Bundy Ranch Lesson...

With the situation in the Ukraine continuing to spiral out of control, its hard to look back at the situation at the Bundy Ranch but a very important lesson was learned.

No, its not that Federal Law Enforcement will not use force against resistance.

Its not that the militias are capable of rapid deployment.

The lesson learned is that law makers are scared shitless.

Non-compliance scares them more than the possibility of dead bodies in the streets.  They're seeing this lesson in Washington from the Bundy Ranch, and gun owners in New York and Connecticut.  The fear is almost palatable.  What happens if you pass laws and/or taxes and people refuse to comply?  How do you arrest an entire class of pissed off citizenry?

A popular saying is that "my silence does not indicate my approval"...  I discounted the thought that some had that a 2nd American Revolution started this weekend.  I was wrong.  People are on edge.  The federal govt and their agencies better tread carefully.  There are many looking for a reason to get things started.

Epic Rap Battles: Special Forces vs MARSOC

Blast from the past---WW2: The L.V.T. (1944)

Critical Mass. The USMC cannot afford its airwing.

I've watched the USMC struggle to come to grips with its armored vehicle issues.  I've watched as programs are delayed or cut, infantry and support battalions cut and Marines with several combat tours forced out of the Marine Corps.

All this could be said to be part of the price of the wars on terror and now that those wars are winding down this is to be expected.

Except that with all the cuts going on the Marine Air Wing continues to grow and despite the Marine Corps becoming smaller...despite the number of battalions being fewer than anticipated, we see the same number of programmed Marine Aircraft being purchased.  Worse.  The aircraft we're buying aren't cheap.  They're high dollar items that are breaking the Corps.

Lets take a look at the cost of Marine Corps aircraft....

CH-53K --- 115.9m
AH-1Z  ---  31m
UH-1Y  ---  26.2m
MV-22  ---  67m
F-35B  ---   196.5m
KC-130J --  62m

This is unaffordable during the best of times.  Obscene during sequestration and is a threat to the Air-Ground Team that is the hallmark of the Marine Corps.

I vacillate between believing that Expeditionary Force 21 is an attempt by Amos to build is legacy and believing that EF21 is designed to justify an air wing that would never be tolerated by Marine Greats.

The Marine Corps should take a procurement holiday and determine whether it is buying too many aircraft for the missions its expected to accomplish.  As I said earlier.  No one has ever adjusted the number of aircraft requested to meet the new reality of a smaller Marine Corps.

That is unsat.

Next, the Marine Corps needs to determine whether its aircraft that are being bought actually fit strategy.

EF21 supposedly pushing the Landing Force up to 100 miles offshore.  If thats the case then the AH-1Z and UH-1Y are no longer viable as air support platforms.  They will be on the very edge of their fully loaded combat range.

Aircraft numbers and mission sets.  That is something else the next Commandant must look at when it comes to fixing Marine Corps aviation specifically and the Marine Corps in general.

F-35 News. "The Hill Blog" takes aim...

via The Hill

Program head Lt. Col. Christopher Bogdan asserted that “the program is making slow and steady progress on all fronts.”
These claims are based more in wishful thinking than reality. Between exorbitant costs and questionable capabilities, the F-35 math just doesn’t add up. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a plane that won’t advance our national security, at the expense of more important defense programs, just doesn’t make sense.
F-35 boosters have routinely cited two key pieces of evidence to back up their upbeat assertions. The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer claims that the project’s astonishing $1 trillion in lifetime operating costs is coming down slightly. And the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently repeated Pentagon claims that the projected procurement cost for buying over 2,400 of the planes will be “only” $332 billion, a reduction of about 3% from prior estimates.

There are two problems with these optimistic projections. First, they aren’t believable. As long-time defense budget analyst Winslow Wheeler of the Project on Government Oversight has noted, the GAO figures on alleged reductions in the price of the F-35 are based on “rejiggering inflation numbers” and “lesser hardware requirements” accompanied by claims of cost reductions at the subcontractor level that have not been verified.
Second, and most importantly, even if the new claims of a “cheaper” F-35 were true, it would still be the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken by the Pentagon. That would include spending an average of $12.6 billion per year between now and 2037, a pace that the GAO notes will require the Air Force to “increase funds steeply over the next few years” while posing “long-term affordability risks.” This is particularly true because the Air Force also wants to develop a new long-range bomber, buy substantial quantities of new refueling tankers, and purchase a next generation of unmanned aerial systems. The money just isn’t there to do all of these things at once. Something will have to give.

Critical mass has arrived.

Congress critters live on every word of this blog.

Cuts have to be made and those closed door briefings by the Navy are having an impact.

The F-35 doesn't deliver on the promises made and cheaper more effective alternatives are available.  Stick a fork in it.  This turkey is done.

The Navy's "Better" J-Stars?

via FA

The AAS's ultra fast scanning active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna system, tied to advanced computer processors, would theoretically allow the P-8 to detect a moving target in a cluttered bay or inlet, and then shoot a powerful and tight beam of radar energy at that target to take a "SAR picture" of it and thus judge its identity. If the contact is deemed hostile, the radar can continue to track the target as it moves while still scanning for and tracking others as well. This data, which can be collected by a P-8 well over a hundred miles away, can then be transmitted via data link off the aircraft for exploitation by other weapons platforms.
For instance, once a P-8, orbiting over a hundred miles off an enemy's coast, has identified a hostile patrol boat guarding its homeport, it can send that "target track" to a Super Hornet, flying about fifty miles closer to the enemy's shore, and request an attack. The P-8 has done this via using its Advanced Airborne Sensor to detect that ship's motion amongst the port's clutter, and then by instantly employing a beam of radar energy to survey and classify the target. The Super Hornet crew can then fire a standoff missile at the target, such as a SLAM-ER.
The Super Hornet would be receiving the P-8's radar data on the target in question continuously via data link, and would be forwarding this information in real time to the missile as it makes its way toward the hapless patrol boat. Once the missile reaches the point at which its own terminal guidance sensors can lock onto the patrol ship, the data link is no longer needed and the targeted ship will either be destroyed by the missile or would have to be re-attacked.

Read the entire article here.

Question.

Can this same technology be used against aerial targets?

If it can then stealth is dead.

Russians deploy their Supersonic Anti-Tank Missile, the Chrysanthemum-S

Read the story here, via Defense Aerospace.

Major hat tip to Jonathan for the link.