Open Comment Post. March 29, 2017.

The Ground Combat Element must be prepared to stand alone.

via USNI News.

“In the 2017-2027 timeframe, the Marine Corps will possess the majority of naval 5th generation aircraft. By 2025, the Marine Corps will operate 185 F-35Bs—enough to equip all seven L-Class ships,” the plan reads.
“While the amphibious assault ship will never replace the aircraft carrier, it can be complementary, if employed in imaginative ways. The CV-L concept has previous been employed (five times) utilizing AV-8B Harriers in a ‘Harrier Carrier’ concept… A Lightning Carrier, taking full advantage of the amphibious assault ship as a sea base, can provide the naval and joint force with significant access, collection and strike capabilities.”

The Lightning Carrier concept includes an amphibious assault ship carrying 16 to 20 F-35Bs with four MV-22 Ospreys to refuel them – along with relying on the Distributed Aviation Operations’ forward-operating bases – and deploying either independently, as part of an Expeditionary Strike Group or as part of a Carrier Strike Group with a Navy aircraft carrier and guided-missile cruisers and destroyers.

“We might never need to employ this way – and may not want to, based upon the need to employ our amphibious ships in a more traditional role – but to not lean forward to develop this capability, to train and exercise with it, is to deny ourselves a force multiplier that highlights the agility and opportunity only the Navy-Marine Corps team can provide,” the plan reads.

Additionally, with growing global demands for naval aviation presence and upcoming opportunities such as the introduction of the LX(R) – which will be a much more sophisticated ship than the LSD dock landing ship it replaces – the aviation plan states “we must explore new and creative methods of deploying and employing the ACE in order to provide maximum flexibility, capabilities and value to the naval and joint force.”

Semi-rant.

I've heard this concept of an "all F-35" LHA/LHD bandied about too often for it to be a flash in the pan.

The head of Marine Air wants his baby carrier and wants it bad.  The Ground Combat Element MUST be prepared to stand alone.  It's beyond obvious that fast movers will be off either fighting/supporting the naval battle or they will be gladly partaking in USAF taskings.

Supporting the Marine on the ground is obviously becoming more and more of a fourth or fifth priority.

What does this mean?  It means that EVERY exercise must include AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys.  Its the only REAL hip pocket air support that ground commanders can rely on in the future.  It means that EVERY exercise should include a potential air threat.  The days of knowing that the planes flying overhead are ours is over.  Additionally we need to act with haste to acquire a credible anti-air system that can operate with the maneuver force.  A few Marines with Stinger missiles is no longer good enough.  The LAV-AD of old isn't either.  We need a credible, long range anti-air system at the Marine Expeditionary Brigade level.  My preference would be that it's mounted on the ACV chassis but the platform is irrelevant (the US Army's MultiMission Launcher or SLAMRAAM on the JLTV will work too).

The Marine Expeditionary Unit is all but dead in the Marine Corps.  So is the Air-Ground Task Force.

Marine Air is going its own way.  The Ground Combat Element better prepare for the day when our aviators no longer wear camo helmet covers. 

Germany orders Spike LR.

via Janes

The German parliament gave the green light on 22 March for the Bundeswehr to procure 1,000 Israeli-designed Spike LR anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and 97 corresponding launcher units worth EUR158.3 million (USD172 million) from EuroSpike under the Bundeswehr's multirole guided missile system (MELLS) programme.

The contract breaks down into EUR112.4 million for the missiles themselves, EUR25.6 million for the launchers, and EUR20.3 million for integration into the Bundeswehr's AGDUS laser-based training and simulation system.

The procurement is to begin in 2018, with 104 missiles and 39 launcher units to be procured by 2020. The German Ministry of Defence (MoD) expects additional user costs for MELLS of EUR25 million projected over the course of 20 years until 2037, as well as EUR18.7 million in user costs for the AGDUS components.

I don't know when it happened but it appears that the Spike family of anti-tank missiles have become the world standard.

I wonder why the Javelin and TOW fell out of favor?  Are they outclassed across the board?  Is the Spike more flexible/cheaper?  

I really would like to know.

Did a US Army General by omission indicate that the Leopard 2 sucks?

via Defense Tech.

A handful of foreign tanks — including Russia’s — now match the power of the U.S. Army’s main battle tank, the M1 Abrams, an American general recently testified to Congress.

“I think for the very near term, the Abrams is still near the very top of its class,” said Lt. Gen. John M. Murray, deputy chief of staff for financial management, referring to the third-generation tank built by General Dynamics Corp. that entered service in 1980.

“I think we have parity,” he said during a March 22 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Airland Subcommittee. “I think there is parity out there. I don’t think we have overmatch.”

Murray’s comments came in response to a question from Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican from Alaska and a Marine who served in Afghanistan. He later elaborated on the topic in response to a question from Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas and chairman of the subcommittee, who asked what foreign tanks are competitive with the Abrams.

