Disaggregating Amphibious Ready Groups...why not just do independent ship operations?

via IHS Janes.

The US Marine Corps (USMC) will continue to deploy multi-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) despite regularly needing to disaggregate the groups to meet global commitments, General Robert Neller, the USMC commandant, said on 9 August.
An ARG generally consists of three US Navy amphibious ships - a landing helicopter dock (LHD), a landing ship dock (LSD), and a landing platform dock (LPD) - as well as some additional naval assets and a USMC Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).
The corps has more missions and tasks than capability, Gen Neller told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, so to be in multiple places it needs to disaggregate ARG/MEUs and send the smaller forces out for various operations or exercises.

The idea of splitting an ARG to send smaller forces out for various operations/exercises is not about getting ready for the big fight that Neller says is coming.

What is the sticking point here?  Is it the Combatant Commanders putting an artificial strain on the force by pulling exercises out of their behinds to justify there existence?  Is it the small wars cabal inside the Marine Corps that insists on pushing the Company Landing Team concept to fight terrorists (even though terrorism has changed)?

I don't get it, but the friction is there.  If splitting the ARG makes sense then independent ship operations would seem to be the ultimate solution.  Don't play games with it just assign a company of infantry Marines to each ship and go whole hog with the CLT dream.  I don't like the CLT concept and believe its fatally flawed (for future Marines I mean it literally) but we need to pick a direction.  Indecision even when it comes to doctrine is not a Marine Corps trait.

Singapore getting cold feet on the F-35.

via Bloomberg.

Singapore has put on hold a decision to buy as many as 12 of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jets, according to information from the Pentagon’s program office.
The island nation’s permanent secretary of defense development informed the U.S. in mid-June that it was delaying final steps toward purchasing four of the fighters by about 2022, with an option to buy eight more, according to the information presented to Pentagon officials last month as part of their regular reviews of the costliest weapons program.
While Singapore gave no indication of when it might revive efforts to buy the F-35, the U.S. continues to encourage the Asian city-state to buy the fighter. “We welcome Singapore’s interest in purchasing the F-35 aircraft,” President Barack Obama said in opening remarks at a White House press conference last week with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The Singaporeans aren't fools.  They won't buy an airplane that doesn't work and this is an indication that they don't believe it will work....even in 2022.

Those Chinese islands are gonna be a serious military problem...

Note.  All pics are from CSIS (here).

Sorry sports fans but this thing is almost a done deal.  Once the Chinese put up there version of a SOSUS field then we no longer have any advantage that we can count on to contain them in the Pacific.

Over a decade of warfare in the Middle East and the idea that it would last for generations has left us unprepared for the big fight in the Pacific.  Additionally we allowed greedy corporations to sell their souls and our national security so that they could increase profit margins by way of dual use technology.

We created the monster and the dragon looks ready to strike.  The A2/AD complex is almost complete.  These islands along with their carriers, long range anti-ship missiles, aircraft, fast attack boats and ballistic anti-ship missiles mean they've achieved perfect victory.  They are close to winning before the war even starts.

About the AAV Survivability Upgrade ....

Remember the rollout of the AAV survivability upgrade by SAIC?  New flotation armor (I think) added to new blast seats, increased horsepower...it didn't go as far as I wanted but it was better than what we had.

What had me scratching my head was the appendage on the back of the thing.  What was that?  Then it hit me when I was looking at the photos.  It wasn't venting for an auxiliary power unit...it was freaking racks for jerry cans!

I don't know whether I should be shocked that they would engineer such a solution to carry water or amazed.  Whether you love it or hate it, its still quite interesting...oh and it should keep the water a bit cooler too!

Vietnam looking to upgun its Marines Corps...

via ASEANmildef

TASS news agency, citing sources from the Russian defense industry said, Vietnam is likely to order a batch of BMP-3F armored vehicles to strengthen the Navy reviews.
Specifically, the newspaper wrote, "the Navy beat Vietnam is facing many difficulties due to lack of amphibious armored vehicles can support modern credible firepower amphibious operations.

