XBradTC

Historian Torsten Heinrich at The Diplomat makes some excellent points.

The United States hasn’t produced any conventional submarines since the Barbel-class in the late 1950s; every submarine class since then has been nuclear powered. This might have made sense in the context of the Cold War, where Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines had to be shadowed, but times have changed.

While previously conventional submarines had to snorkel roughly at least every two days of time under water to recharge their batteries, air-independent propulsion (AIP) has changed the game. German Type 212 submarines can stay under water without snorkeling for up to three weeks, traveling 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) or more. Without emitting heat and with no need for constant cooling due to the lack of a nuclear reactor, these German submarines and comparable designs are more than a match for nuclear-powered submarines in terms of stealthiness.

As any US submariner will tell you, the acoustic signature of AIP boats is a significant challenge for US detection capabilities.  On top of that, China is building a network of surveillance and detection systems across the expanse of the First Island Chain.  Satellites, ASW helicopter bases, and possibly a version of the US SOSUS network, all concentrated in a relatively small portion of the Western Pacific, all increase the chances that US SSNs will find it increasingly difficult to transit and operate undetected and untargeted.  Besides, we haven't sufficient SSNs proportional to our reliance upon those assets in the event of a war at sea with the PLA Navy.  Conventional submarines are an attractive and sensible alternative to SSNs and could alleviate that situation, asserts Heinrich.

Whereas China can and will create a bigger subsurface fleet than the USN by mixing conventional submarines with nuclear powered ones, the financial burden of matching hull with hull is practically impossible for the United States, at least as long as it limits the USN to SSNs. Conventional submarines might change this.

While one Virginia-class submarine costs roughly $2.7 billion per unit, the same money could buy six to seven conventional submarines of the German Type 212 class.

Heinrich makes some other valid points about the potential to keep shipyards employed, and the export potential of such boats.  Well worth the read, and serious consideration.  I remember well the decommissioning of the last of the diesel boats, right around the time I pinned on Captain.  Conventional submarine propulsion technology is light years ahead of the Barbels, built in the late 1950s, and should be explored fully as a means of defeating a capable and growing enemy in the event of a war at sea, especially in the Western Pacific.

H/T:  Grandpa Bluewater (who else?)

Nice to pick off an unsuspecting enemy. Too bad after the destroyer spotted me, the NorCar nuked me.

Thirty years ago, US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps  attack aircraft raided Libya in response to a terror attack on a Berlin nightclub that killed an American servicemember.

F-111s from RAF Lakenheath, and EF-111s from RAF Upper Heyford in conjunction with A-6s, A-7s, F/A-18s and EA-6Bs from USS Saratoga, USS America, and USS Coral Sea struck five targets in Libya to degrade their ability to train terrorists, and of course to send a message.

One F-111 was shot down by a Libyan missile, killing Air Force Captains Fernando Ribas-Dominicci and Paul Lorence.  Captain Ribas-Dominicci’s body was returned to US control via the Vatican, but Captain Lorence’s remains have never been recovered.

Like I said, the Swedes produce some great videos. The CV90/40 is a relatively new Infantry Fighting Vehicle, armed with the excellent Bofors 40mm/70 gun. The gun can destroy a wide variety of targets, pretty much anything less than a main battle tank, and probably a goodly number of older tanks if they can get a shot at the sides. Orignally, the CV90/40 wasn’t offered with an ATGM, but now they are marketing it with a BILL 2 launcher that is almost a direct copy of the TOW installation on the Bradley IFV, though it’s mounted on the right hand side, whereas the Bradley has it on the left.

“Pvt. Cafferata, by his fortitude, great personal valor, and dauntless perseverance in the face of almost certain death, saved the lives of several of his fellow Marines and contributed essentially to the success achieved by his company in maintaining its defensive position against tremendous odds,” according to his citation.

Cafferata was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Harry S. Truman at a White House ceremony on Nov. 24, 1952. He was one of 42 Marine vets to receive the nation's highest military award for valor for actions in the Korean War — 14 of whom were awarded for actions in the Chosin Reservoir campaign. Seven of those awards were posthumous. There are 76 MOH recipients alive today, according to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

via www.marinecorpstimes.com

Rest in Peace, Pfc. Cafferata.

Shaped charges pose a dangerous threat to armor on the battlefield. They are very lightweight, are not dependent on their velocity upon impact for penetration, and are cheap and easy to manufacture.

