing proportion of service troops (truck drivers, supply personnel, radiomen, and linemen) as well as some specialist frontline troops who might need a handier weapon (paratroopers, officers, forward observers, medics, engineers and mortar crews). During prewar and early war field exercises, it was noticed that these troops, when issued the rifle, often found their individual weapon too heavy and cumbersome. In addition to impeding the soldier's mobility, a slung rifle would frequently catch on brush, bang the helmet, or tilt it over the eyes. Many soldiers found the rifle slid off the shoulder unless slung diagonally across the back, where it prevented the wearing of standard field packs and haversacks. Alternate weapons such as the M1911 pistol and M1917 revolver, while undeniably convenient, were often insufficiently accurate or powerful. The Thompson submachine gun was very effective in close-range combat but nonetheless heavy, limited in effective range (50–75 meters) and penetration, and not significantly easier to carry or maintain than the service rifle.
U.S. Army Ordnance decided that a new weapon was needed for these other roles but determined that a weapon for non-combat soldiers should add no more than five pounds to their existing equipment load.^[1] The requirement for the new firearm called for a defensive weapon with an effective range of 300 yards, much lighter and handier than the rifle, with greater range, firepower, and accuracy than the pistol, while weighing half as much as the submachine gun. Another stimulus to the carbine's rapid development was a concern over Germany's use of glider-borne and paratroop forces to infiltrate and attack strategic points behind the front lines, forcing support units and line-of-communications forces into combat with the enemy.^[2][3]

As a firearms instructor I follow loves to say...If your rifle is too heavy then you need to get stronger.  Our Infantry should get stronger and deal with the added ounces, range benefits and lethality that a full size rifle can bring to the fight.

Nuff said.  The real debate is over. 

Israel and Egypt...the best analysis by far...

Ferran!  Thanks.  This is by far the best analysis of the dangers that the current troubles in Egypt present to the Israeli people.  

Check out this analysis and follow the link to read the whole thing.  via STRATFOR.

By George Friedman
The events in Egypt have sent shock waves through Israel. The 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel have been the bedrock of Israeli national security. In three of the four wars Israel fought before the accords, a catastrophic outcome for Israel was conceivable. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, credible scenarios existed in which the Israelis were defeated and the state of Israel ceased to exist. In 1973, it appeared for several days that one of those scenarios was unfolding.
The survival of Israel was no longer at stake after 1978. In the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the various Palestinian intifadas and the wars with Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008, Israeli interests were involved, but not survival. There is a huge difference between the two. Israel had achieved a geopolitical ideal after 1978 in which it had divided and effectively made peace with two of the four Arab states that bordered it, and neutralized one of those states. The treaty with Egypt removed the threat to the Negev and the southern coastal approaches to Tel Aviv.
The agreement with Jordan in 1994, which formalized a long-standing relationship, secured the longest and most vulnerable border along the Jordan River. The situation in Lebanon was such that whatever threat emerged from there was limited. Only Syria remained hostile but, by itself, it could not threaten Israel. Damascus was far more focused on Lebanon anyway. As for the Palestinians, they posed a problem for Israel, but without the foreign military forces along the frontiers, the Palestinians could trouble but not destroy Israel. Israel’s existence was not at stake, nor was it an issue for 33 years.

Marine Tanks in Afghanistan...the pictures...

U.S. Marines with 1st Marine Division, 1st Tank Battalion, Delta Company, navigates the terrain of Helmand province, Afghanistan in a M1A1 Abrams Tank while on a convoy escorted by 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward) (1st MLG (FWD)), Combat Logistics Battalion 8 (CLB-8) (not shown)on February 1, 2011. 1st MLG (FWD), CLB-8, provided security and maintenance while in route to forward operating base Edinburgh. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Staff Sgt. Brian A. Lautenslager/Released)

U.S. Marines with 1st Marine Division, 1st Tank Battalion, Delta Company, stop to give assistance to, 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward) (1st MLG (FWD)), Combat Logistics Battalion 8 (CLB-8) as they repair a AMK-970 tanker during a convoy through Helmand province, Afghanistan on January 31, 2011. 1st MLG (FWD), CLB-8, provided security and maintenance for the convoy while in route to forward operating base Edinburgh. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Sgt. Brian A. Lautenslager/Released)

Sgt Michael Fryman with 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward) (1st MLG (FWD)), Combat Logistics Battalion 8 (CLB-8), prepares to change tires on an AMK-970 tanker while on a convoy through Helmand province, Afghanistan, on January 31, 2011. 1st MLG (FWD), CLB-8, provided security and maintenance for the convoy while in route to forward operating base Edinburgh. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Sgt. Brian A. Lautenslager/Released)

F-35B at Pax River...

via Lockheed Martin...

