A theory on the J-20.

I haven't heard this theory regarding the J-20 and I want to throw it out there...

What we do know.

1.  The Chinese are developing weapons to not only exploit perceived Western weakness but also to match our capabilities and if possible exceed them.
2.  The Chinese have a hacking enterprise second to none.  An enterprise that fetched them details on the F-35...presumably on its avionics package.

What has been speculated.

1.  The J-20 is a large airplane to allow it to operate across the expanses of the Pacific.
2.  In its production version it will sport thrust vectoring and F-22 class engines.
3.  Its extremely agile and achieves it in a unique way not currently being utilized (exactly) in the West.

What I'm guessing.

The J-20 is a long range missile truck that operates under the assumption that maneuvering is irrelevant.  A Chinese version of helmet mounted cuing...rearward facing AESA and some form of EOTS would in essence change what is needed in modern day aerial combat.

If the Chinese have been reading and keeping up with Air Force and Navy Journals regarding the use of Electronic Attack...the possibility of microwave and solid state lasers in the near future and the Achilles heel of power generation then it would lead them to build what we consider a huge fighter.

My guess is that the Chinese have put it all together, possibly much quicker than we did, with primary considerations NOT being agility but instead power production, long range, extremely large internal weapons bays and the ability to carry large all aspect sensors.

Just a guess but I can't get past how big this sucker is!

AH-1Z / UH-1Y vid...

NATO, Europe and the US.

Military.com has an article detailing the movement of a US Army Combat Brigade out of Europe.  I find it surprising that moving so small a formation could cause so much controversy.  Read the article but this stood out.

First this...

Moving the brigade would weaken the NATO alliance, said Ståle Ulriksen, chair of the Security and Conflict Management Department at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. Norway, for instance, went to Afghanistan, like the other European nations, "to show solidarity and to stay on the good side of the U.S. -- to be an ally," he said.
Ulriksen said that "free-riding" on the U.S. had enabled Europeans to avoid devising their own coordinated defense structures and that they should "grow up and take responsibility."
But he also said a European alliance was hard to imagine without the U.S. as leader.
"It's a kind of a comfortable situation. You have a leader no one disputes," he said. "What would be the alternative -- the British? The French? The Germans?"

and then this...

In the House, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spearheaded a plan last year to eliminate an Air Force fighter wing overseas, two Marine Corps infantry battalions on Okinawa -- and one Army brigade in Europe.
"NATO was a wonderful concept. But 61 years later, I think it's time to say our Western European allies should be on their own. We'll cooperate with them, but we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense," Frank said.

In the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, whose state stands to gain troops at Fort Bliss in the restructuring, was advocating similarly.
"For the future security posture of U.S. military forces and for the fiscal health of our nation, [the] military construction agenda should be guided by these words: build in America," she wrote in Politico last year. "Some argue that the U.S. overseas presence provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has proven otherwise."

Long story short.

US forces will be coming home.  Europe will have to stand on its own two feet.  The alliance, if its to survive, must evolve.

Notice one thing.

You have a prominent Republican and Democrat saying the same thing.  They're reading the political winds.  Forward deployed forces on even allied soil is something that the American people are tiring of.

Bell Helicopter - Scouts Out Website.

Bell Helicopter has a website up that I hadn't seen before...its called "Scouts Out" and its advertising the upgrades to the OH-58.

Bad news EuroCopter fans.

The US Army looks like they're just going to do an upgrade to an existing system and the competition for a new observation helicopter is going away.  In a way its positively brilliant.  An upgrade.  No worries about a competition.  Easily approved by Congress.

To be honest I'm not sure if the OH-58 will be more capable than the UH-72 but its here now and good enough, appears to be enough these days.

F-35B BF-4 Flies STOVL Mode

BF-4, the fourth F-35 short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) test aircraft, flies mode 4 for the first time on April 7, 2011, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Mode 4 engages the F-35 STOVL’s shaft-driven LiftFan system that allows the aircraft to hover, perform short takeoffs and land vertically. BF-4 is the first aircraft equipped with full mission systems to fly mode 4.

New Marine AH-1Z attack helicopter ready for war

Is the war in Libya about immigration?

Think Defence has an article in which he goes to great pains to lay the problems that British forces are having mounting a credible attack on Libya on the back of their involvement in Afghanistan.  He further goes on to state this...

It is therefore in the UK’s interests to have a stable country on the southern border of Europe, a nation that is not a source of tens of thousands of refugees that Italy will happily rubber stamp permits for and send them on their way to the land of milk and welfare honey, the UK that is, and a nation that could be a valuable trading partner.

Is this what its all about?

Is this why the UK and France were so gung-ho about military action in Libya?

If so, then all the talk about a humanitarian military action was just a cover.  A flimsy cover but a cover non-the-less.

It appears that many of my friends in Europe have been holding back some vital information.  It also explains why the effort has been so haphazard.  If the real goal isn't regime change but rather to prevent illegal immigration then that goal has already been achieved...

Force Protection. The Marine Corps growth industry.

It hasn't happened yet but it will.

Whether its an Afghan recruit that is a sleeper walking up to his trainers and blowing himself up...which sadly has happened several times but is under reported...

Or having a 'refugee' board a helicopter to be transported from a flood zone and detonating himself once the plane is in the air...a big fear of mine during the operation to help Pakistan during the floods....

Or even the threat that boat borne explosive devices will be used against our ships in Bahrain...

Force Protection is a growth industry for the Marine Corps and one that we should be into in a huge way.  Whether deploying as ships company or patrolling the waters around fleet ships in port, this is a mission that the Marine Corps should taking up from the Coast Guard right now.

