Active Shooter practice in a war zone.

No knock on the USAF on this one.  They might need a pat on the back...but it still mystifies me how in an active war zone, there can be areas where you can have a weapon but no magazine in it.  At least they're taking action to deal with the issue if it comes up again.  via Air Force Magazine.

Kandahar Holds Live-Fire Drills to Deal with On-base Shooters: Airmen with the 443rd Air Expeditionary Advisory Squadron at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, recently conducted the first live-fire training to teach unit members how to respond to a shooter on base. NATO Training Command-Afghanistan initiated this training in response to the tragic shooting at Kabul International Airport in April that cost the lives of eight US airmen and one US contractor at the hands of an irate Afghan air force officer. The three days of instruction were meant to help improve adviser reaction to such a scenario with activities like rapid-fire drills, quick-fire reaction drills, and seated reaction drills. MSgt. Terry Gilbert of Kandahar's 738th Air Expeditionary Advisory Group, said future plans include incorporating "some building clearing techniques, assault maneuvers, and more advanced weapons handling." (Kabul report by Capt. Jamie Humphries)

And the F-35 critics are coming out of the woodwork.

Out of the woodwork I tell ya!

DoDBuzz came up with this post and the first thing I asked myself was who the hell are these guys! Well this is what Wikipedia has on them...

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 1975. In its own words, it was established to "promote the common interests of the [Western] hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America." ^[1]COHA is dedicated to monitoring Latin American affairs, especially within the context of United States and Canadian foreign policy and its effect on the region. Working with a large number of unpaid research associates (undergraduate and graduate interns) and a small core of professional research fellows to improve hemispheric relations and advance the public good. Cohistas, as COHA staff is sometimes known, constantly analyze a number of ongoing themes including social justice, equal rights, anti-corruption measures, and the enhancement of democratic rights.

How these bubba's wound up talking about the F-35 is beyond me...read the whole thing but here's a tidbit that raised the hair on the back of my neck...

 Although the F-35 is a remarkable aircraft, it is unsuitable for the Canadian military. According to Steven Staples from the Rideau Institute, the current CF-18 fulfills two important roles of the Canadian Forces: surveillance and control of the Arctic, along with expeditionary operations including “air-to-air combat, precision guided munitions/bomb delivery, and close air support of the ground.”[xviii] The traditional Cold War concept of Arctic sovereignty applies to defending Canadian airspace against Russian bombers. Yet, supporters of the F-35 still maintain that this threat is real and that Canada needs the F-35 to protect Canadian and American airspace. Defense Minister Peter MacKay highlighted the Russian threat in 2010, when he praised two CF-18s for intercepting the two Russian TU-95 long range bombers on the edge of Canadian air space. However, critics like defense and foreign affairs analyst Eric Margolis, said that this incident was routine and that “it’s nothing to get excited about, [because] there’s much less to this than meets the eye.”[xix] In addition, Staples points out that if Russia were to go to war with the United States, “air defense would be irrelevant in any case, since the primary delivery vehicle would be intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.”[xx] 

The Russians and Chinese are forming "Arctic Troop" formations (The USMC should be first on this in the US military...we already have extensive training in Mountain Warfare, the next step should be to either copy the Brits and have Mountain Leaders/Arctic Warfare Specialist assigned to every Battalion or to have a SPMAGTF formed and positioned in Alaska.  Either way we'd be in the race for the poles...and this should be a Marine Corps mission!) and the Canadians are using there Rangers to have a permanent force in the area.  To say that sovereignty patrols are unnecessary is to ignore the obvious.


This is a left leaning group and this is a red herring.  This debate in Canada is over.  I smell a rat.  An Australian based Think Tank rat.  

Rough weather and Libya strike ops.

Bjørnar sent me this article on Sunday and I sat on it because I didn't know what to think (thanks guy!)...anyway Sharkey Ward of Falkland Islands fame and author of Phoenix Think Tank picked up the challenge and posted this response in a letter to the editor...