“I would say that the Israelis’ — the Merkava — would be one,” Murray said. “The [Russian] T-90 is probably pretty close. People talk about their Armata tank and that’s still, in my mind, not completely fielded. Probably the British tank [Challenger 2] is pretty close. I would not say that we have the world-class tank that we had for many, many years. I’ll be an optimist and say that we’re at parity with a lot of different nations.”

This is a US Army Armor Officer and he should know his stuff.

The Merkava and T-90?  No surprise.  They're good to go when operated by competent crews in the doctrine they were designed for.  The Challenger? Quite honestly that kinda shocked me.  From my chair it's fallen behind.

No mention of the LeClerc but by rights it's probably the only REAL expeditionary (operated by the West) main battle tank in service today.  It's relatively light, it has a big gun that hits hard and it's got decent armor.  56 tons?  With that being the combat weight I might not list it in my top 5 but its credible and a contender in some scenarios...including many USMC applications.

But the big surprise is that he didn't immediately talk about the Leopard 2.

I ran with this story (it was posted by Sputnik two days ago) but missed the force of connection.  Of all the tanks he listed as being on par with the M1 Abrams, the one tank he didn't list was the "Nato Standard MBT" (many call it that because so many countries in Europe operate the Leopard 2 MBT)!

I guess the debate is over. A dedicated professional, testifying to Congress, says the Leopard 2 is not on par with the M1 Abrams!

British Army Air Corps (AAC) Wildcat Mk1

CH-53K to drop below 89 million in full rate production...can we afford the wing we're building?

Thanks to Joe for the link!

via Bloomberg

The King Stallion’s cost is estimated to drop below $89 million after full-rate production begins, Marine Lieutenant General Gary Thomas, deputy for programs, said at the hearing. “That’s still very expensive and we’re working very hard with” Lockheed “to keep the cost down and to drive value for the taxpayer.”

Hmm.  Outrageously expensive F-35B's, MV-22's and  now the CH-53K?

Can the USMC afford the air wing it's building?  Will it be affordable in service and deliver in combat?  I'm convinced the F-35 won't deliver and there is enough evidence to doubt the Mv-22
when the bullets start flying.  But the CH-53K?  Even if it delivers as advertised is it worth paying almost 90 mil a copy when we could buy  the Penetrating version of the MH-47 for about the same money but with the added benefit of it being a better fit for dispersed operations?

It doesn't matter.  At the end of the day the most formidable enemy will show up and crush Marine Theorists dreams...the guys with the pocket protectors, star trek figure collections and spread sheets.  If HQMC can.t correct this mess then the accountants will.

Open Comment Post. March 28, 2017

Ukraine's radical BTR-60 upgrade...via Janes

Story here.

The Marine Corps is reinventing the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket)

via AOL Breaking Defense.

When you absolutely, positively have to blow up everyone right away, however, you need more than a mortar. You need a Multiple-Launch Rocket System like the MLRS or HIMARS. If you’re a Marine making a landing, you need it mounted on something that can float. The Naval Surface Warfare Center’s solution to this problem is the Autonomous Landing Craft – Air Cushion. A-LCAC takes the venerable five-man Navy hovercraft, capable of carrying an M1 tank from ship to shore, and turns it into an unmanned rocket launcher that skims over the water at 45 miles an hour. That’s the kind of firepower that can clear a beach in a real hurry.

Of course the media  is going crazy over this "innovation" but we're just doing what was done before.  What am I talking about?  They're reinventing the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket)!

While everyone is shouting "cool" I'm shouting that we aren't being innovative enough!  Why saddle a low density asset like an LCAC with this mission? Give this job to our Landing Craft Utility! Even better?  Put the US Army's Multi-Mission Launcher!  Then it can flex into a variety of missions.

Read the whole article but why design a robot glider when we know the Kamax unmanned helicopter works and can carry a useful payload!

Is this exercise highlighting new tech or are they just re-inventing the wheel?

MV-22 not planned for UK's new carrier

via Defense Industry Daily.

March 26/17: New British Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will not have V-22 tiltrotor aircraft onboard, according to a written parliamentary reply external link external link to Lord West. Lord West, a retired Royal Navy officer and former government minister, had asked if the government was considering the Osprey for use by the state’s special forces. In response, the government stated that the aircraft was not part of plans to deliver the UK Carrier Strike capability. However, the MoD will continue to explore a variety of options to augment the capabilities of the carriers.

Why buy the cow if you can get the milk free?   The so called special relationship is turning the UK into a US colony.  They're becoming more dependent on us everyday.  I wouldn't be surprised if the USMC setup a permanent detachment of V-22's on their carrier and then shout about interoperability.

Open Comment Post. March 27, 2017

T-90 equals the Mighty M1 Abrams?

via Sputnik.

"I'll be the optimist and say that we're at parity with a lot of different nations," Murray noted. Still, the officer stressed that "our most capable enemies are closing quickly."
"I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

As for Russia's newest generation tank, the Armata, the officer said that he couldn't comment on that, since the tank has not yet been widely fielded.

Story here...Don't hit me with the "its propaganda"...check the sources for the story...its real.

So riddle me this.

What happens when they do get the Armata into widespread service?