Open Comment Post. May 31, 2017

The concept isn't working...Why are we still training and advising?

File this under rant.

Advise and assist isn't working.  We've been following the "revised" COIN Manual for over a decade and still can't see the light at the end of the Afghan/Iraq tunnel.

So why are we still pursuing this flawed strategy?

Isn't it obvious to even people that aren't interested that this game plan has failed the test?

Yet here we are with no reassessment of the strategy, apparently no ability to change course and instead we're pumping more bodies into the meatgrinder.

The funny/sad/pathetic thing?  These are the same group of generals that hit deck right at the end of the Vietnam War.  These are the same people that swore to us that they would never involve the US in another hopeless war.

They've failed the nation, the troops and themselves.

If Trump really wants a shock and awe moment then the first thing he would do is to have a heart to heart with his Joint Chiefs and find out what the plan is (if they have one ... I kinda doubt it).  He would demand a timetable for victory and barring that he would demand that an exit strategy developed.

He would ignore calls of a power vacuum and end this drain of lives/treasure. If the JCS refuse then he should fire them in mass and its next guy up.  Additionally he should expect massive push back from the globalist, Neo-Cons and interventionist inside and outside the govt.

And then he should execute that plan ruthlessly.

Historians will look back at this time and call Afghanistan/Iraq the Vietnam Wars in the desert.  They will wonder why the generals didn't do better, but they will be alarmed at the public not caring.

Long short?  We failed.  Time to pick up our ball and go home.  Afghanistan/Iraq are on there own.

2S25 Sprut-SD (Kraken-SD) airborne amphibious tank destroyer

Via Enrique 262 Tumblr Page.

Another mainstream warning signal on the Chinese economy...something bad is brewing...

Thanks to Joe for the link!

via The Hill

Banks in the U.S. have limited credit exposure in Hong Kong at only $67 billion. What should give us pause is that when you add up the exposures of the very interconnected China and Hong Kong financial systems, U.S. banks’ exposure is almost $151 billion, or a few billion dollars higher than U.S. banks’ total exposure to Switzerland.

American banks are exposed to China and Hong Kong directly because they buy Chinese and Hong Kong debt and have financial transactions with Chinese and Hong Kong financial institutions and corporations.

It is also incredibly important to remember that not only are U.S. banks directly exposed to China, but so are myriads of other types of U.S. financial institutions and corporations. In turn, U.S. banks are exposed to those financial institutions and corporations because the banks lend to them, invest in their bonds and equities and, in some cases, invest in them directly. If Chinese economic conditions continue to worsen, U.S. companies and banks would also get hurt from stock and bond market turmoil in Asian financial markets.

Moreover, the largest U.S. financial institutions, especially large banks, often transact credit derivatives linked to Chinese and Hong Kong sovereign, corporate and financial institution debt, as well as the debt of other global companies impacted by Chinese developments. The extent of those contingent liabilities is difficult to measure since parties transacting credit derivatives do not have to report publicly on what type of debt they are paying protection.

What is usually not discussed at all is that the U.S. banks’ two largest exposures are to the U.K. and Japan, for which China represents very large foreign exposures. Hence, any negative repercussions that would impact U.K. and Japanese financial institutions and corporations from a Chinese slowdown would end up trickling down to U.S. banks, even if with a lag.

Moreover, in the U.S. banks’ top-20 foreign exposures, they also have Australia, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, all of which hold China as an incredibly significant counterparty. 

Story here. 

Another mainstream news organization is talking about the dangers of the Chinese economy.  Something bad is brewing over there and no one seems to be paying attention.  I don't have the knowledge to put this together but I'll monitor it.

If past is prologue then we'll have a couple of weeks warning (if we're watching) before everything goes tits up (that's how it worked in the housing crisis...the wise guys had time to pull money out before the average joe got bombed).

24 hour Patria XA-220 endurance event..

I can't quite make out what they're doing from the pics taken from the Patria Group Instagram page, but it appears that the Patria XA-220 is involved in some type of endurance race (along with a bunch of others) over in Europe.

If you know the skinny on what the hell is going on I'd be thankful.

Unit Cost of F-35s Delivered This Year Still Exceeds $206M via Defense Aerospace.

via Defense Aerospace.

The average unit cost of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters in the ninth Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 9 (LRIP 9) is $206.3 million, according to our analysis of all 46 contracts that have been made public for Lot 9.

This is just $16.7 million (or 7%) lower than the average cost of the Lot 5 aircraft ordered in 2012 – fully five years ago.

Separately, a direct comparison of Lot 5 and Lot 9 aircraft costs released by the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) shows that the cost of a “generic” F-35 has actually increased by $7.63 million over the same five years, 2012 to 2017.

The “generic” F-35 is a notional aircraft used to compare unit costs from year to year; it is the average cost of one aircraft of each of the three versions (F-35A CTOL, F-35B STOVL and F-35C CV) in the same production lot.

JPO’s figures show that, of the three variants, only the F-35A saw its cost decline, by a modest $3 million over those five years. The cost of both other variants increased substantially (see Table 2). JPO only compares airframe costs, and for reasons it has not explained excludes engine and other costs.

Both our detailed analysis of Lot 9 contracts, and the JPO’s own figures, contradict many public statements by Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) claiming that unit costs are dropping with each successive LRIP lot, and that by 2019 the unit cost of an F-35A will have dropped to $85 million.