Sir,

 

Your article, “RAF deploy extra warplanes over Libya as rough seas hit French aircraft carrier” by Mail On Sunday Reporter, 3rd July 2011, cannot by any strength of the imagination be considered fair and balanced.

 

Naval fighters from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier have carried out 2000 of the 5000 strike sorties so far conducted over Libya.  Our land-based Tornado and the Typhoon aircraft have managed to contribute no more than 500 sorties – at disproportionately high cost.

 

Yes, severe weather conditions at sea can sometimes limit flying opportunities.  But that is more frequently the case with land-based air than sea-based air – as was experienced during the Bosnian crisis when carrier borne Sea Harrier aircraft often conducted the ground attack missions that the Tornado in southern Italy could not fulfil because of weather.

 

In the interest of being fair and balanced, you might wish to publish this letter and the photograph below showing the appalling conditions in which carrier borne aircraft operated during the Falklands war. My 801 Naval Air Squadron of eight aircraft flew 600 missions in six weeks in the most challenging weather conditions – and never missed a single tasked mission.

The pic that he references is above this posting.  We are obviously seeing a manipulation of the press in this ongoing turf battle between the RAF, the Royal Navy and the institutional fear that the RAF has of Harriers.

More to come I'm sure.

Denver International Airport ... a secret military bunker?

Ok.  I was skeptical at first too...till I read the little blurb the Survival Spot Blog has on it. 

Denver International Airport is one of the nations largest and busiest new airports. At over 53 square miles, the Denver International Airport is the largest international airport in the United States and the third in the world.
While there is no physical proof of a bunker at this location, there is a lot of tertiary evidence to support the claim. Some interesting facts about DIA that may support this conclusion are:

• The budget far exceeded original projections (original budget was 1.7 billion and ended up costing 4.8 billion)
• There is a large network of subterranean tunnels here, used for an “automated baggage system”. When the system failed miserably, they spent 1 million dollars per day for several months worth to repair it. Eventually in 2005, the airport abandoned this automated system all together to save 1 million per month of maintenance costs.
• The airport has extensive alternative energy systems, uncharacteristic of the modern airport.
• There are many very important military installations nearby including: Cheyenne Mountain, NORAD, Peterson AFB, United States Space Command, Air defense mission, United States Northern Command and dozens of major business headquarters
• Some famous people who live or have purchased homes in Colorado are: Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes, Oprah Winfrey, Oliver Stone, Richard Holbrooke, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr., Prince Bandar (wealthy Saudi Prince), Michael Eisner, David & Victoria Beckham, Condoleeza Rice
• Significant quantities of earth (110 million cubic yards) have been removed from the site, far more than is traditionally necessary
• 5 buildings were built incorrectly and new buildings were placed on top of them
• Granite was imported from all over the world for the airport
• The fueling system can pump 1000 gallons of jet fuel per minute, which is far more than any commercial airport could need
• There around 5300 miles of fiber optics installed (the United States coast to coast is 3000 miles)

I admit its all circumstantial but it does seem to add up.

Pic of the day. July 5, 2011.

Political Flow Chart.

via the Phoenix Think Tank!

The political flow chart

When top level guys look down, they see only shitheads;

When bottom level guys look up, they see

only assholes.

What's going on with the cargo UAV??

This is rather disturbing.  Not because the UAV Cargo Helicopter isn't in theater now (as promised) but because of what it means for a couple of other programs.

I am convinced that one of the little acknowledged problems with the EFV was the lack of urgency by not only the manufacturer but the program office.  I see that creeping into this program and I'm wondering if its going to be an issue with other Marine Corps programs.

We need to get a handle on this asap!  Story via NAVAIR.

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md.—The Navy and Marine Corps plans to field a cargo unmanned aircraft system are moving forward as the first of two potential UAS helicopters landed at Pax River, July 1.

The Navy and Marine Corps Multi-Mission Tactical Unmanned Air Systems program office (PMA-266) coordinated the arrival of Lockheed Martin’s KMAX helicopter, one of the systems that will potentially deploy to Afghanistan later this year.

