Pheonix Think Tank responds to questions about Falklands defense.

This letter by Sharkey Ward says it all and reinforces my belief that without a strong Navy, the UK is in peril.

“Sir,
It is a sad thing for Britain when Ministry of Defence spokesmen blatantly mislead the nation as in the last paragraph of Thomas Harding’s excellent article on our lack of ability to prevent Argentina retaking the Falklands (12 June 2011).
We are told by MoD that “Our ability to reinforce [The Falklands]  rapidly by air has been maintained.” This is utter nonsense. As in 1982, the Royal Air Force would not send its transport aircraft and refuelling tankers anywhere near the Falklands if British forces did not have control of the skies over the islands. Further, any invasion of the Falklands by Argentina would be conducted without warning and Mount Pleasant airfield would be the first bit of real estate that Argentina Forces would secure. Air supremacy and airspace denial would be the prerogative of Argentina, not Britain.
The only real deterrent to Argentina is for Britain to maintain a carrier battle group capability. Without such a capability Britain would be unable to contest an Argentinian invasion.
When will the MoD (RAF) start telling the public and our politicians the truth about such matters?
Yours sincerely,
‘Sharkey’ Ward.”

RAF boosters (and they're to be found under every bloody rock between here and Plymouth) are operating on "hope and change"....hope that they are never tasked with anything more strenuous than a Libya type campaign and change in the form that they think that someone will change the subject.

I won't let them.

The UK is a maritime nation and needs a strong Navy.  Not another repeat of failed Air Force centric thinking.

Fire Scout in Afghanistan/Growler carries AARGM

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- The Navy’s Fire Scout is proving its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability during its first land-based deployment in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.

The Fire Scout, managed by Navy and Marine Corps Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Air Systems program office (PMA-266), deployed in late April to CENTCOM in response to a DoD ISR Task Force request to provide ISR services in northern Afghanistan.

In nine months, PMA-266, in conjunction with ISR task force leadership and Northrop Grumman, conducted site surveys of various basing locations, interfaced with key leadership personnel in the CENTCOM chain of command, planned and executed deployment preparations and sustainment for joint and allied military operations in Regional Command North, Afghanistan.

“We are very pleased with Fire Scout’s performance during both its ship-based and CENTCOM deployments,” said Capt. Tim Dunigan, PMA-266 Program Manager. “The team has done an exceptional job testing and maintaining the system to ensure we could meet the warfighter’s demands.”

Fire Scout’s initial flight in theater took place May 2. Only 19 days later, PMA-266 Detachment Alpha established initial operational capability during its first tasked mission from the International Security Assistance Force’s Regional Command North area of responsibility.

The Fire Scout system provides full motion video and imagery from its electro-optical and infrared sensor payload along with laser designation of targets for troops in the field. With flight endurance of more than five hours, the system offers a long-dwell sensor with real-time dynamic re-tasking capability to respond to tactical forces. Additionally, a communication relay capability provides a beyond-line-of-sight capacity for troops and their commanders.

“Our team is very excited about the first expeditionary deployment of the Fire Scout system”, said Cmdr. Brian Stephens, Officer in Charge (OIC) for PMA-266 Detachment Alpha. “In less than one month, we have flown more than 200 flight hours and completed more than 80 sorties and we are on track to fly 300 hours per month.”

PMA-266 Detachment Alpha is a government owned/contractor operated deployment. The detachment includes a military OIC and assistant OIC, five Navy intelligence analysts, and 21 Northrop Grumman contractors to conduct missions in support of RC North tasking.

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- The Navy’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) successfully completed its first test on the EA-18G Growler in China Lake, Calif. May 25.

A combined government/industry team conducted the EA-18G captive carry flight test in parallel with the ongoing AARGM Integrated Test & Evaluation phase on the FA-18 C/D aircraft.

Captive carry tests are simulated launches where the weapon stays on the aircraft. The team gathers information from sensors on the weapon to evaluate AARGM performance.

“AARGM is a very capable weapon performing a complex mission. VX-31 and VX-9 have done a superb job of carrying and testing the weapon on FA-18C/Ds as well as Super Hornets,” said Cmdr. Chad Reed, deputy program manager for Anti-Radiation Missiles within the Direct and Time Sensitive Strike program office (PMA-242). “AARGM has the potential to be a superb compliment, a force multiplier, in fulfilling current Growler missions.”

A complement to the existing AGM-88C High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), AARGM provides the warfighter with a supersonic, air-launched tactical missile to be carried on the FA-18C/D, and Italian Air Force Tornado electronic countermeasures/reconnaissance aircraft.

“AARGM has demonstrated a much greater accuracy than our existing HARM inventory in striking hostile emitters,” Reed added. “The weapon is specifically designed to increase our warfighting capabilities in neutralizing enemy air defenses and will provide aircrews with an additional tool for the electronic attack mission.”

According to Reed, the successful integration of AARGM with the EA-18G on this milestone first flight, as well as with F/A-18E/F aircraft bodes well for the success of the program. AARGM has already flown more than 175 flight hours since November 2010, including 25 hours on Super Hornet and Growler aircraft.

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????