PRT Meymaneh

PRT Meymaneh's FLICKR stream from Sept of last year.  No updates.  Nothing.  I don't think they've pulled out of Afghanistan yet so I'm not sure what the deal is.  If you know then hit me up.

Robert Work talks Marine Corps future.

via DefenseNews.com
Read the whole thing but this is the part that covers the Marines.

Q. The Marines are thinking ahead to where they're going to be post-Afghanistan. How do you see the shape of the Corps ten years from now?

A. The Corps structure review group that was set up by Commandant Gen. James Amos has finished. It was a bottom-up review to look at all the different things they were told to in the most recent quadrennial defense review and defense planning guidance. They come up with the 186,800 person Marine Corps. Now, they're a force of readiness. That's their key role. And the Secretary of Defense endorsed that role.
The plan is, depending on resources of course, to be manned very close to 100 percent as possible. They would have an entirely modernized and upgraded ground mobility portfolio based on two new systems - the Marine Corps personnel carrier and the new amphibious vehicle. Our hope is that we can get have eight battalions of the new amphibious vehicle and four battalions of the Marine personnel carrier.
The Marines have already dropped the total number of vehicles in their Marine Air-Ground Task Force, forcewide, from 42,000 to about 32,500, and they did that by essentially matching butts to seats. And they said how do we keep mobility in the ground force? They are looking at their joint light tactical fleet, what's the best way forward, should it be the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or should there be some other option? They've looked at their medium truck fleet. I think they're in real good shape.
Aviation looks very bright. The secretary, the commandant and I are very confident that the engineering problems on the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter are going to be resolved. The Marines have made a decision to put five F-35C [carrier variant] squadrons aboard carriers, so they have lined up about 21 active squadrons, five of them C's, the remainder of them B's.

[Development of] the CH-53K [heavy-lift helicopter] is moving right along, and we're extremely happy with the AH-1Z [attack helicopters] and the UH-1Y [utility helicopter].

So when we take a look at a force in readiness, able to come from the sea, the plan is in place for a thoroughly modernized Marine Corps and thoroughly ready Marine Corps, going back to its naval roots and its amphibious heritage.

Q. Is naval fire support something in need of a solution or is the current capability acceptable?

A. In '13, we hope to take a look again at the 5-inch guided round, but the 6-inch guided round, the 155mm is going well. It's already met its threshold in range. The plans are to have three DDG 1000 destroyers carrying six of those systems.
We have an awful lot of 5-inch cannons in the fleet and if we can solve the 5-inch round problem, then the combination of the 6-inch rounds, 5-inch rounds and air-delivered ordnance is going to be plenty for any foreseeable contingencies.

Q. Production of LPD 17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships is continuing, with half the class is already in service and the sixth ship to be delivered this summer. Every previous ship has had problems to varying degrees. Shipbuilder Huntington-Ingalls Industries (HII) would really like to deliver a good ship, but they haven't done so yet. Do you see anything on this next ship that gives you hope?

A. We've had an awful lot of problems with the class, but the most recent ships are coming in in much better shape. We're still working with HII, we still want to see quality improve. As quality improves we expect scheduling and costs to improve.
But we're very satisfied with the basic design of the ship. Workmanship is getting better. We just awarded LPD 26 to HII, LPD 27 is a 2012 ship, and we'll start to worry about that once the budget is settled.
Sailors and Marines can't say enough about [the ships]. [U.S. Fleet Forces commander] Adm. John Harvey spends an awful lot of time trying to get that ship and the wellness of that class right and I think we've made great strides in doing so.

I just realized something while reading this entire article.

If I was a Sailor, I'd be downright pissed!

Think about it from their point of view.  The Marines are glorified passengers that do little aboard ship except take up space.  They're cargo.  Yet this minor service is taking up all the oxygen when it comes to discussions inside the Department of the Navy!

To say that a few months ago, it was fashionable to question the necessity of the Marines, its beyond refreshing to see that all of our major efforts are motoring right along.

For the Marines...life is hard, but life is good.

PS.