“Our team has worked very hard to respond to an urgent needs requirement for a Cargo UAS capability in support of Marine Corps forces engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom,” said Capt. Patrick Smith, program manager for PMA-266.

In December 2010, PMA-266 awarded contracts to two suppliers, Lockheed Martin and Boeing/Frontier Aviation, for potential deployment support in Afghanistan. In order to meet the urgent operational needs of the Marine Corps, both suppliers were selected to reduce potential deployment delays and possible inability to meet performance requirements.

The Navy plans to deploy one of the systems that has demonstrated ability to meet technical requirements following a favorable Quick Reaction Assessment (QRA). The second system may be used for future operational missions and/or science and technology development.

The Lockheed Martin KMAX will begin Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) testing at the Pax River facility. The purpose of E3 testing is to measure and provide results regarding the aircraft's electromagnetic susceptibility to certain frequencies, which can affect flight-critical and other systems within the aircraft. The Boeing/Frontier Aviation Hummingbird will go through the same testing at a later date

“Both the KMAX and Boeing A-160T “Hummingbird” are required to go through E3 testing prior to the QRA,” said Eric Pratson, integrated product team lead for the Cargo UAS program. “This will help insure that the aircraft operates as designed while being exposed to ambient electrical signals in Afghanistan.”

After completing E3 testing, two KMAX UAS will be shipped to Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. in preparation for QRA planned for August 2011. Under the guidance of Commander Operational Test and Evaluation Force, Marines from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron (VMU) 1 will act as operational commanders and forward operating base controllers for a seven day period. During that time, the system is required to deliver 6,000 pounds of slung load cargo per day.

“A successful QRA will prove sustainment of a cargo-carrying capability in an operational environment,” Pratson said.

The Navy’s Cargo UAS service will augment Marine Corps ground and air logistics operations in Operation Enduring Freedom. This capability will also supplement rotary wing assets and reduce Marine Corps exposure to Improvised Explosive Devices in theater. The Navy intends to field Cargo UAS in fall 2011 for a six-month deployment.

“Fielding this system will enable us to keep trucks off the road and keep our troops safe,” Smith added.

As anxious as I am to see this get to AFG, this is a future capability that will only be developed and proven during this conflict.  Want to see the building blocks of distributed operations?  You're looking at it when you see the UAV Cargo Helicopter.

Magpul Sponsored Truck "BAM BAM" in Euro Breslau Rallye

Who would guess that MAGPUL has a genuine off road vehicle that they entered into a race.    More info on the race can be found here and here.  Interesting.

Pre-emptive F-35 news blast.

Consider this a preemptive strike against the F-35 critics that will be howling about this on Tuesday.  via NWFDailyNews.com.

Although they did not meet their expected June delivery date, Eglin Air Force Base’s first two F-35 Joint Strike Fighters have completed their test flights and are in their final review to be accepted by the Department of Defense.
Representatives from Lockheed Martin, the main contractor building the fifth-generation fighter jet, said last month that the first F-35s were expected to arrive in June. Although Lockheed officials cannot provide a firm date, they now say the AF-8 and AF-9 — Eglin’s first two Joint Strike Fighters — will “arrive shortly.”
“What we’re finding is it’s taking a little bit longer and I’m not going down that path again and putting a month on it,” said Mike Rein, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin. “I will tell you very shortly in the scope of a 10-year program, we will be sending both AF-8 and AF-9 out to Eglin.”

Read it all but bet money that the usual suspects will be talking about missed delivery dates etc.  All I ask is that either Lockheed Martin or the USAF come out with an explanation of why this is 'taking longer than expected'...are we talking about the monster called bureaucracy creeping into the mix or is it an issue with the airplane.

Either way, you've been warned.  Expect an Alpha Strike from several blogs that you probably read all covering this subject.

This fucking sucks.

Bad news from Afghanistan people.  First this news release from ISAF.

