The top US military officer raised doubts Wednesday over the future of the costly F-22 fighter jet program, noting that the economic downturn could force the Pentagon to make budget cuts.
Three Air National Guard KC-135 Stratotanker wings will become active associate units beginning this summer, Air Force officials here announced Dec. 10.
This past June, I issued a call for all AMC personnel to "return to basics," and I thank you for the renewed attention you've given to our core values and our mobility mission while restoring the Air Force's good name with your daily, outstanding mission accomplishment.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ended its 13th session (December 2-5) in The Hague, the Netherlands.
Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., have successfully demonstrated an autonomous landing of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, marking the first time an F-16 has landed entirely under computer control.
More than 125 Eielson Air Force Base Airmen and 10 jets left Dec. 6 through 8 to provide adversary training and support to members of the 199th Fighter Squadron and the Hawaii Air National Guard at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.
There are 11 squadrons based at Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose comprising helicopters, Hawk jets, Jetstream turboprop aircraft and, perhaps less well known, a squadron of radio-controlled target aircraft.
Blueprints for a future military are piling up fast in Washington, D.C. It seems like not a week goes by that a new report isnt released by one think tank or another with the hope of grabbing the attention of defense aides with the incoming Obama administration. While some of these reports are eminently discardable, others actually have some value, if not for their prescriptions, then at least for who wrote the report.
An example of the latter is a new report titled Building a Military for the 21st Century, put out by the Center for American Progress, a largely Democratic staffed think tank that is also pulling double duty with the Obama transition team. For that reason alone it might carry more weight than others. So lets unpack this one.
The report could be called a progressive agenda, as it aims to rein in defense spending, which it says is out of control, and calls for cutting the familiar list of gold plated weapons systems dreamed up during the Cold War. It says lack of fiscal discipline has created an environment where the services are free to spend as much as they want and buy whatever new weapon they fancy.
One of the most important ongoing debates in defense policy circles is over the types of wars the U.S. likely to fight in the future. One camp says protracted counterinsurgency campaigns in failed or failing states on the order of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will dominate. The other says the military must prepare for full scale conventional fights against a regional power, which basically comes down to one of three countries: China, Russia or Iran. The answer to that question reveals where an individual or institution is going with force structure recommendations.
The CAP report comes down squarely in the counterinsurgency and irregular warfare camp. While proficiency in conventional fire and maneuver skills, this applies to the ground forces of course, cannot be allowed to lapse, preparedness for stability operations should take precedence.
CAPs solution for bringing defense spending under control is a little fuzzy. They say pulling troops out of Iraq will save $140 billion over the next two years, although $22 billion will need to be redirected to operations in Afghanistan; much of the hoped for savings will come from cutting or slowing development of costly weapons programs.
Read the rest of this story over at DoD Buzz.
-- Greg Grant
I know it's a bit late, but I got my hands on some material that came out of the mid-November "industry day" held in the DC area to show the Army what's out there to replace the M4.
You'll remember that the service has indicated it's finally willing to explore updated options to its standard-issue service rifle...now the M4. Whether you think the M4 sucks or not, it makes sense that the Army is breaking free of its single-minded love affair with the M16 and its variants.
I missed the industry day (dumb me) but I got a write-up on the meeting from a renowned weapons expert that many of you might know. He did not send this directly to me, I obtained it through other sources, so I'm going to protect its origins and the author.
According to the expert, "19 vendors showed up at the industry day, including Polytech, KAC, Precision Reflex, POF, S&W, FN with SCAR, Superior Tooling, AAI with LSAT, LWRC, Colt Defense, Barrett, Sabre Defense, Armwest, HK, Bushmater/Remington, Robinson Armament, Troy Industries and SIG Sauer." Army secretary Pete Geren showed up as well, along with key players from PEO Soldier and PEO Soldier Weapons. According to one of my sources, fortunately some congressional staffers from top lawmakers who want to take up this issue also showed, including staffers for Salazar, Hutchison, Sessions and John Warner (though we know he's retiring soon).
