Paul McLeary at ARES nails it.

Paul McLeary over at ARES has a couple of posts that cover the Marine Corps energy independence expeditionary energy initiative (here and here).

If ARES has a ground guy then Paul is that man(trust me...I consider that a compliment!)...and thankfully he covered something that's been bothering me in regards to Distributed Operations and the Company Landing Team Concepts...the issue of resupply.

If you think that the K-Max and upcoming CH-53K's solved the problem of resupply of dispersed company sized units then you're wrong.  The idea that in addition to just ammo, food, water and other supplies would have to be supplied...in addition to whatever their energy needs are then you can understand my doubting the very efficacy of the project.

Paul's stories have me switching from doubting to the 'hey its possible lets try' camp.

According to Marine Corps documents, the system proved itself such a success in operations that two patrol bases are currently operating entirely on renewable energy, with a 90 percent reduction in fuel required at a third base—and the unit was even able to conduct a three-week foot patrol “without battery resupply, reducing load on Marines by 700 lbs.”

If that doesn't convince you then how about this...

One India company squad leader, Sgt. David Doty, is quoted as saying that on his patrol base, “our generators typically use more than 20 gallons of fuel a day. We are down to 2.5 gallons a day,” thanks to the exFOB technology.

But wait...there's more...

A $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, at current consumption levels, would be equivalent to the entire Marine Corps’ procurement budget.

The new Commandant is winning me over ... not only because of this but because I made a mistake in believing that the wings on his chest carried more weight than the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on his chest.  He's talking the talk and with initiatives like this ... walking the walk.  If we can get our bases operating on this same concept worldwide...and find a high capacity magazine for the IAR that will work then he's off to a good start.

I'll even forgive him for signing on to buy the F-35C.

Marine Expeditionary Energy Initiative Website.

US fires more Tomahawks on Libyan defenses

 via Alert 5 from AFP.

US fires more Tomahawks on Libyan defenses

(AFP) – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The United States fired 16 new Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan targets on Thursday and Friday as part of the US role in the UN-mandated mission to protect Libyan civilians, the Pentagon said.
The new missile launches brought the total number of Tomahawks used by US and coalition forces to at least 170 as they enforce a UN resolution to set up a no-fly zone over Libya to stop air attacks by the forces of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi.
Pentagon officials said 16 new missiles were fired in the 24 hours to 0500 GMT Friday by US warships and submarines. The missiles are aiming to take out Kadhafi's anti-aircraft and artillery positions.
In the nearby seas, submarines including the USS Providence, USS Florida and the USS Scranton are patrolling alongside the destroyers USS Stout and USS Barry.
The number of Tomahawk missiles used in Libya has started to approach the number used in the 1991 Gulf War, the first conflict in which they were deployed. In that conflict, some 297 missiles were used.
During the same 24-hour period coalition warplanes carried out 153 sorties, officials said, including 67 by US forces.
Washington has said it hopes to turn over command of all Libya operations to NATO while maintaining a support role.
NATO has so far agreed to take control of enforcing the no-fly zone, and is considering whether to broaden its role to take over all military operations from the US-led coalition.

Wow.  This is an impressive war load for a few Destroyers and Subs that are operating in the area.  What would be nice is to see a 'war time replenishment' mission.  Regardless, the sea services continue to deliver.

Arlington (LPD 24), to be christened on March 26.

101123-O-XXXXX-001 PASCAGOULA, Miss. (Nov. 23, 2010) The future USS Arlington (LPD 24) launched Nov. 23 from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding's Pascagoula shipyard, marking a key milestone in the ship's construction process. Arlington honors the 184 victims who died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the first responders from the county. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding/Released) 

 

 

 

The good news keeps coming...

The Navy will christen the newest amphibious transport dock ship, PCU Arlington (LPD 24), during a 10 a.m. CDT ceremony at Northrop Grumman shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss, March 26.

The ship is named for the city of Arlington, Va., honoring the 184 victims in the air and on the ground who lost their lives when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the military and civilian employees, emergency, fire and rescue personnel of Arlington County and surrounding communities who provided critical assistance after the attack.

Arlington County Fire Chief James Schwartz, the incident commander coordinating the rescue response efforts on the ground at the Pentagon during the Sept. 11 attack, will deliver the ceremony's principal address.

Joyce Rumsfeld, wife of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is the ship's sponsor, and in accordance with Navy tradition, will break a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship.

Designated LPD 24, Arlington is the eighth amphibious transport dock ship in the San Antonio class. As an element of future expeditionary strike groups, the ship will support the Marine Corps "mobility triad," which consists of the landing craft air cushion vehicle, amphibious vehicles and the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Arlington will provide improved warfighting capabilities, including an advanced command-and-control suite, increased lift-capability in vehicle and cargo-carrying capacity and advanced ship-survivability features. The ship is capable of embarking a landing force of up to 800 Marines.

Two previous ships have carried the name Arlington. The first was a steel-hulled C1-B type cargo ship operating during World War II. The second USS Arlington was a 14,500-ton Vietnam War era, major communications relay ship, which assisted with communications during a June 1969 conference between U.S. President Nixon and Republic of Vietnam President Thieu.

Canadian JSF Briefing Notes.

Thanks Michael!  This should spark some debate...they definitely contradict information given on ARES Defense Blog.

UPDATE*
This is the actual article written by Sweetman over at ARES.  Just to flesh out the information that Michael sent me and is contained in this presentation document, here are the more 'inflammatory' statements made by Bill...

Canada is likely to be headed for new national elections by the end of the day, following a vote of no confidence inspired, in part, by the majority Conservative party's handling of the F-35 issue.

A single defense project...not even one as important as the F-35 could bring down a government.  Bill knows this...