ISAF Joint Command- Afghanistan
2011-07-S-008
For Immediate Release

KABUL, Afghanistan (July 04, 2011) – An International Security Assistance Force service member has been listed as duty status whereabouts unknown in southern Afghanistan.

There is an active search effort in progress.

It is ISAF policy to defer identification procedures of missing service members to the relevant national authorities.

I saw it first thing this morning and went over to the SKYNews website to get more info.  To be honest I was a bit outraged by what I thought I heard a newsman say...so I waited.  Then this came out this afternoon.

A British soldier who went missing from his base in southern Afghanistan has been found dead with gunshot wounds.

The serviceman's body was discovered by an Isaf patrol after a massive manhunt was launched.
He was reportedly last seen at a military checkpoint in the early hours of the morning, and Taliban groups have claimed responsibility for killing him.
Nato spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Tim Purbrick said: "He had suffered gunshot wounds.
"His exact cause of death is still to be established and the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and death are currently under investigation.
"It would not be appropriate to comment further at this time. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends."

Enjoy your 4th but remember the guys that are hookin & jabbin over in that worthless little country.

Kevin Martin 1 Flickr Stream.

Kevin Martin 1 has a Flickr stream that you must check out. 

Riverine Forces. You're doing it wrong.

Thanks to Resboiu, Maryus315, Jonathan and TLAM Strike.  Everyone seems to be a fan of the Romanian approach to riverine operations and I can see why...check these photos out from the RomaniaForum..

Lets compare notes...US Navy Riverine is below...

What exactly is the mission of the Riverine Forces again?  This from Wikipedia...

The Riverine Squadrons of the United States Navy are elements of the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). According to the Navy: “The Navy’s Riverine force focuses on conducting Maritime Security Operations and Theater Security Cooperation in a riverine area of operations or other suitable area. The force is capable of combating enemy riverine forces by applying fires directly, or by coordinating supporting fires. It will share battle space with the other Services in an effort to close the seams in Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, and Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.”^[1]

Lets break it down...

"Capable of battling enemy riverine forces"

Not bloody likely.  At least not as they're currently configured.  A quick glance reveals that potential enemy nations are using PT (Patrol Torpedo) type boats to conduct this mission....Fast Attack Craft if you want the modern designation.  Not only will these type boats out range US Riverine boats in weapons range but they'll also be as fast (in most cases).  If you're relying on the "coordinating supporting fires" part of the mission statement to get past this hurdle then you're whistling past the grave yard.  Gone are the days of the Sea Wolves.  The US Navy does not have dedicated attack helos anymore and even if they did I wonder how long it would take for help to arrive in a meeting engagement.

A Special Ops bias in weapons fit and equipment fit.

I totally get why SEAL Delivery Teams have selected their boats and their weapons fit.  The need to extract SEAL Teams in contact require the ability to put out a tremendous amount of firepower.  The need to rapidly arrive at a desired location and to leave at high speed makes sense.

It doesn't for a force that is operating in a certain area, interdicting enemy supply routes, smuggling etc.  The idea that Riverine Forces will conduct limited missions ashore is a mystery too.

Wrong mission, wrong equipment fit.

There has been one complaint waged against the big Navy that seems more and more valid.  They're so concerned with blue water operations that riverine and green water ops have suffered.  The war on terror should have been the excuse necessary to make the change.  What have they done instead?  The label a Frigate sized warship as a littoral combat vessel and ignore history.  The LCS concept would make sense if it was uparmed and called a Frigate instead.  The big Navy needs Frigates.

What the big Navy also needs is a blast from the past.  Patrol Boats.  Real deal littoral combat vessels.  You remember the type.  The type that John F. Kennedy rode into battle.  The kind that were taking on destroyers with success.  The kind that harassed the Japanese during WW2.  Thats what the Navy needs in the 21st century.

Want a kick in the guts?

The CB90 is about the right size for a Patrol Boat.  Its seriously under armed historically but size and speed wise it fits the bill.  I wouldn't look for Riverine to make the common sense move to larger platforms though.  It seems that the command has SEAL Team Delivery light on the brain.