At the end of July, they have conducted an amphibious maneuvers invade the island, including the mobilization of means such as light tanks PT-76B, armored vehicles carrying military BTR-60PB wheel, they are transported by 2 lander rose project 771 (NATO designation Polnochny layer).At the end of July, they have conducted an amphibious maneuvers invade the island, including the mobilization of means such as light tanks PT-76B, armored vehicles carrying military BTR-60PB wheel, they are transported by 2 lander rose project 771 (NATO designation Polnochny layer).These are already very outdated weaponry, so in the event of a real war, Vietnam is difficult to win over the enemy, "the source said.These are already very outdated weaponry, so in the event of a real war, Vietnam is difficult to win over the enemy, "the source said.Expert commentary added: "If the Hanoi fight a specific army, the naval task force will be presented before they defeated high risk.PT-76B tanks are not strong enough to destroy infantry fighting vehicle middle class, the main tank and other technical equipment of the enemy. I suppose they will not have much chance to recapture an island in real combat environment. "However, Hanoi has considered the possibility of buying a plot of amphibious armored vehicle modernization. We have proposed two options for Vietnam as infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3F (naval version) and self-propelled antitank gun 2S25. Navy reviews of Vietnam have expressed their interest to both vehicles on.

Two things.  First. It irks me to no end that our diplomats and military planners seem convinced that the alliances that they're working so hard to build will always remain.  Alliances shift...so do interests.  Just because its in a certain country's interest to be seen as moving closer to the US today DOES NOT mean that it will always.  This is especially true in Asia.  You're dealing with the land of practicality...if the US is seen as the weak horse then they'll drop us like a bad habit.

Second.  Moves like this one has me shouting at the rooftops about how wedded the USMC is to the Company Landing Team concept.  We are disbanding our premier combined arms team concept to chase waterfalls while the rest of the world is trying to duplicate what we're throwing away.

The futurists in the Strategic Initiatives Group are getting it wrong.

Canadian helicopters at Camp Pendleton (pics)

Is Airborne Assault still viable as a forcible entry option?

Tim, a reader of the blog found this tidbit...

"Moving Airborne Forces with Strategic Airlift
United States Army airborne forces, namely the 82nd Airborne Division, require a considerable amount of airlift to deploy. The large quantity of vehicles and the space they require in aircraft is the primary reason. The Logistics Handbook for Strategic Mobility Planning contains two models for estimated strategic airlift to deploy the unit. A mix of C-141s and C-17s would require 1,010 C-141s and another seve nty-nine C-17s. This quantity would move the equipment and 4,430 of the paratroopers. An additional 8,719 paratroopers would still require transportation. A total of 1,009 C-141s and forty-seven C-5s move the unit’s equipment and 4,516 paratroopers, leaving another 8,633 to deploy. This is a huge amount of airlift, mostly because of the bulk of
wheeled vehicles.29"

The above passage is from a paper written by then Major Delancey while at the Army Staff College.  It reads like a primer on the MRZR (at the time he was partial to the Flyer ITV) but the questions he raises about the amount of lift required to get one Airborne Brigade Combat Team to conduct forcible entry operations bears study.

The upshot?

Even with the 82nd moving to lighter vehicles the number of aircraft required to move them is staggering.  We already know that except under ideal conditions the 101st is NOT a credible forcible entry option.

Can the same be said of the 82nd?  Is Airborne Assault still viable as a forcible entry option?

Army Special Operations has a dim view of the Marine Corps..via War is Boring.

via War is Boring.

“Elitism,” was how Research Planning described the Marines. “The USMC considers itself to be superior, both individually and institutionally, to the other services and the Army in particular.”

And this.

According to the reference guide, Marines were unlikely to accept the idea that Army commandos could provide skills the Corps didn’t already possess.
“SF soldiers working with USMC elements should be aware that the Marines are likely to genuinely feel that the SF and SOF communities possess no capability not resident in the Corps.”
An appendix in the manual provides descriptions of other offices in the Pentagon, elements of the Department of State and other segments of the U.S. government. However, it doesn’t offer any descriptions of these groups’ internal culture or suggestions on how to interact with their employees.