The weapons expert said:
Lots of AR-based systems on display, mostly off the shelf items, many op rod guns and conversions. A few medium caliber (6.5G and 6.8 Rem SPC and 7.62x39mm R) platforms on display and a few 7.62x51mm systems as well. No bullpups (Tavor, AUG or F2000)surprisingly and no XM8. Lots of discussion about op rod upgrades to M4's versus complete new systems. Little talk that I heard anyway about user convertible (barrel, buttstock, caliber) modular family of weapons but there were one or two such systems there.
One thing my source told me -- and yes, he does have a stake in the adoption of a new rifle -- was that Geren's presence, while adding senior-level gravitas to the event, was essentially meaningless because he's probably going to leave in 60 days. And the fact that neither the service chief nor vice chief showed up at the event sent a signal the the uniformed leadership isn't on board with the idea and could recommend to the next secretary that they abandon the effort.
Here's more from the debrief:
Industry reps I spoke with were cautiously optimistic having been burned a time or two before in the last 10 years. A major difference here is the presence of a formal requirements document (CDD) as per the JCIDs process that is due to be completed and staffed by the end of CY08 and expected to be approved by summer CY09 with possible draft RFQ release to industry for comment w/i 4QFY09 (and a second Industry Day) and eventual final RFP release by Sept. 2009; all this as per COL Tamilio's (new PM-SW formerly from the REF) briefing to the attendees. Each vendor was allotted 30 minutes to present to a US Govt team in private. Lots of new faces within the "small arms system" to include a new PEO Soldier, PM-SW and PM-SW IW and USAIC reps....
This process of consulting industry in support of a real fair and open competition for the next service rifle has not occurred in more than 70 years, likely since the M1 Garand "competition" prior to WWII. This was a historic day! Lots of oversight on this one from the real end user side and at senior leadership levels. We are on the right track finally. Lets just hope it doesn't get derailed with changes in the US Govt over the next 2 months. Time will tell. Keep the pressure on!
So chew this over for a bit. Next up: What small arms threats are the services worried about?
-- Christian
Greg Combet, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, today announced that two further milestones have been achieved in the program to upgrade the RAAF’s Hornet fleet.
We ran another MRAP story this morning at Military.com that Greg Grant over at DoD Buzz previewed a few weeks ago.
The military is pressing its case for MRAP-like vehicles that are able to endure the rigors of the kind of terrain found in Afghanistan. This is a smart move on the part of the Pentagon, which is admitting that the current MRAP is a bank vault on wheels and not suited to austere environments where paved roads and structurally sound bridges are not the norm.
The interesting thing about the story though -- and something I'd like your thoughts on -- is the convergence of the JLTV program, the resulting protest delay and this new urgent need. To what extend is the NorGrum/Boeing/Oshkosh/Textron protest delaying or inhibiting the options for fulfilling this MRAP-ATV request? Seems to me if the players weren't hung up in protest fights over the JLTV demonstration phase, some of them could offer variations of their JLTV ideas in the near term to the Army -- but may instead defer any work on it for fear of disrupting their position in the protest deliberations.
That may be way off, but I'm curious on how that might play into it. Many argue that the tanker protests have disrupted America's ability to wage aerial combat and operations worldwide. I think that's a stretch. But in this case, we KNOW that lives are being lost and that something new needs to be fielded fast or more will die.
One of the potential problems the Army has not adequately addressed is that none of the MRAP vehicles are front-line vehicles, in the sense that they cannot operate in an environment approaching mid- to high-intensity combat. They can and do prove useful in stability and counterinsurgency operations, particularly in urban areas that require troops to conduct lots of presence patrols.
But in an environment where an enemy is equipped with large numbers of man-portable anti-tank weapons, of even the omnipresent low-tech RPG-7 variety, these vehicles are not survivable. They dont have the armor protection and are very big targets. While it makes sense in wartime to build vehicles tailored for specific combat environments, one has to wonder if the service has any kind of long term strategy for all these new heavily armored trucks it keeps buying.