F-35 foes...read the part covering Marine aviation again.  How did Sheen say it?

Winning!

UPDATE:
I left off a part covering the USS America Class LHA...

Q. The biggest ship they're building right now on the Gulf coast is the assault ship America (lha 6). Will there be another lha without a well deck and an aviation version of that ship or is that going to be a one-off ship?

A. Nope, there will be two ships. LHA 7 will not have a well deck on it, and we'll have two aviation-capable ships.
Our intent is for LHA 8, which right now is a 2016 ship, to have a well deck in it. We're doing an analysis to determine the best and most inexpensive way for us to achieve that. Is it a repeat of the LHA 8 Makin class or is it an LHA with a well deck inserted into it? It's not going to be a completely newly-designed ship. It'll be a mod repeat of some type with a well deck in it.

Q. If it has a well deck, why isn't it called LHD 9?

A. That's a good question. I don't know whether that's been decided yet.

Libyan Forces fight NATO to a standstill.

I know what you're going to say.

This isn't an actual NATO loss...its a rebel failure.  NATO fought according to UN rules.

I know all that, but think about this sad fact.  As a military union, for whatever reason, NATO is 0-2.  A loss or draw in Afghanistan and a loss or draw in Libya.

The dumbest thing the former Soviet Union ever did was to NOT test Western military capabilities.  Conventionally we were at best on par...and no one had the guts to go nuclear.  Germany would have been conquered and the Nordic countries imperiled.

But back to this Libya thing.  If the madman can hold on long enough to start peace talks then he's won.  If he can be patient enough to martial his forces...do something silly to keep gas prices high without bringing down retaliatory strikes...is smart enough to keep his hands off international terrorism...then inside of a year he'll have regained all lost territory and no one will care.

Amazing.

Vehicle Neck-Down Campaign.

When it comes to the Ground Combat Element, we have a recurring issue that must be addressed.  That pesky little issue of what is the future of Tanks Battalions?

I believe we have a possible solution...but the solution leads to another question.  What about Light Armored Recon Battalions?

This whole issue is based on the Marine Personnel Vehicle.

In essence the USMC is about to acquire two personnel carriers...the first being the legacy AAV and its follow-on and then a new wheeled transport.

Why is this different from the way things have traditionally been done?  Quite simply because in the past, tactical transport was provided by the AAV (a tactical vehicle) and the MTVR (and before it the 5-ton truck), a logistics vehicle pushed into the tactical role.

The opportunity here is to decide exactly when, and where we will be using the heavy fire power of Tanks Battalion and if its necessary.

I believe it is but the opportunity to mount a 105mm gun to a wheeled platform can't be overlooked.  Additionally this could potentially lead to the Marine Corps being able to divest itself of the costly M1 Abrams, go to a lighter vehicle and incorporate all these vehicles into the AAV Battalions.  We have done something similar to this in the past with the LVTH-6.

If you can follow that reasoning then that leads to the LAR Battalions.  We are in essence going to have two separate wheeled combat vehicles (if General Dynamics doesn't win the contract).

That seems to be a waste of resources and a doubling of supply chains.  Trained mechanics that must be proficient on the MPC winner, the LAV-25A2 and a possible Hummer replacement (the Marines haven't announced if they're pulling out of that program) and now you have not two wheeled combat vehicles (depending on configuration) but three.

The idea is totally unsat.

Its time for a vehicle neck down campaign for the Ground Combat Element.  Cutting personnel might be a necessity, but cutting different vehicle types is a must.

UPDATE:

Let me be clear on an issue that Aussie Digger brought up.  My idea is that US Army Tank Detachments can be called upon when needed for heavy support.  How they decide to do it is up to them but I would probably push for 1 US Army Battalion of Tanks to be co-located with each Marine Division.  Lets face it.  Army Tank Battalions are looking for work, they can be easily attached and it would save us money.  Win win.

Expeditionary Fire Support System

European Sea Power done right.

The Phoenix Think Tank is a blog whose members thoughts mirror my own.

*They believe in a strong independent Europe and most relevantly...a powerful UK.