BF-1 flight 88 at NAS Patuxent River, Md.

MMC/Boeing's Ship to Shore Connector.

Lee sent me this a couple of weeks ago (thanks buddy..!!) but life got in the way and I never shared it.  I'm interested in seeing what the competition was offering...but the fact remains.  If you want the Sea Base to actually work then this ship... or something like it... is going to be a big part of it.

SSC Gen Info+Tech Specs 1

AAI's Rapid Deployment Tank..

Marine Corps amphibious operations require vehicles that can be quickly moved to areas of concern.

I don't think a 70 ton tank meets that requirement.  And we still haven't talked about keeping it in action once its on the battlefield.

The Rapid Deployment Tank project of the 80's would be welcome even today.  These photos are all from Viggen's Blog.

If you want a refresher on the "looming" weight issue with Marine Corps and Army vehicles when it comes to strategic/tactical mobility then check out this article by Roger Galbraith.

The Israeli view of President Obama's handling of Egypt...

Jonathan (thanks guy...love the articles, keep them coming) sent me an article that answered a burning question for me...What does Israel think of the crisis in Egypt.  This answers the question...

via DefenseNews.com (bold lettering is my effort to emphasize points, not DN's)

Israelis were struggling to mask dismay, if not contempt, for what are round­ly viewed here as naïve, inept and potential­ly dangerous missteps by U.S. President Barack Obama, who has encouraged the masses seeking to oust Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

With momentum continuing to favor Egypt’s grass roots, anxiety mounted here over the specter of a revived southern front com­manded by an unknown, likely radical regime organized, trained and equipped with the very best from America.

At the outset of mass demonstrations last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Ne­tanyahu directed cabinet members to hold their tongues about unfolding events in Sinai and beyond the Suez Canal. Anything uttered here would either irritate his government’s al­ready-strained ties with the Obama adminis­tration or, worse, shift Egyptian street anger — still largely focused on internal repression and economic inequality — to anti-Israel or anti-Semitic diatribes.

Instead, Israel’s Foreign Ministry directed envoys worldwide to urge their host govern­ments not to isolate Mubarak through word or deed, given his decades-long contributions to regional stability and his commitment to the 1979 Camp David Accords.

“The peace between Israel and Egypt has lasted for more than three decades and our objective is to ensure that these relations will continue to exist,” Netanyahu told cabinet col­leagues Jan. 31.

But by late last week, with Obama leading the charge for a “new dawn” over a post-Mubarak Egypt, many here removed their muzzles in open support of existing centers of gravity — namely the Egyptian Armed Forces (EAF) and Mubarak-legacy leadership. In in­terviews here, military officials said Mubarak may already have been lost, but it’s not too late to fortify international recognition of the EAF and the vital, stabilizing role it can play in a future regime.

So when U.S., European and some Arabic television networks began broadcasting agi­tating commentary Feb. 3 about military ac­tion against demonstrators in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Israel’s military spokesman agreed to respond on record about unfolding events.

“Based on our assessment of events on the ground, it is our understanding that the Egypt­ian Army is operating responsibly and in a manner that contributes to stability and pre­serves the peace,” said Brig. Gen. Avi Be­nayahu, Israel Defense Forces spokesman.

Wow.

To be honest and not political, it has been curious how the White House and State Department could just dump an ally in the middle of a crisis so quickly.

Whoever wins in Egypt, they won't trust the US.  Israel doesn't trust the US.  Europe doesn't trust the US.  China doesn't (who cares)...

Will anyone else?

I talk about other nations becoming unsturdy...shaky...yielding to the whims of ideology instead of practicality.

It seems that the same can be said for the upper reaches of the current US government, regardless of party.