This brings up another good point. MRAPs are good against IEDs but not so good against RPGs (I know why and where the vulnerabilities are, but won't discuss them here). So this new ATV will have to have some of the same armor innovations manufacturers have planned for the JLTV in order to meet the requirement.
It will be interesting to see how this develops and we'll bring you the latest as we get info.
-- Christian
Our media maven Ward Carroll must have done well on his last appearance because they asked him back onto the morning show at FOX (they must be hurtin' for guests)...
He'll be on around 9:30am EST tomorrow to talk about the LackMart Multiple Kill Vehicle hover test.
So be sure to tune in to see the show...
-- Christian
We ran a story this morning on Military.com about the Pentagon Inspector General report on the response by the Marine Corps to Urgent Universal Needs requests for MRAP-style vehicles. The IG posted a brief summary of its findings on the DoD web site, so take a look and assess if for yourself.
It seems to me the IG ruled on a very narrow set of factors, namely how did the Corps respond to an UNS of this nature -- when hundreds of UNSs were coming in and other commanders deemed M1114 Humvees a better match for the threat vs mobility equation. The whole UNS process was new and commanders were constantly looking over there shoulder to see how much heat they'd get on their prioritization of these requests. What was more important, scope covers or thigh holsters?
Here's what the IG said:
We recommend that the Director, Joint Staff establish procedures in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3470.01, Rapid Validation and Resourcing of Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONs) in the Year of Execution, July 15, 2005, and that the Commanding General, MCCDC establish procedures in Marine Corps Order 3900.17, The Marine Corps Urgent Needs Process (UNP) and the Urgent Universal Need Statement (Urgent UNS), October 17, 2008, to enable Service requirements developers to forward urgent requirements that may have joint-Service applicability directly to the appropriate combatant commander for endorsement and subsequent submission to the Joint Staff for validation as a Joint Urgent Operational Need.
But I thought this line was most significant:
DoD was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in low-intensity conflicts and of the availability of mine-resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003. Yet DoD did not develop requirements for, fund, or acquire MRAP-type vehicles for low-intensity conflicts that involved mines and IEDs. As a result, the Department entered into operations in Iraq without having taken available steps to acquire technology to mitigate the known mine and IED risk to soldiers and Marines. We are making recommendations only to the Marine Corps because the scope of our audit was limited to a review of Marine Corps actions to address the IED threat. We plan to address other Services actions to counter the IED threat during future audits.
So, the IG is saying the Pentagon knew about the threat and did nothing about it? I can see this on one level but then I was there in summer of '03 and IEDs just weren't a threat at the time...No one was talking about them and most of the time we were rolling around Baghdad in soft vehicles without ever even thinking about mines or IEDs.
-- Christian
Suspicious happenings on the Varyag
Just all kinds of bad guys firing rockets these days...
Crunching the numbers: Mercs v. Soldiers
Afghanistan heating up
Just as rad as it sounds: Multiple Kill Vehicle Hover Test
--John Noonan
[From the headlines at Military.com]
An F-18 military jet approaching a Marine base crashed near a busy highway in a densely populated San Diego neighborhood Monday, sparking at least one house fire.
The pilot ejected, but it wasn't immediately clear whether the pilot or anyone on the ground was injured, officials said.
The plane crashed around noon Monday as it prepared to land at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, said Ian Gregor, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman. The crash occurred two miles from the base.
Gregor did not know the pilot's condition or how many people were in the plane before it crashed near Interstate 805.
A high school sits near the crash site. Television news footage showed what appeared to be the remnants of a smoldering house and two cars on fire.
Steve Krasner, who lives a few blocks away in the earthquake-prone region, said he first thought the shaking generated by the crash was the long-anticipated "Big One."
He was in his kitchen when he heard two loud explosions and looked outside, then heard a larger blast.
"The house shook; the ground shook. It was like I was frozen in my place," Krasner said.
