Wednesday, July 14, 2010

EFV Debate Is Really About The Future Of The Marine Corps---Thompson just plain gets it!

This from the Lexington Institute...Loren Thompson's latest is a must read.  Go here for the full text...this snippet caught my eye.

After nine years of fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, a fashionable idea has taken hold in policymaking circles that amphibious warfare is largely a thing of the past, and that the Marine Corps needs to focus on other missions more vital to the prosecution of unconventional conflicts. It's true that Marines have been spending less time afloat and more time away from the sea -- see Frank Oliveri's cover story, "Beyond the Beachhead," in this week's Congressional Quarterly Weekly -- but that is probably just a temporary phenomenon. Most of the world's population still lives within a one-day ride from the beach, and America's security (not to mention its prosperity) depends on having assured access to that narrow band of littoral real estate.
But technology is advancing quickly, and the Marine Corps can't credibly conduct amphibious operations today with weapons designed for the Nixon era. That's why it is replacing its legacy aircraft with systems such as the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor and F-35B fighter that have the vertical agility to takeoff and land on a dime. A similar transformation is required in its ground vehicles, so that instead of being sitting ducks that require warships to deposit them within range of enemy guns ashore, they can use the sea as a maneuver space to hit the beach from over the horizon whenever and wherever it is most advantageous.
EFV was designed with that need in mind, so it has three times the water speed and twice the armor of existing amphibious vehicles. A single EFV can transport an entire 17-person rifle squadron ashore, and then quickly penetrate inland at the speed of an M-1 tank without having to use the roads where improvised explosives are often planted. That's a complicated mission profile requiring a versatile vehicle, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps is adamant that no suitable alternative to EFV exists. Government testers previously complained that the vehicle needed to be more reliable, but it is now exceeding reliability goals, so the question is whether the Obama Administration is going to spend the money necessary to keep America in the amphibious-warfare business. If the answer is "no," it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out what that means for the future of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Dynamic Vehicle Demonstration 2010

Why does the US Coast Guard operate in foreign waters?

Just a question. 

Why does the Coast Guard operate its ships far from home?  Why do they participate in military exercises?

Isn't it time to revamp or better yet, remission the Coast Guard?

They're not the Navy.  They have a distinctive mission outside of war.  They have limited resources.

Its time for them to give up a warfighting role.  Rescue, and law enforcement only.  That's how you save the Coast Guard.
100712-N-3446M-176
SOUTH CHINA SEA (July 12, 2010) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93) and U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mellon (WHEC 717) pass each other during a surface gunfire exercise. Chung-Hoon, Mellon and other U.S. and Republic of Singapore Navy ships are participating in Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Singapore 2010. CARAT is a series of bilateral exercises held annually in Southeast Asia to strengthen relationships and enhance force readiness. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kim McLendon/Released)

Pics of the day. July 14, 2010.

Lance Cpl. Cody Kummer, rifleman, 1st Squad, 1st Platoon, Company A, Landing Force, native of Omaha, Neb., prepares himself to repel down a 20-meter repel tower July 5. More than 50 Marines from the Landing Force participated in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps Basic Rangers Course with ROK Marines from the 31st Airborne Battalion as part of the Korean Incremental Training Program 2010 Series Four July 5-9. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Colby W. Brown)
A Marine from the Landing Force participating in the Korean Incremental Training Program 2010 Series Four, repels face first down a 50-foot repel tower while participating in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps Basic Rangers Course July 6. More than 50 U.S. Marines participated in the course with ROK Marines from the 31st Airborne Battalion as part of KITP 10-4 July 5-9. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Colby W. Brown)
Marines from the Landing Force and Republic of Korea Marines repel down a 30-meter rock face while participating in the ROKMC Basic Rangers Course July 6. More than 50 U.S. Marines participated in the course with ROK Marines from the 31st Airborne Battalion as part of the Korean Incremental Training Program 2010 Series Four July 5-9. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Colby W. Brown)
1st Lt. Sean Williams, platoon commander, Amphibious Assault Vehilce Platoon, native of Fort Myers, Fla., repels down a 30-meter rock face while participating in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps Basic Rangers Course July 6. More than 50 U.S. Marines participated in the course with ROK Marines from the 31st Airborne Battalion as part of the Korean Incremental Training Program 2010 Series Four July 5-9. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Colby W. Brown)
Lance Cpl. Angel Vargas, rifleman, 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, Company A, Landing Force, native of Terrehaute, Ind., monkey crawls 240 feet of rope while participating in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps Basic Rangers Course July 7. More than 50 U.S. Marines participated in the course with ROK Marines from the 31st Airborne Battalion as part of Korean Incremental Training Program 10-4 Jul 5-9. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Colby W. Brown)
A Marine from the Landing Force participating in the Korean Incremental Training Program 2010 Series Four fast ropes down a 20-meter rope while participating in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps Basic Rangers Course July 9. More than 50 U.S. Marines participated in the course with ROK Marines from the 31st Airborne Battalion as part of KITP 10-4 Jul 5-9. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Colby W. Brown)

And the truth starts to come out on the Russian 5th gen fighter.


via RiaNovosti.

"The Air Force will start taking delivery [of fifth-generation fighters] in 2015-16. The preliminary number is over 60," Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said.
He also said the first batch of new fighters would be provided with older, "non-fifth" generation engines.
I always wondered how the Russians would be able to cobble together the pieces of a 5th gen fighter in such a short time.

Now we know.

Its not going to be a 5th gen fighter...its going to be a re-skinned SU-30...how about this Sukhoi fans...it'll be a re-skinned SU-35!  Better?

If its flying with current engines...how far along can they be when it comes to sensor fusion?

My prediction.

This bad boy will have pods hanging from hardpoints when it makes it into service...if it makes it into service.

Fallschirmjaejer QRF in Afghanistan.


Germany's in the fight.  The photo is via Strike-Hold and the gallery is definitely worth a look-see.  Their gear setup is interesting.  As is the way they outfit their weapons.  No backup iron sights?  Wow.

Comment of the day. July 14, 2010.


Steve made this comment on an earlier post.
F-35 cops a lot flack for development delays - but as I recall it is no worse than the F-22 whose X moodel first flew in 89/90 but did not reach IOC until about '05. The Eurofighter X-model first flew about '86 and did not reach IOC - in only a limited air-air mode - until about '04. The Rafael was not much different.
Yet I cannot recall Bill Sweetman et al giving anything like the grief to those earlier fighters that they now give to the F-35. And before someone tells me that the F-35 is much bigger program, the issue here is development cos' once development is completed, the production ccosts usually come down e.g. F-22.
And that boys and girls is the real issue with the F-35.  Once it begins serial - full rate production, then its Katy bar the door!  The costs of the airplane will drop dramatically.  Nations will clamor for the airplane and the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Super Hornet will be shut out of the fighter market.  This could be the swan song for some aircraft manufacturers.

That's Bill's fear.

That's Boeing's fear.

That the European Aircraft Manufacturer's fear.

And that explains why so much venom is being tossed at this program.  Effectiveness be damned.  Its all about protecting territory and market share. 

Old School Combat Arms Recruiting Poster.

via Mechanix.