Riverines and the Global Fleet Station.

I found out where Riverine Forces fell off the tracks.  The document below is from 2007 and gives a rough sketch of the Partnership missions that we see happening all over the globe.

Back in 2007 it was called Global Fleet Station (GFS).

GFS had at its core all the elements of the recently (then) formed NECC.

The recently established Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) is a key enabler of theGFS concept. NECC brings together under a single command the existing forces andcapabilities of the Seabees, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Naval Expeditionary LogisticsSupport, the Maritime Expeditionary Security Force, and Mobile Diving and Salvage. It has alsodeveloped new Navy capabilities such as Riverine, Maritime Civil Affairs, Security Training,and criminal intervention; all key elements of a full-spectrum engagement capability. Theintroduction of the new Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program further expands the Navy’senablers and capability to engage more effectively around the world in a culturally informed andmeaningful manner. In addition, the State Department new Surge POLAD program can enhanceparticipation and build awareness that can augment GFS interagency support

Read the entire document, but somewhere along the way every part of this plan came together except the Riverine forces.

Perhaps it had to do with equipment fit.

Perhaps it had to do with missions in Iraq.

Perhaps it had to do with a lack of flexibility on the part of the Riverine Command structure...but somewhere along the way, Riverine got kicked off the boat.  Why do I say that?  Because in every instance you see every part of NECC (with the exception of EOD which is quite busy in Afghanistan) afloat around the world on these missions.  Every part of NECC except Riverines.

Global Fleet Station Concept

What is the answer?

Well it certainly isn't floating a Riverine Command Boat into the well deck of an Amphib.  Flashy.  Yes.  Showboating.  Yes.  Practical.  No.

They have much smaller boats that they can operate and those should be the ones that they're demonstrating and deploying.

That is, if they actually want to deploy.

The answer is this.  Riverines are going to have to break down into detachment sized units and become part of ships crews on Destroyers and Frigates and forget the dream of having a mothership based on an Amphib that they can deploy a RCB from.

One other point needs to be made here though.

African Partnership Mission.

Riverine isn't there.

Joint Task Force Horn of Africa Mission.

Riverine isn't there.

Southern Partnership Mission.

Riverine isn't there.

The problem has been more than identified.  Solutions offered from hitching rides and deploying on MEU's, to providing detachments to Destroyers and Frigates on patrol.

Its up to the Riverine's to decide what there future holds...but unless they get deployed, it won't be a very bright one.

German Sea Basing?

I don't know if this is just an idea that they thought would look pretty to the USMC or if its actually something they're planning on implementing...

Personally.

I'll believe it when I see it.

German SeaBasing Concept Slides

Lexington Institute's take on the NATO situation

From Early Warning Blog...

It is not that NATO does not spend enough; it is rather that the Alliance and European Union spends badly. It spends an inadequate amount on R&D and procurement and overspends on personnel, including nondeployable forces. Then there is duplication of effort and investment in obsolescent capabilities. Europe has deployed three different fourth generation fighters, the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen, while the U.S. leapt ahead to fifth generation aircraft, the F-22 and F-35. The U.S. is buying over 100 P-8 antisubmarine warfare aircraft; Europe is buying none. The U.S. already has deployed a fleet of C-17 long-range cargo aircraft while Europe is struggling to buy the shorter range A400. The list goes on and on: missile defenses, JDAMs, Small Diameter Bomb, AMRAAM, Global Hawk UAVs and directed energy weapons. Add to that critical enablers, particularly intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance and you have what it takes to be a modern military.
In his speech, the Secretary pointed out that several countries were spending only modestly in their militaries but still managed to “punch above their weight” in Libya. It is interesting that the nations he mentioned had all invested in U.S. systems, notably F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft. “In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.”

As usual, he makes a point but instead of going in for the kill (a trait common among too damn many bloggers in general and military bloggers in particular----when did being politically correct infect the military mind?) he vacillates and spins.

If only they spent money wiser.

Really?

Seriously?

It isn't about money its about mindset.  Goure knows this but instead gives NATO a fig leaf to hide behind.

I expected better but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Everyone knows that NATO is as dead as disco.  No one wants to say it out loud.

Cowards.

Firebird...the US Army's next OV-1 Mohawk?

By the looks of this airplane, it seems to me to be the perfect, modernized, cheaper than dirt OV-1 Mohawk.

I love the way we keep re-inventing wheels to solve problems that have already been solved.  Albeit with fewer sensors but with the same goal in mind.

M27 to replace SAWs?

This is plain idiotic.

How the fuck do you shoot, move and communicate if you can't keep the bad guys heads down?

If you want precision fire then add a Designated Marksman to your Infantry Companies.

You don't reduce the number of SAWS that you deploy.  This from Military.com.

Gunners shooting the M27 have been getting first-round hits on targets beyond 300 meters much more consistently than they have in the past with the M249, Clark said.
"In the training, the Marines were employing it in the semi-auto mode until they closed within 100 meters or so of the enemy and then switch to full auto to provide very accurate high rates of fire," he added. "We don't lose the ability to gain fire superiority."

and this....

Marine weapons officials also maintain that the improved 30-round magazine that the Army developed for the M4 carbine and the M16 is working well in the M27.

Some are concerned that M27 gunners are not being issued higher-capacity magazines. Program officials have not ruled this out as a possibility for the future, but for now, gunners will carry about 22 of the standard 30-round magazines for a basic load.
"We are looking at the potential for high-capacity magazines, but right now the new service magazine with the brown follower is working really well," Clark said. "We have had no issues."

Read the whole story, but this is a STUPID.  INSANE.  POTENTIALLY TRAGIC STEP BACKWARDS.

Can anyone say Browning Automatic Rifle?  Who put these bastards in charge????

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.