Interesting.  Very interesting.  Amos practically put the Marine Corps on its knees looking to pleasure any SOCOM unit that came its way and this is the result?

The Marine Corps is posting SOCOM Liaison Units attached to our MEU's and this is their viewpoint?

Arrogance, your name is Army Special Operations.

F-35 propaganda disguised as a news article.

via National Interest.

Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, this week declared the F-35A fighter jet ready for combat. While many pundits and politicians have questioned the worth of this jet, the only people who know the ground truth are the pilots themselves.
A total of 174 U.S. pilots currently have been trained to fly Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II. The Heritage Foundation recently interviewed 31 of these former F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, and A-10 pilots. Each expressed a high degree of confidence in the F-35A, their new fifth-generation platform.

This article has filled my in box.  All the F-35 fan boys are pointing to this article as proof that the plane has finally delivered.

Awesome fan boys!  Do you feel swell?

Question before you start chest pounding.  Do you know who wrote the article?  The dude's name is John Venable.  Do you know who he works for?  He works for The Heritage Foundation.  Do you know what The Heritage Foundation is?  Its a quasi governmental think tank that leans toward what we've been told is conservative values.  They're advocates.  They're pushing for an accelerated F-35 buy.  Even worse?  National Interest clearly stated that the article was first published in The Heritage Foundation's in house magazine first yet no one seems to have followed the link to check it out.

This entire article is just another bit of fucking propaganda.  You've been deceived.

NOTE:  The purpose of the article is clear.  Check this part out.

In full production, the F-35A is projected to cost less than the four-plus generation Eurofighter Typhoon, the French Rafale M, or the latest version of the F-15K Strike Eagle.

The Pentagon and their sycophants are basically on their hands and knees begging for this airplane to go into full rate production now.  Even though we know that the upgrades to planes we already own will be prohibitively expensive. But the part that should worry the fan boys is this.

Concurrent development of the F-35A certainly has had its challenges, and the risks for delays and cost overruns should have been factored into the acquisition process. They were not.
Component, sensor, and airframe development were (and still are) all happening at the same time, and even small changes in the weight, size, performance, and schedule of any component could affect the weight, size, performance, and schedule of the entire system.

Venable is one of the biggest boosters of this program that I've seen...second only to Spudman and Ionosphere (they're tied)...and even he is saying that this program is not yet out of the woods.

Concurrency was a nightmare.  Procurement malpractice and will go down as two of the biggest failures of this generation of generals.  The first being their inability to defeat 40K ISIS savages operating in the open desert.

 

The 82nd needs the A400M

If you've been following the blog then you know that I haven't been a fan of the A400M.  Its cost over runs, slow development, protracted and painful in service has caused me to view it as the F-35 of tactical air lifters.

But reality is reality and if the US Army is serious about making the 82nd "mech capable" (Mike Sparks you were ahead of your time) then its gonna need a new air lifter.

To get to the point the weakness in the Army's plan for the 82nd is the C-130.  Its too small and short ranged to meet the requirements going forward.

Doing air drops of the MRZR won't be a problem.  I've seen guys with suspension systems on their rigs that could seemingly survive a drop from height without parachute!  No, the problem comes with resupply.  The issue becomes getting enough combat power on the drop zone fast enough.  Additionally the idea of escorting aircraft/clearing a corridor for the transports points to fewer planes carrying more so that the risk to assets suppressing the enemy (thinking EA-18G, JSTARS, even Burke's launching cruise missiles) is minimized.

Add a new light tank to the mix and your problems increase.  I love the idea of the 82nd becoming a hybrid motorized/mech force.  My concern is the same for the USMC's Company Landing Team, just on a larger scale.

We could see a brigade of paratroopers on the wrong end of a very long supply line having to worry about not only evacuating wounded, replenishing ammo/food/water but also maintaining/refueling vehicles.

The C-130 is too small to get that job done.  The perfect airplane for the mission (except for lacking rough field landing capability) was the C-141 but that plane is long gone. The irony?  The Army is locked in a savage battle with the Air Force for funding.  If they want to make their 82nd mech dream come true they're gonna have to go to bat to get the USAF another shiny new airplane.