*They believe that as a maritime nation, the UK must reverse the terrible downsizing that the Royal Navy is currently suffering from.

*They believe that the retirement of the Harriers was shortsighted and politically motivated (so true!)

*They believe that economic strength comes not at the point of a gun but from the ability to first deter aggression and then, if that fails, to be able to react successfully to protect their nations goals/beliefs.

In short, we're like brothers in our thinking...in our service to our respective nations...and in our belief that naval forces are many times the instrument of choice when it comes to dealing with 22nd century despots, dictators and madmen.

Follow the link and read PTT. 

Sharkeys World also has a wealth of interesting information and is authored by the same individuals.  I have them both bookmarked.

Easy defense cuts.

If we want easy defense cuts then here's the way to do it.

Stop subsidizing Europe and pull our Combat Brigades out and bring them home.  Defense experts complain that Europe should be spending more on defense.  The Europeans complain that we spend too much.

Lets make this simple adjustment, get Europe from behind the US shield and watch our allies shoulder more of the burden.  This story is via Military .com but even though the Obama Administration is calling for fewer cuts, you can bet that budget reality will make this low hanging fruit.

Want to really save money?  Pull everyone back (the allies complain about US troops on their soil...well everyone but S. Korea and maybe Australia...if we ever get that base built in the Northern Territories).  World wide.

Read the whole thing but this is the operative paragraph...and from a Republican no less.  Shameful.

In a recent letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar warned that the withdrawals could undermine European security and the sense among NATO allies that the U.S. is committed to Europe.

I mean seriously.  European security.  Not US security but European security?!  Time for him to find a new job.

Quote of the day. April 8, 2011.

Lying offshore, ready to act, the presence of ships and Marines sometimes means much more than just having air power or ship's fire, when it comes to deterring a crisis. And the ships and Marines may not have to do anything but lie offshore. It is hard to lie offshore with a C-141 or C-130 full of airborne troops.
Gen. Colin Powell, U. S. Army
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

Come back from the edge Sweetman.

I wrote this on ARES blog tonight...

and guess what XGDUDE.

Congress forced a single program down the throats of the military. there was a competition and Lockheed Martin won. i don't remember nary a complaint about LM when they did. i hear nary a complaint about the F-22 even though its shorter ranged than the F-35, is a maintenance nightmare and its vaunted supercruise has yet to be validated in even a combat exercise.

but as usual this board has been and continues to be overrun with apostles of Bill in their negativity toward a program that is flowing tech advancements back to legacy programs and even the F-22 at a rate that would have had NASA engineers blushing during the heyday of the Apollo space program.

i marvel at the audacity, cringe at the stupidity and wonder at the motives of some of you here.

have fun boys. it ain't worth visiting or reading tripe like this anymore. oh and to the author of this piece. i've read the whole report and the summary.

seems you left out more than a few positives that were contained in it.

was that by accident or on purpose.

fair and balanced?

i don't freaking think so.

Sweetman and his merry band of followers have definitely gone too far.  No one is yanking him back and this vendetta against the F-35 is becoming twisted.

A noted journalist spinning facts to fit a narrative?

It ain't suppose to work that way.

But it is and no one is calling him on it.

This is a copy of the actual GAO report so that you can read it for yourself.  Suffice it to say that Sweetman left out quite a bit of positive information in his reporting.

I'm to the point where I don't expect anything less.

Thanks for sending this Craig...you're a hero (and forgive my rant)..



d11325

Lasers at Sea.

Lasers at Sea.

If it works on Destroyers then a major excuse for not performing amphibious assaults (and the missile threat is simply an excuse) goes away.  Amphibs will be able to make runs toward the beach and launch AAVs, and the next generation AAV with almost impunity.

But it gets better.

The threat of China's Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile becomes neutralized as well.

via Fox News...