"It was bigger than any earthquake I ever felt," he said. "The flames were billowing overhead."
Dean Costa, who was about two blocks away at his father's house, said he felt the building vibrate, then made his way close to the crash site and saw two houses on fire and several cars explode.
"It was just crazy," said Costa, 22. "There was debris everywhere."
Maurice Luque, a spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, said he didn't know whether anyone on the ground was injured.
A Miramar spokeswoman said base workers were sent to the crash site.
"We are still trying to confirm the aircraft even belongs to us," said Marine Staff Sgt. Bobbie Bryant.
The F-18 is a supersonic jet used widely in the Navy and Marine Corps and by the Navy's stunt-flying Blue Angels. An F-18 crashed at Miramar in November 2006, but the pilot ejected safely.
Miramar, well known for its role in the movie "Top Gun," is home to some 10,000 Marines. It was operated by the Navy until 1996.
(Editor's note: Other sources report the aircraft was an F/A-18D attached to VFMAT-101. Although that model of aircraft normally has a two-man crew, the mishap aircraft was flown without anyone in the rear cockpit.)
-- Christian
In the Mumbai tragedy, it took three days for Indias police and commandos to overwhelm 10 fanatical fighters who killed some 160 people and wounded nearly 300. The attack speaks to the lethality of guerrilla fighters armed with fanatical fervor and small arms, the difficulties inherent to urban combat and the security challenge of the modern city as soft target.
After the five-plus year battle of Baghdad, Americans have become accustomed to snipers, IEDs and car bombs as the most common urban warfare tactics. The Lahskar-e-Taiba fighters were of a more dangerous breed than a suicide bomber who detonates him or herself in a crowd as the number of casualties was directly related to how long they stayed alive and their ammunition lasted. Although they embraced eventual martyrdom, they sought to delay it as long as possible so as to rack up a higher body count. That is a very difficult enemy to counter.
In a column penned last week, strategist Edward Luttwak called the Indian security forces response pathetically inadequate in quantity and quality. Instead of the 200 National Security Guard Black Cat commandos tardily dispatched to Mumbai, India should have sent 1,000, Luttwak says. The Indian government response was certainly shoddy, but it should also be kept in mind just how difficult and complex a tactical challenge the Indian security forces faced.
I was reminded of an article written some time back (December 2003) by former Australian Army officer David Kilcullen, of counterinsurgency fame, in that services excellent journal. In the piece, Kilcullen discussed close combat in complex terrain, defined as terrain where you cannot see as far as you can shoot.
An important point he makes is that more than sheer numbers, urban combat requires small, networked, mutually supporting semi-autonomous teams. Even big battles in urban terrain rapidly dissolve into a series of mini-battles fought in streets, courtyards and rooms in houses. If a thousand troops attack a hundred in complex terrain, what ensues is not one large, single battle, but several dozen individual duels and small-group engagements fought over a dispersed area. He used the Black Hawk Down Mogadishu battle as an example.
The Lashkar-e-Taiba fighters dispersed upon landing in Mumbai into two man teams and rapidly fanned out into the city. Countering such an enemy requires security forces that can also rapidly disperse and operate individually with very high levels of tactical skill. Even the standard ten man section may be too large for such battles, Kilcullen says. Instead, the four-man fire team may become the true building block for the close fight in the first quarter of the 21st century.
I would be curious to know how many countries possess troops with that required level of tactical skill and unit cohesion. Kilcullens piece in the Australian Army Journal brings up an interesting discussion as we contemplate how to counter what are sure to be future Mumbai style attacks and is well worth a read, along with an earlier piece he wrote in the June 2003 issue.
-- Greg Grant
Maintaining accountability and improving stewardship of the Air Force's nuclear program is the top priority, said the service's 19th chief of staff recently.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hailed a landmark nuclear deal signed with Russia on Friday as a "milestone in the history of our cooperation" after meeting here with President Dmitry Medvedev.