Well said Sir!

via Marine Times....

The United Kingdom’s recent decision to drastically cut its military, including a decision not to purchase the jump-jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter [“Analysts: U.K. move to drop F-35B won’t raise costs,” Nov. 1], holds a lesson for our own similarly challenging economic times.

Britain’s fleet once policed the seas and now tries to keep afloat a token measure of their past maritime dominance. Their decisions make near-term fiscal sense, but cut at the quick of their national military capability. We are faced with many of these same, tempting cost-cutting decisions, and we’d be well-served to make our decisions aligned with long-term strategic interests, rather than current financials.

As Marines, we pride ourselves on being most ready when the nation is least, but no longer can that readiness be defined inexpensively by a full canteen, bandoleer and Army hand-me-downs. Nine years at war and casualties have changed that ultra low-cost “have gun, will travel” construct. Today, the nation requires the Corps to fill a band of military requirements short of the Army, but more robust than the exquisite skills of the U.S. Special Operations Command community. We prevent conflict with our forward-deployed presence and, if needed, we buy time for follow-on forces to arrive or negotiation to begin. To fill that middleweight-fighter requirement, the Corps must retain its essential character as an expeditionary air-ground general purpose force — a force with a fighting weight exceeding the sum of its pounds.

Beyond our bedrock requirement for amphibious shipping, we are not beholden to any single program, but our young Marines need the capabilities resident in certain platforms to safeguard lives and prevail in conflict. The short-take-off-and-vertical-landing JSF, MV-22 Osprey and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle are not inexpensive, but are a value when compared to the lives they will save and the operational flexibility they will provide. They are an investment in our children’s future, a hedge against the arc of history and the necessary premium of peace to prevent the terrible cost of war.

Col. Bryan Salas, director of public affairs
Headquarters Marine Corps

A modest proposal. Time to say good-bye to Tanks.

It pains me to say this.

I don't like having to say this.

But the facts are plain and have been for the past 10 years.

The USMC can no longer afford the luxury of having tanks.  Farm it out to the US Army and have them establish detachments aboard USMC bases....have the Army provide the logistics support --- but get the burden off the Marine Corps.

Just a few intense facts...

1.  Marine Corps tanks haven't deployed to Afghanistan.
2.  Distributed Operations (at least as I've read it) doesn't account for tanks in its doctrine.
3.  The Marine Corps is attempting to become more expeditionary.  Tanks don't allow for that luxury and even in the best case scenario would be relegated to Division or higher.
4.  Tanks are a tremendous burden to the MEU.
5.  The MEU could deploy more AAVs/EFVs/JLTVs, howitzers, MTVRs etc...if it didn't have the burden of having a tank platoon attached.


There are many more reasons that others could come up with I'm sure.  But the basic fact is this.  Having tanks as an organic part of the Marine Corps seems to have run its course.  Having the US Army provide a dedicated Heavy Combat Brigade to support Marine Corps operations seems to be the solution to an unfortunate problem.

Lexington Institute Swings and Misses.

This is their latest...I've highlighted all the inside the beltway bullshit that they use to describe this insanity...

Franco-British Pact Provides Foundation For New Security Architecture

Author:

Daniel Goure, Ph.D.

Date:

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Tags:

Franco-British security, NATO

On the heels of its recently released defense review, the new British government has moved aggressively to restructure its strategic relationships both with Washington and its allies in Europe. As part of a new agreement on defense cooperation, Great Britain and France will substantially deepen their already extensive security collaboration.