Navy Shows Off Powerful New Laser Weapon

By Jeremy A. Kaplan

Published April 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

One if by land … lasers if by sea.
A futuristic laser mounted on a speeding cruiser successfully blasted a bobbing, weaving boat from the waters of the Pacific Ocean -- the first test at sea of such a gun and a fresh milestone in the Navy's quest to reoutfit the fleet with a host of laser weapons, the Navy announced Friday.
"We were able to have a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," chief of Naval research Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told FoxNews.com.
The test occurred Wednesday near San Nicholas Island, off the coast of Central California in the Pacific Ocean test range, from a laser gun mounted onto the deck of the Navy’s self-defense test ship, former USS Paul Foster.
In a video of the event, the small boat can be seen catching fire and ultimately bursting into flames, a conflagration caused by the navy's distant gun. Some details of the event were classified, including the exact range of the shot, but Carr could provide some information: "We're talking miles, not yards," Carr said.
The Navy, Army and other armed forces have been working to incorporate so called "directed energy" laser weapons in a range of new guns, from tank-mounted blasters to guns on planes or unmanned balloons. But this marks the first test of a laser weapon at sea -- and proof that laser rifles are no mere Buck Rogers daydream.
“This is the first time a [high-energy-laser], at these power levels, has been put on a Navy ship, powered from that ship and used to defeat a target at-range in a maritime environment,” said Peter Morrison, program officer for the Office of Naval Research.
"The Navy is moving strongly towards directed energy," Carr told FoxNews.com.
The weapon, called the maritime laser demonstrator, was built in partnership with Northrop Grumman. It focused 15 kilowatts of energy by concentrating it through a solid medium -- hence the name.
"We call them solid state because they use a medium, usually something like a crystal," explained Quentin Saulter, the research office's program officer. It was used in Wednesday's demonstration against a small boat, but Carr told FoxNews.com that this and other types of laser weaponry could be equally effective against planes and even targets on shore.
"To begin to address a cruise missile threat, we'd need to get up to hundreds of kilowatts," Carr said.
The Navy is working on just such a gun of course.
Called the FEL -- for free-electron laser, which doesn't use a gain medium and is therefore more versatile -- it was tested in February consuming a blistering 500 kilovolts of energy, producing a supercharged electron beam that can burn through 20 feet of steel per second.
The FEL will easily get into the kilowatt power range. It can also be easily tuned as well, to adjust to environmental conditions, another reason it is more flexible than the fixed wavelength of solid-state laser. But the Navy doesn't expect to release megawatt-class FEL weapons until the 2020s; among the obstacles yet to be overcome, the incredible power requirements of the FEL weapons require careful consideration.
Also in the Navy's futuristic arsenal: a so-called "rail gun," which uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound.
Railguns are even further off in the distance, possibly by 2025, the Navy has said. But the demonstration of the maritime laser demonstrator this week proves that some laser weapons are just around the corner: Northrop Grumman experts aim to have the final product ready by June of 2014.
"One of the things that amazes me about this business is that the future is getting closer every day," Carr said.

Brits to rethink defense cuts in light of war in Libya.

Read it at Sky News  

One thing is obvious.  It appears that the leadership is dead set against reactivating the Harrier force and for some reason is totally focused on the Tornados.

The Royal Air Force needs to be downsized.  It is constantly at war with the Navy and Army --- and seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of defense funds.  And its major contribution to the war in Afghanistan was in coordination with the Navy, yet they seem to have garnered all the credit.

Communication with the public regarding capabilities, roles and work done is beyond necessary.  Its essential to winning budget wars.  The US Marine Corps needs to learn from the Royal Navy.  Don't expect policy makers to "KNOW" what you've done, the sacrifices made and the value brought to the nation.  It MUST be shouted to the roof tops and publicized.  If not then the Corps will face the same issues that the RN is.

Patria AMV and the USMC.

Ok, a couple of things. That's being tested at Pendleton...Second I didn't know that the vehicle was suppose to be able to operate in surf conditions. Lastly...I like it. Still love the modularity of the now dead SEP but this seems to be doing the job. Also, its very interesting that the USMC would put out a video featuring ONE vehicle. This might be a nod toward the Patria AMV being single sourced for production. The Commandant said that he wanted this vehicle quickly...a selection now would be about right to have it in production by fiscal year 2013 or just after the next Presidential election.