Saudi's buying LAV-25A2's.

Thanks Jonathan for sending me this article.

I don't know if this is a case of the Saudi's getting nervous and wanting to make sure they have all the gear they could possibly need, the Saudi's simply spending money on gear because they have so much of it laying around or the Saudi's making a strategic decision to purchase gear to ease the pain of the oil shock that the US has been experiencing.

But the Saudi's are buying gear.

WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Friday of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Saudi Arabia of a variety of light armored vehicles and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $350 million.

The Government of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible sale of 25 LAV-25 series Light Armored Vehicles, 8 LAV Assault Guns, 8 LAV Anti-Tank Vehicles, 6 LAV Mortars, 2 LAV Recovery Vehicles, 24 LAV Command and Control Vehicles, 3 LAV Personnel Carriers, 3 LAV Ammo Carriers, 1 LAV Engineer Vehicle, 2 LAV Ambulances, AN/VRC 90E and AN/VRC-92E Export Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS), battery chargers, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.

The estimated cost is $350 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

The proposed sale will improve the Saudi Arabian National Guard’s(Emphasis added—Ed.) ability to effectively conduct security and counter-terrorism operations, and would serve to make a key strategic partner in regional contingency operations more capable of defeating those who would threaten regional stability and less reliant on the deployment of U.S. forces to maintain or restore stability in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, which already has Light Armored Vehicles in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing these additional vehicles into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this service will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be ITT Aerospace/Communications in Fort Wayne, Indiana; Harris Corporation in Rochester, New York; General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ontario, Canada; and Raytheon Corporation in Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded. (ends)

I've read that the Saudi National Guard is the heavy hitters in their military.  Seems like they're going to be extremely well equipped.

Can they even deploy all the equipment they've bought?  Its been so much that they must have some just sitting in the sun.

Quote of the day. June 14, 2011.

via SKY News.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope says the Government must "reprioritise" if the Nato-led campaign lasts beyond the UK's existing six-month commitment.

He also admitted parts of the operation would have been cheaper and "much more reactive" if the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal had not been scrapped.

But the Navy chief refused to criticise the decision to axe the vessel and its Harrier jump jets taken as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

Admiral Stanhope said such comments had a "corrosive" effect on morale.

And the hits keep coming to the Royal Air Force.

But so does the truth.  The scrapping of the Harrier Force was a mistake.  The complaints and the fight after the deed was done is also a mistake.  Sometimes I think that the Brits are so interested in being 'well behaved' that they fail to become involved in vigorous discussions.

The lack of candor.  The lack of forcefulness.  The decision not to push back against the 'haters' until its too late has cost the Royal Navy and the British people.

Hopefully (but I fear that it is) its not too late.

F-35 Family Photos.

via Elements of Power Blogspot.

Elements of Power on the V-22 hit piece.

Catching up on some reading tonight led me to SMSGT Mac's blog Elements of Power.

I'm glad it did.  He covered a story that totally escaped my attention and one I'm beyond grateful that he covered.

Here's a piece but go to his place to read the whole thing.

Most of all, the article gives me (again) the urge to kick Bob Cox's macabre little voyeuristic a**.

If you take the time to read the article, you'll understand how he arrived at that decision.

Diving Supervisors Course.

The UK can't defend the Falklands.

Oh, I've tapped on this before.  Think Defense and his merry band of fellows shot my thinking down.  Ya seen they're a RAF centric blog and despise all things Naval.  Well here's some bad news --- and its delivered from one of their own.  The UK is a maritime nation and unlike the US, has a history (long history, not just a creation of the Cold War) of forward basing forces.  Unfortunately a company of Paras or Marines isn't going to be more than a speed bump to a well organized Amphibious Assault.  This from DefenseManagement.com.

Britain 'could not defend Falklands'

13 June 2011

A shrinking navy and lack of US support mean that Britain would be unable to prevent Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands and claiming them as their own, the Admiral who commanded British naval forces during the Falklands War has warned.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward said that Britain was over-committed and could not rely on the US to support the defence of the islands as it did in 1982.

Instead the US would support an "accommodation" in order to create stability in the area, Woodward wrote.

He also pointed out that the Royal Navy was significantly reduced and no longer had carrier strike capability.

"We can no longer rely on the Pentagon to support us in helping the islanders in their wish to remain essentially British sovereign territory," he wrote.

"Significantly the islands are already being called the Malvinas by the US. This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing."

"With our land and air forces already over-committed in Afghanistan and Libya, with the defence budget still shrinking, our submarine force more than halved, our destroyer and frigate force halved, our carrier force more than halved in terms of deck availability and completely discarded in terms of fixed wing assets – the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing other than accede to US pressure," Admiral Woodward concluded.

There are currently over a thousand troops, four Typhoon fast jets and a frigate stationed in and around the Falkland Islands.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance. The current garrison in the Falkland Islands is much larger in scale and has a greater capability than in 1982 and this together with our ability to reinforce rapidly by air has been maintained. "

I'm truly embarrassed to admit it but the Admiral is right.  This US Administration would not support the UK.  And that's shameful.  I'm ready to pull our forces out of Europe for one reason.  Decisions like the one that scrapped the Harrier and its carriers means that the UK is not serious about its own defense.

And that should be shameful to any Brit.

Marine Corps Sea Basing Warfighting Publication

I wasn't aware that this had been written.

Mcwp 3-31.7 Seabasing