This figure was challenged by a Canadian reporter who noted that the U.S. Government Accountability Office, in its latest report, is projecting an average acquisition cost of $133 million. No, Ross said, that number includes research and development -- a direct misstatement of facts.

This is a favorite tactic of F-35 critics...they parse numbers, compare apples and oranges and use different dynamics than that being used by the Department of Defense (US) and the F-35 Program office.  Its not dishonest...but it is misleading.

DoD acquisition czar Ashton Carter has also made it clear that, absent new management initiatives and efficiencies ("should cost") the program is headed ("will cost") towards a price that the customer cannot afford in planned numbers.

Another misleading statement.  Carter has already taken steps as has Lockheed Martin to drive down the price of the F-35 toward the established goal.  To be honest at this point in the program, the airplane is already remarkably affordable.  I can't help but restate that the F-15K, being sold to S. Korea costs 110 million dollars.  For the F-35 to have a cost of approx 130 million dollars per plane at this stage is quite simply astonishing.  Well done DoD, Lockheed Martin and the Program Office.



Presentation Deck 15 Mar 11_blue_FINAL

Terrible couple of weeks for the world...great weeks for the sea services.

Think about it...

The tragedy in Japan...the start of fighting in Libya...war still raging in Afghanistan...everyone holding there breath to see if the 'uprisings' in the Islamic world spread to nuclear power Pakistan....

But through it all the sea services have had great weeks.

I'm don't mean to be ghoulish but consider this....

On one side of the planet the US Navy/Marine Corps mobilized a fleet of ships/personnel/aviation assets and sailed to the aid of the Japanese..

And on the other side a Marine Expeditionary Unit, a couple of Destroyers, some subs (with another unidentified and unconfirmed sub landing Navy SEALs) and began an air campaign in conjunction with the USAF and our allies.

Add to it the 26th MEU mobilized a TRAP mission and sent an MV-22 along with a couple of AV-8B Harriers riding shotgun to pick up the crew of a downed F-15E Strike Eagle.

And before that happened (and even during it) they've been sailing around the world conducting partnership missions, anti-piracy missions, keeping an eye on the N. Koreans, performing exercises and normally scheduled training.

The sea services have delivered.

Pic of the day. March 25, 2011.

U.S. Marines assigned to the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) drop from a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter assigned to Marine Medium Squadron (HMM) 163 to the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) while conducting a fast-rope exercise in the Indian Ocean March 24, 2011. Boxer is the flagship of the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group, which is under way with the 13th MEU on a regularly scheduled western Pacific Ocean deployment. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Trevor Welsh, U.S. Navy/Released)

B-2 bomber ops. Lets get real.

Lets talk B-2's and the raid in Libya.

First we have an airplane that in today's dollars cost 1.1 Billion dollars a piece.

Second we have a fleet of 19 of these airplanes.

Third we have two of them being sent on a transcontinental mission to drop a total of 45 JDAMs.

We have mission failure.  We have a glamour shot.  We have the USAF trying to justify a ridiculously expensive airplane while lobbying for more (NGB).

We have a service without a vision of the future.

Shoot down the idea that this was a silly waste of resources that ultimately wasn't needed and one that took support away from the main effort and all you're doing is ignoring the obvious.

Lastly...if the mission was so necessary for the success of the air war then why haven't they duplicated the effort?  The Navy did with its Cruise Missile Strikes...the Brits did with its Tornado missions...the USAF has had F-15E's flying continously....so why no more B-2 missions?

Because it isn't necessary.

Time to put this turkey out of its misery.  Kill the B-2 and save money.  Put Nuclear strike in the hands of the Navy's Trident Missile Subs and be done with it.

UPDATE*
SMSgt Mac has a website called Elements of Power.  Would you believe he has written a rebuttal to this post?  Check him out.

Pararescue and the rest of the Special Ops Corpsmen/Medics...

I promise this is the last one I'll do on the USAF CSAR mission (at least for a minute) but one thing has been bugging the hell outta me.

My buddy Marcase made the case that PJ's (and again they're probably as tough as woodpecker lips...though I've never met one) are more medically skilled than the Corpsmen that rode out with the TRAP team picked up the F-15E Pilots a couple of days ago.

That bothered me.

It bothered me alot.

The reason why is because the Corpsmen that I've run across have all been extremely capable members of the family.  I've seen Doc's go to Marine's homes when the kids were sick to give advice on what was going on.  Seen them even deliver babies in terrible circumstances and of course watched them help injured Marines when strong armed men stood and all the could yell is "Corpsman Up!"

So what's a guy to do?  Whip out the old Google-foo and see what the real story is...what I found was surprising...only because I didn't remember it.

The US Army Special Forces has a dedicated Medical Sgt.  He not only takes care of his team but administers aid to local forces when they're leading insurgents against a hostile nation.

I looked on BlackFive and saw that Froggy posted that Navy Seal Corpsmen are no longer called Corpsmen but Navy Seal Medics...

I went to ForceRecon.com and saw that Navy Corpsmen are "Recon" qualified...they jump, fight, fast rope and dive with their teams...as well as perform medical treatment....

Long story short...its not about their qualifications or medical skills.

I take the training schools and selection boards at their word---these men are all highly skilled warriors.

But I do doubt the efficacy of the mission set as the USAF has established it.

A simple solution is for the US Air Force to step away from the CSAR mission.  It requires gunfighters that its force does not have.

Give the mission to SOCOM to be shared with the Navy/Marines and elements of the Army (thinking mainly the 82nd and 101st...I don't know if the other Army Divisions have the air assets or training to carry it out) or...

Get serious about the entire thing and get its Security Forces trained and armed up to take part.