For example, Britain and France will cooperate in one of the most significant areas of national security and sovereignty: testing the safety and reliability of nuclear warheads. The two countries are likely to develop arrangements for sharing the use of the new aircraft carriers now under construction. London and Paris have announced their attention to develop a joint rapid deployment force. According to the Financial Times, defense contractors in Britain and France want this week’s summit between David Cameron, the UK prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, to boost bilateral industrial collaboration to help create a new generation of unmanned surveillance and combat aircraft programs.
The Cameron government strongly asserts that its efforts to draw closer to France do not constitute a rejection of the so-called special relationship with the U.S. Rather, it is a way for the U.K. to retain sufficient military relevance so as to be worthy of the special relationship. The ability to leverage French military capabilities and defense industrial resources will help to ensure that the U.K. remains Washington’s most capable ally.
The outstanding question is how the United States will respond to the U.K.-French initiative. The security relationship between France and the United States has a long and some might say checkered history. Paris’s recent decision to re-enter NATO’s integrated command structure and to deploy a significant combat force to Afghanistan have gone a long way to healing the decades-old breach with Washington. But the integration of French and military forces now gives the former a degree of control over the actions of the latter that are likely to give Washington pause in how it treats its closest ally.
Washington should consider the possibility that the Franco-British defense relationship could serve as the basis for a new strategic architecture for the defense of NATO and as a model for building partner capacity in other regions of interest. The sharing of military capabilities, the provision for mutual support and the integration of defense industrial capabilities are all examples of ways in which regional partners and allies can create a robust defensive capability greater than the mere sum of the parts.
The Obama Administration needs to consider ways by which it can leverage the growing interest of major regional allies and partners to cooperate more closely. Collaboration with France and the U.K. in nuclear weapons safety and surety is one potential area of interest. Another is in development of the next generations of tactical fighters and unmanned aerial vehicles. A third could be lift and logistics to support expeditionary operations. Both France and the U.K. have expressed interest in developing a European-wide missile defense capability, something to which the United States can contribute. By leveraging the Franco-British entente, the United States can not only maintain the special relationship with London and deepen its defense ties with France but create a model for empowering security partners in the Middle East and East Asia.
Daniel Goure, Ph.D.

What a load of trash.  Lexington Institute is better than this trash.

E-2D --- Defense begins with Detection!

What if....

The USMC is rock solid behind the F-35B...even more now that we have an aviation Commandant.  The US Navy is luke warm to the F-35C.  What will the UK do if the US Navy drops the F-35C, the USMC continues with the F-35B and other allies suspected of going with the F-35B continue.

The way I see it, thats a valid option...so what will the UK's options then be???
1.  Become the only buyer of the F-35C...
2.  Revamp the Typhoon into a carrier model...
3.  Buy Rafales...(in light of their recent decisions this is the more probable outcome)....
4.  Buy Gripens....

Interesting.  Think Defence and SNAFU! are working on a collaboration.  Keep an eye on his blog for news on the latest from across the Atlantic.

When are we going to be finished with Haiti???

I mean no disrespect, but when are we going to be finished with this modern day meals on ships program?  Say this out loud and see if it makes sense...

The US Navy is sending the USS Iwo Jima to Haiti in preparation for a Hurricane.

Wasn't US military involvement in that island nation suppose to be over with back in March?  If this is the new face of US military power then we need to get a drastic nip and tuck.  But notice something even more insidious.  NGO's are becoming an integral part of ships company now.  This is the ships roster...

A crew of 1,600 military and civilian medical, engineering, aviation, logistical and other support personnel are embarked aboard Iwo Jima, including U.S. Navy engineers, a contingent of 500 Marines with logistical-support expertise, volunteers from the U.S. Public Health Service and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as medical, dental and engineering professionals from Europe, North America and South America.

Read about it here....

Europe's Carrier Force is Kaput!

The Telegraph reports...

As President Nicolas Sarkozy prepares to use a historic London summit to announce the use of RAF jets off the Charles de Gaulle, his naval chiefs have told him she is no longer seaworthy.

"She's meant to be heading to Afghanistan to support the war there but is instead in home port with a faulty propulsion system," said a French Navy source. 

I wonder if they still think a mutual defense treaty (the UK) with France is still a great idea.  I continue to be perplexed by our friends across the Atlantic.