Most recently, JPO Director Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan was quoted at a Dec. 19 press conference as again promising lower prices. “By the time the plane enters Full Rate Production in 2019, .... the price will be down to $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C.”

This now looks more implausible than ever.

As things stand, Lot 9 aircraft being delivered today cost $206.6 million on average, including their engines, fixes, retrofits and upgrades, 

I'm glad Defense Aerospace did the math that everyone wants answers on.  Specifically how much do those fixes, retrofits and upgrades add to the price of the F-35.

Story here. 

Is it time to completely reorganize US Special Ops?

Is it time to completely reorganize US Special Ops?

Fanboys will instinctively say no, but they aren't persuadable.  If you hear me out I think a case can be made.

During the war on terror, we saw the Special Ops Community grow exponentially.  It was started by a desire on the part of that community and a belief (false it would seem) on the part of decision makers that SOCOM could deliver where conventional troops had failed.  They would win the war on terror, inflict less civilian casualties, improve relations with the locals and cost less in the long run.  The added benefit of them working outside of the spotlight meant that they would be able to conduct long term counter insurgency operations without the public or Congress becoming alarmed by the duration of the conflict.

Fast forward to today and what do we have?

We have a force that is under strain.  They're being overused, and they've pawned off missions to the conventional force in response.

What was that?  Stop bumping my gums and get to it?

I propose that SOCOM totally reorganize.  For better or worse they've developed into a Raid, Raid and only Raid force.  Reorganize with that idea in mind.  How do you do that?  I'll leave that to others but the current force structure is not working.  Neither is the mission sets.  If they focus on only raids then we need a different mix of units.

Rangers/MARSOC will become the go to units and SEALS/Special Forces will become more specialized and less utilized.  What about USAF Special Tactics?  I have absolutely no idea.  I've never understood the idea of PJ's in SOCOM.  Combat Weather has always mystified me.  Combat Controllers too.  From the outside looking in it seems that they simply duplicate what is already provided.

In short, SOCOM got everything it wanted and because it did it's breaking itself.  I recommend a back to basics movement but I doubt that happens.

It's rarely discussed on military blogs but Special Ops Forces are vulnerable to conventional forces.  That's a fact.  The problem?  Terrorist are starting to field what looks more and more like "mini" nation state armies.  I'm talking full on artillery, armor and infantry that looks and fights like regular troops.

The template of the enemy has  changed and SOCOM has yet to adjust to that reality.

An additional problem is the overuse of the "playbook".  We are getting more indications that the enemy has learned how we do work.  They are adjusting and that is making operations more perilous.

We either reorganize US Special Ops our we will see another Black Hawk Down.

USMC/Navy Aircraft Readiness Rates and Deployments (Potential Action in Korea).

One thing has irked me after getting back online and reading some of the comments on other blog posts.

People take raw facts/issues I raise and discuss them with no nuance...no understanding...with little (apparent) understanding of how the military works.

The issue at hand?

There have been numerous reports about the poor readiness rates of USMC/USN strike aircraft. God knows  I have bitched about it enough on these pages. What stunned me (and it really shouldn't have) is that a person thinks that because the entire fleet has a poor readiness rating that it would automatically extend to units that are deployed.  More specifically that it would apply to units that were primed (it seems) to enter a read deal shooting war.

What I'm trying to decide is whether its up to me to explain that deployed units get priority...that units that seem ready to go to war would get enhanced support...or if I should expect my readership to understand that.

Long story short?  Every Super Hornet in the US would be stripped of parts to support those airplanes on the carrier if war were to be declared.  That goes for every other plane operating in the theater if the balloon goes up.  Military flights would shut down in the US and in select locations overseas before a unit involved in active combat operations went without the parts they needed.

So yeah those readiness rates are real...but qualified.  I hope I'm clear but if not talk to one of the guys in the Wing that frequent the page.

APC Concept Art by Jama Jurabaev

Open Comment Post. May 30, 2017.

I'm not a Mattis fanboy but this is pretty funny!

Thanks to Max for the link!



I'm not a Mattis fanboy but this is pretty funny...and cool.  Nice to know he hasn't lost that Marine Corps swagger when he switched from a uniform to a suit.

This is an alarming amount of firepower off the coast of Korea...

Zebra Dunn rattled off the power that we're seeing off the coast of Korea and while I initially asked "what the fuck is going on", I've now gone toward the position of saying "oh shit...it's about to get real"!

Zebra was spot on but let me highlight it for you...via Wikipedia...

A carrier strike group[1] (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers or frigates,[2] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet, who is operationally responsible for the area of waters in which the carrier strike group is operating.

The stunning thing is that we've seen no reaction from China to this move.  Russia is silent on the issue too.

Check this out via Wikipedia...

A fleet or naval fleet is a large formation of warships, which is controlled by one leader[1] and the largest formation in any navy. A fleet at sea is the direct equivalent of an army on land.

If we heard that the 3rd Army was being activated and they were deploying to Saudi Arabia, everyone would be jumping thru hoops and the mainstream news media would be going ape shit.  We're seeing the naval equivalent off the coast of Korea and no one is even batting an eye.  I am dazed and confused by that.  I guess people really don't understand the military and don't get it when they hear the drumbeats of war.