Typically a shaped charge has a penetration six times its diameter.  Thus the 66mm M72A2 LAW rocket would be expected to penetrate up to  almost 400mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor.

The US M1 tank uses composite “Cobham” armor, in which a secret matrix of  various materials disrupt the explosive jet and prevent penetration.  But Russian tanks by and large don’t have composite armor, and so for them, Explosive Reactive Armor is a very attractive option.

ERA is simply two thin sheets of steel with a thin bit of explosives in between. The incoming jet of a shaped charge causes a sympathetic detonation of the embedded explosives, which in turn disrupts the jet, and prevent penetration.

ERA isn’t without its drawbacks, however. First, if a box successfully prevents a penetration, that area of the tank is now vulnerable to a second hit. Also, the blast of the tile can be quite hazardous to any nearby friendly exposed personnel, as the outer steel sheet is transformed into shrapnel.

WASHINGTON — Veteran advocates and House lawmakers rallied Thursday on Capitol Hill to oppose cuts to the Post 9/11 GI Bill that they say would break a “sacred” trust.

The national groups, including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and nine Democrats decried an effort to balance budgets by slashing housing payments to college students using their parents’ GI Bill benefits.

More than one million veterans who served on active duty since the 9/11 attacks and their family members have used the GI Bill benefits to get an education since it was created in 2009. Despite the popularity, the House cut a section of the benefits in February to pay for a massive veteran reform package and the Senate is now weighing whether to take up the measure.

via www.stripes.com

While I would agree with the suggestion later in the article that a better place to start is with eliminating bonuses for VA personnel, let's step back a moment.

The original GI Bill after World War II provided for the tuition for an honorably discharged service member. Of course, post-secondary education back then was a lot cheaper.

When I (and a good many of you) joined, it was during the era of what was known as the Montgomery GI Bill, in which a service member would have $100 a month deducted from his or her pay for the first 12 months of service. In return, the the VA would pay a monthly stipend provided you were actively enrolled in an approved post-secondary education program, for up to 36 months, that is, four education years.

As a kicker, the Army had the Army College Fund, which boosted the payout of the Montgomery GI Bill, provided you scored 50 or better on the AFQT portion of the ASVAB, and enlisted in an MOS that was eligible for the Army College Fund.

As an example, I enlisted for a two year initial active duty obligation. After my $1200 contribution to the MGIB/ACF, when I began to attend university, I had a total benefit available of $17,000. Divided by 36, this gave me a monthly benefit of $472.22. That money was sent directly to me, and was tax free. I was free to spend it on pretty much anything I wished. In my personal case, my parents paid my tuition and I covered the costs of room and board and sundries.

Today, after successful completion of 36 months of service, a servicemember is elegible for the full cost of tuition at the in-state rate of any public university he or she chooses to attend. In addition, a housing stipend equal to that of an E-5 with dependents is paid based on the cost of living associated with the zip code of the school.

That's a really good deal for a guy that joins the Army right out of high school, and intends to get get out after his first hitch, and go to school.

But for a lot of people, particularly career soldiers, it isn't all that attractive. If, say, a career Air Traffic Controller plans on getting hired by the FAA after retirement, the new GI Bill holds no attraction for him. Nor does it do much for officers, who already have their bachelor's degree.

And so, the new GI Bill includes a provision for transferability to a spouse, or after 10 years of service, to a child.

To use an example of a reader here, friend Esli already used his Montgomery GI Bill benefits to pay for his college. And he's had sufficient time in service since then that he's *again* eligible for New GI Bill benefits. And he's got college aged kids.

Cutting in half the housing benefit (and mind you, that's all the Congress is looking to cut, NOT the tuition payments) will impose a burden on him. But not an especially onerous one. And don't forget that when submitting a FAFSFA, GI Bill benefits may not be used to determine eligibility for aid under Federal (and most state) programs.

More generally, I worry sometimes that we who served become captured by the very same entitlement mentality that we are so quick to complain about in other.

To serve our nation in uniform is a privilege, not a right. And the costs associated with veterans benefits are enormous, so much so that the DoD has to look very closely at them when arguing for increasing the size of the force.

Originally intended as an airborne command post for the President in the event of a nuclear war, the E-4B now tends to be used to transport the Secretary of Defense on overseas tours.