Equipment is necessary and fortunately the Navy is already procuring just the type of boats the Marines need.  The Metal Shark...

Brochure 5774

The issue isn't that the Coast Guard or the Navy aren't capable...its that they're designed more for a law enforcement type action...not to act as an anti-terrorist force.

When dealing with someone willing to die for their cause then its a war time situation on friendly or allied soil.  Master-at-arms aren't what you want.

A Marine Rifle Man is what you need.

While we're preparing to add boat spaces to Marine Special Operations perhaps we should do the same with our FAST Companies and add a few more so that they can expand their mission.

Could the UK retake the Falklands?

Patrick made this statement...

Speaking of Argentina, if they tried to retake the Falklands today I seriously doubt the British would be able to defend their territory without seeking outside help. Without a carrier force, the U.K's only hope would be to throw the Argentinians back into the sea. Should they succesfully occupy the islands, it would be nearly impossible for the British to dislodge them on their own. I think if conflict returns to that region expect the British to ask the French, and maybe even the Italians or Spanish, to join the war and commit their carriers to the fight.

I agree.  Under the exact same circumstances the UK would not be able to retake the Falklands.  Mike at New Wars once lauded the Brits and there small carriers as being outstanding examples of what the US should follow.

Too bad they threw it all away.  Also notice that interoperability with the US Marines has been sacrificed in order to gain limited cross training with the US Navy.  In doctrine, and approach the Marines/Royal Navy are closer in philosophy than the Royal Navy, French Navy and US Navy are.

The French in Afghanistan.

Bryaxis sent me this vid (Thanks guy!  I guess I would label this counter point to my "bashing" of the EU..well done Bryaxis!)  One question though. 

The UK fought alone more effectively than NATO is against a more capable foe!

Grand Logistics came by and added this to the discussion on Libya...

Hello Solomon,

you hit the nail on the head there.

To understand what is going on you would need to read the Lisbon Treaty,Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Anglo French defence agreement.

That is a lot of dull reading but it can be summed up as follows:

Eliminate individual European nations' ability to conduct independent military operations by cutting force sizes and eliminating capabilities to enforce military integration.

Hence eliminating British aircraft carriers, there is a European agreement on creating a Pan European carrier group,and maritime patrol aircraft and probably the heavy tank fleet in future.

The idea being that all European countries will work together to project European power overseas.

Sarkozy and arch Europeanist Cameron appear to have seen Libya as a demonstration of European military power.

Hence U.S.S.Enterprise staying in the Arabian Sea and U.S.Air Force operations now drawing down as Obama lets them get on with it.

Good call Mr.President.

Cameron and Sarkozy have been rudely reminded of their military impotence.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy has been shown to be a sham.

Europe is looking a bit silly.

The United States has reinforced it's global dominance.


GrandLogistics.

What has me going from amused at the situation to being shocked is this simple fact.

The UK went up against a more powerful foe, at a greater distance from home, with a more challenging set of mission objectives than NATO is facing right now.

The UK beat the Argentinians.

This current conflict is in doubt.

Whether its because of politics.  Because of the UN mandate (essentially politics).  Or a lack of military capability (I would guess this is the main reason).  One thing is readily apparent.

If the current conflict is stressing resources then those resources need to be increased.

NATO is useless. The UK has shed its military power. The EU is nothing.

Let be clear on a couple of facts.

1.  This war in Libya shouldn't be a major lift for NATO.

2.  The UK faced more serious opposition alone in the fight against Argentina.

3.  The UK shed present day capability for the POSSIBILITY of future savings.

4.  The Germans practice an almost isolationist foreign policy and an aggressive trade policy.

5.  The smaller EU nations are punching above their weight but can't be expected to shoulder burdens in two war zones.

6.  French military power has been greatly over estimated.

7.  NATO is useless if not dead.

This from Reuters...

By Erik Kirschbaum and David Brunnstrom
BERLIN, April 15 (Reuters) - NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Britain voiced optimism on Friday that NATO allies would supply more combat planes for the Libyan mission, but Italy ruled out ordering its planes to open fire.
Britain and France are urging other NATO allies to provide more planes capable of hitting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's ground forces after Washington cut back its role in the operation and passed command onto NATO on March 31. I GUESS TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE ISN'T SO USELESS AFTER ALL...ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS A WAR THAT EUROPE WAS BEGGING TO GET INTO.  MEANWHILE IN THE US, EVERYONE EXCEPT NEO-CONS AND NO THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE US MILITARY, WANTED TO SIT THIS ONE OUT.  THIS IS AN ALLIANCE OF LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS THAT I THOUGHT I WOULD NEVER SEE.  A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.

"We have got indications that nations will deliver what is needed ... I'm hopeful that we will get the necessary assets in the very near future," Rasmussen told a news conference at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin.
The leaders of France, Britain and the United States published a jointly-written newspaper article on Friday vowing to keep up their military campaign until Gaddafi leaves power. Some countries, such as Russia, say that goes beyond the terms of a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising the campaign.
Libyan rebels have pleaded for more air strikes, saying they face a massacre from government artillery barrages in the besieged city of Misrata.
The United States and European NATO allies have so far rebuffed French and British calls to contribute more actively.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who has been lobbying other NATO allies to provide more strike aircraft, also said after talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that he was hopeful more strike assets would be made available. Asked if Britain might be prepared to contribute more combat aircraft if other allies did not step forward, Hague said: "We'll always keep that under review but ... as of today this question doesn't arise."WTF!!!!! THEY'RE PUSHING THE US TO CONTRIBUTE MORE AIRCRAFT BUT ITS UNDER REVIEW?  THE QUESTION DIDN'T ARISE???

How do you best describe the operation in Libya?

One word.

Clusterfuck.