Friday, December 09, 2011
Tanks complete final exercise before deployment
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Programs that we could afford to see go away.
Everyone is talking about the upcoming budget crunch that the US is facing in the defense sphere and reacting as if its the end of the world.
I beg to differ. While the wars have been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've seen a number of projects and initiatives started that don't fit our needs and should be done away with today.
1. JLTV. This vehicle started out as a HUMVEE replacement and then turned into a more modern M-ATV. Its too heavy, costs too much and if we need protection against IED's then its time to pull MRAPs out of storage. A number of manufacturers have developed upgrades for HUMVEEs that we should buy. The JLTV is just not needed.
2. GCV. The ground combat vehicle. Wow. Where do I start. First the Bradley in its ultimate form is already a world class vehicle. Second we have excess Bradley's and if the US Army needs a M-113 replacement, a better option would be to modify those excess Bradley's by removing the turrets, adding a RWS and installing ballistic seats and spall liners. Improvements in its suspension and power train along with additional armor in required areas should hold be sufficient for Army use.
3. Observation Helicopter Replacement. The US Army might as well face it. Its going to fly Kiowas till 2030. Just get on with it and upgrade the helicopters it has and buy new ones instead of developing a brand new supply chain and training centers. The AA-72X might be impressive. The OH-6 too and the AH-64 lite or whatever they're calling it but common sense and urgency require that the foolishness stop and reality accepted.
4. NGB. The next generation bomber is a pipe dream. Penetration of enemy defenses by large bombers is not going to happen. Money better spent would be to develop ultra high speed cruise missiles. Fixing existing bombers might help too. I find it hard to believe that the B-1 can't be re-engined to fill this role.
Of course there are a number of other programs that can go on this list ranging from small arms to nuclear weapons. The point is quite simply this. We can afford to make cuts in some of our defense programs without jeopardizing our safety and the safety of our allies. Even with as big as a one quarter cut in the defense budget and we still should be fine. Even in the face of a rising China.
Now if we could only make some cuts that would really help...you know, like getting rid of a whole ton of flag officers! That would make my day!
Disclaimer:
The Flag Officer remark is not aimed at Admiral Venelet. I simply believe that we have too many. Generals are in positions once commanded by Colonels. Etc...
I beg to differ. While the wars have been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've seen a number of projects and initiatives started that don't fit our needs and should be done away with today.
1. JLTV. This vehicle started out as a HUMVEE replacement and then turned into a more modern M-ATV. Its too heavy, costs too much and if we need protection against IED's then its time to pull MRAPs out of storage. A number of manufacturers have developed upgrades for HUMVEEs that we should buy. The JLTV is just not needed.
2. GCV. The ground combat vehicle. Wow. Where do I start. First the Bradley in its ultimate form is already a world class vehicle. Second we have excess Bradley's and if the US Army needs a M-113 replacement, a better option would be to modify those excess Bradley's by removing the turrets, adding a RWS and installing ballistic seats and spall liners. Improvements in its suspension and power train along with additional armor in required areas should hold be sufficient for Army use.
3. Observation Helicopter Replacement. The US Army might as well face it. Its going to fly Kiowas till 2030. Just get on with it and upgrade the helicopters it has and buy new ones instead of developing a brand new supply chain and training centers. The AA-72X might be impressive. The OH-6 too and the AH-64 lite or whatever they're calling it but common sense and urgency require that the foolishness stop and reality accepted.
4. NGB. The next generation bomber is a pipe dream. Penetration of enemy defenses by large bombers is not going to happen. Money better spent would be to develop ultra high speed cruise missiles. Fixing existing bombers might help too. I find it hard to believe that the B-1 can't be re-engined to fill this role.
Of course there are a number of other programs that can go on this list ranging from small arms to nuclear weapons. The point is quite simply this. We can afford to make cuts in some of our defense programs without jeopardizing our safety and the safety of our allies. Even with as big as a one quarter cut in the defense budget and we still should be fine. Even in the face of a rising China.
Now if we could only make some cuts that would really help...you know, like getting rid of a whole ton of flag officers! That would make my day!
Disclaimer:
The Flag Officer remark is not aimed at Admiral Venelet. I simply believe that we have too many. Generals are in positions once commanded by Colonels. Etc...
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Marines train to capture vessels at sea
Without the F-35 the Marine Corps brand is weakened?
The debate over the F-35 is starting to spiral out of control. Want proof? Read the entire article but check out this blurb from National Defense....
Tactical aviation is the Marine Corps’ top modernization priority, Dunford said Dec. 7. “We haven’t bought new airplanes in a decade,” he said.I get the advocacy for the F-35. But the thought that the Marine Corps is nothing without it is beyond annoying.
The unprecedented involvement of the highest ranked Marine in a weapons acquisition program is proof that the stakes in F-35B — a fighter/bomber aircraft that takes off and lands vertically like a helicopter — have become too high to leave anything to chance.
“Losing the F-35B would really collapse the entire structure of the Marine Corps,” said Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security analyst at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute.
The bottom line is that without F-35B, Marine aviation operations would be reduced to just helicopters. “They would become a consumer of other people’s firepower rather than a producer of firepower,” Donnelly said Dec. 7 at a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum, in Washington, D.C.
Donnelly defended the Marines’ all-in strategy to ensure the aircraft survives both technical and budgetary challenges. A Pentagon budget crunch currently threatens the entire Joint Strike Fighter program — which also includes Air Force and Navy variants.
Marines should go even further in their advocacy of F-35B and make a case that Marine aviation can at times be more valuable than Navy carrier-based aviation, said Donnelly. “A large-deck amphibious ship with 30 stealthy jump jets may be more productive and capable in some cases than a large-deck Navy aircraft carrier with 60 F/A-18s,” he said. “That’s something that we should think about.”
Its obscene.
I want the airplane. I believe we need the airplane. But if we don't get it then we'll figure out another way.
That's what the Marine Corps is all about. I said in an earlier post that the Program Manager said in Grunt talk that the F-35 was fucked up beyond belief and that it needed to be sorted out and get its bearings before marching on.
Seems like HQMC needs to do the same. The only weapon system that identifies the Marine Corps is the Rifleman. Everything else is just a tool to achieve the mission.
NOTE:
Marine Air...God love ya, but to say they haven't bought a new airplane in a decade is a bit of a farce. We still have Marines getting the job done in AAV's that were first designed in the 70's. How about a little love for the ground side?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)