101st deactivates its Pathfinder Company.

Thanks to John for the link!

via FtCampbell Courier

“Today is a significant day, and will no doubt be a day to remember,” said Lt. Col. Ryan P. Boyle, the commander of 5th Bn., 101st CAB. “The last time something of this magnitude occurred for our Pathfinder’s was Oct. 16, 2013 when Fox Company conducted its final static-line jump. It has been almost three years since then but the Soldiers standing on the field today continue to carry on the legacy of excellence of this proud unit. Before we bid farewell Fox Company Pathfinders, we pause to recognize the unique history and legacy of this incredible organization.”
The 101st Pathfinders can trace the unit’s heritage all the way back to the night of June 6, 1944, and many other conflicts through the decades. They bring more to the table than just a storied lineage. The 101st Pathfinders provide a unique set of skills that differentiate themselves from other infantry units.
“The main missions for Pathfinders are downed-aircraft recovery, personnel recovery, landing-zone reconnaissance and pick-up zone control,” said Staff Sgt. Adam Brousseau, a Pathfinder team leader with Co. F, 5th Bn., 101st CAB. “We have a specialized mission. Most infantry units don’t train on what we do. We’re experts at anything relating to aircraft because we train with the air crews and pilots pretty much every day. The Pathfinder inactivation is definitely a loss of an asset.”

Is it just me or is the 101st being marginalized to the point of "no longer being special"?

I don't quite know what to make of this.  In theory they're saying that "every Brigade" will be pathfinder qualified but many years of Army history says that it needs to be specialized.  What makes them think it can work now?  What makes this move reasonable?

Time to read up on the Pathfinder mission sets but at a glance this doesn't seem right.

F-35 News. They just can't push down the cost curve!

via Defense News.

The Air Force is facing a variety of demands, James added, and there simply may not be space in the budget to afford any more F-35s.
“Realistically speaking, given that we've had so much difficulty getting sequestration lifted, I worry about the money. I'm not sure where the money would come from,” she said.
Carlisle noted Aug. 2 that increasing the number of F-35s bought would boost economic order quantity, bringing the cost per jet closer to its $85 million target. On the other hand, moving slowly could lead to the Air Force spending more money upgrading fourth-generation airplanes that would otherwise be removed from service.
“I need more [F-35s] sooner to replace legacy airplanes and airplanes that are going to require money to do service life extension and do capability increases if I don’t replace the F-35,” he said. “So I would like to see the numbers go up to at least 60 if I can. 80 would be optimum, but given the fiscal constraints that we’re in today, 80 would be very, very hard to get to.”

And then this.

Boosting the buy in 2018 is an unlikely prospect because the Air Force would have to take money from other procurement accounts in order to do so, he said. Even then, it has few options. The service cannot make big cuts to its KC-46 tanker program without breaking its fixed-priced contracting agreement. Slashing other procurement programs, like the T-X trainer and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, would not yield enough cash to meaningfully increase procurement.
“You’re left with two choices,” Aboulafia said. “You either grow the topline [budget]. Good luck with that. Or you take cash away from the bomber, which doesn’t appear to be likely.”
Ramping up to a rate of 60 per year in 2021 is still the current plan, James said, but that could change.
“We're working our way through the next five year plan, the [program objective memorandum] that we're putting together right now, and everything in that POM at this point, is still up for discussion,” she said.

You get the force of connection here?  That slimy ass Air Force General is doing his very best to boost the number of F-35's despite the fact that it hasn't completed development.

I wonder if the good general thinks people believe him when he talks about having to upgrade legacy aircraft and the implication that it would be a waste of money when we all know that these "early" F-35's require modification/upgrades that will make legacy upgrades look cheap in comparison?

But even better is the fact that the real goal is to up production in any way possible to push down the cost curve.  They couldn't get an allied country to go for early buys and the budget won't allow them to do it either.

This is just too good!

The budget train wreck is slow motion and so is the F-35 death spiral.