-
Guided Missile Cruiser USS Cowpens Ceremonially Enters Modernization Period, USS Gettysburg to Follow This Week – USNI News
USS Cowpens (CG 63) returns to San Diego following a deployment to the western Pacific in 2014. US Navy PhotoThe first in a planned series of contentious modernizations to the Navy’s guide missile cruiser fleet formally began in a Friday ceremony in San Diego, Calif.The ceremony inducted USS Cowpens (CG-63) into the CG Phased Modernization Program — a plan that the Navy says well extend the service life of the fleet of 22 cruisers to preserve capabilities for Navy carrier strike groups into the 2040s.“We are saving money, preserving force structure, and generating options for leadership,” said Vice Adm. Tom Rowden, commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet in a Navy statement.The Navy plans to have a similar ceremony for USS Gettysburg (CG-64) later this week.
Bye and large, the Navy is doing a terrible job of managing the life cycles of its cruiser fleet. On the other hand, they’re not getting funded at a level that will allow them to do a good job. Further, the fleet is being deployed with 270 ships at rates similar to the 600 ship Reagan years. That’s just not sustainable.
In the meantime, one hopes this mid life modernization will remove the snakebit curse that has been following USS Cowpens since Holly Graf was her captain. She’s seen a series of senior leaders fired, and appears to be somewhat cursed.
-
A Weasel for the Cavalry?
LTG McMaster, in addition to discussing future fighting vehicles for the Infantry, is also hinting that the Army might want to buy a very lightly armored vehicle for light cavalry units.
Light armor is very problematical. It’s vulnerable to anything beyond the the smallest of small arms fire. Artillery, RPGs, ATGMs, tank guns, mines and IEDs, you name it, they can defeat light armor.
But the alternative to light armor isn’t heavy armor, it’s no armor at all, and how realistic is that proposition? So LTG McMaster is looking at providing the Cavalry squadrons of Airborne and Air Assault Brigade Combat Teams a platform beyond the M1114 Humvee. And since money is tight, it would have to be an off the shelf, non-developmental product.
And the product they’re looking at is the German Wiesel (hereafter, Weasel). Back in the 1970s, the Bundeswehr was looking for a weapons carrier for their own light forces. Development was pretty smooth, but for budgetary reasons, the light, tracked Weasel didn’t enter service until about 1985.
After buying a few hundred in the 80s and 90s, the Germans built a somewhat larger version, the v2. Having a fifth roadwheel and longer body, along with a newer, more powerful engine, it’s still very light, but has significantly more internal volume. This is, presumably, the variant the US Army is looking at.
Fitting in six troops is a tight squeeze. And I’m not really sure you need six. The old M114 recon vehicle had a three or four man crew.
I’m not sure I’m ready to equip all the light Cav squadrons with these, but I wouldn’t mind seeing at least one equipped and operationally tested.
The Weasel has a couple of interesting capabilities. First, it can be carried by a CH-47 Chinook. And not just as a sling load. You can actually drive it right inside. Three or four can be stuffed into a C-130. From what I hear, Bundeswehr air drop tests were less than successful, but I suspect our airborne guys could figure out a way to airdrop them.
The Germans seem pretty happy with theirs, so it might be worth looking at. At this point, I’m inclined to look favorably on pretty much anything that increases the mobility and firepower of the light formations.
-
Forward Air Control in Vietnam
Great video on Air Force and Marine Forward Air Controllers in Vietnam, with O-1s, O-2s, and OV-10s. There is good gouge on the shadowy Raven FACs and the operation to recover Bat 21. The only thing missing is coverage of the Army’s O-1 operations. It’s long, so just bookmark this for later tonight.
-
OV-10A Bronco in Vietnam
This is a marketing video. Most of the footage is from Vietnam, but there’s some developmental stuff in there as well. You’ve probably seen most of the clips, but I don’t think I’ve posted this particular video before.
-
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome
Truly an inspiring tale.
-
“Rebels” adjusting artillery fire with a drone.
Yeah, “rebels” who just happened to be in Russian uniform. What are the odds. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine in the eastern regions of Ukraine has been characterized by heavy, heavy use of artillery. Any time either side attempts to mass decisive combat power, the other pounds it with artillery. Sadly, the Russians have done a better job. While they lack the sophistication of UAVs like our MQ-1 Predator or MQ-9 Reaper, these commercial off the shelf drones do provide enough information to make terrain feature recognition and artillery adjustment quite feasible.
-
Chant du Départ: Murph beat me to it
Juvat tells a TINS at Old AF Sarge’s place. Read the whole thing.
I’m an IP at Holloman AFB, flying the mighty AT-38B. We’re back in the pattern after flying a BFM ride. I’m in the front seat. The student in the back seat is going through the IP upgrade (downgrade?) program. A first assignment Eagle guy, it’s now time to pay the piper. I’ve flown with him before, and he’s having no problems with any aspect of the course. In fact, I’ve learned a lot by having him in the pit. I’m sure he was thinking I was showing him basic student mistakes when, in fact, I’m trying my best. Of course there was some quid pro quo during the Air to Ground portion on the bombing range. I’d talked him into splitting the six bombs, he’d drop the first, I’d drop the second (from the back seat), alternating for 30 degree, 20 degree and 10 degree attacks, quarter a bomb. Most satisfying 75 cents I’d ever won. But, I digress.
-
Marines about to downselect to two competitors for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle Program
The legacy AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicle is very, very long in the tooth, having entered service in the 1960s. Even though it has gone through two major revisions, it is undoubtedly due for replacement. It is an excellent swimmer, but not so great ashore. But that’s the challenge with any amphibious vehicle- balancing the performance afloat, where you spend about 1% of your time, with performance ashore, where you actually do the fighting. But if you can’t swim well, then what is the point? Unfortunately, these two requirements tend to compete against one another.
After the expensive and technically ambitious but frustrating development of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was cancelled, the Marines eventually asked for proposals for a low end amphibious vehicle capable of carrying 11 troops, and incorporating lessons learned about protection against IEDs learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five teams submitted proposals, and the Marines expect to downselect to two teams shortly. Those two teams will provide 16 vehicles each that will then undergo about 2 years of engineering and operational testing.
Megan Eckstein at USNI News has a piece comparing the five entrants.
I’m leaning toward the BAE systems variant myself, but of course, Lockheed Martin will use its en0rmous political influence to try to win.
BAE Systems and Iveco Defense partnered to create this entrant for the Marines ACV 1.1 competition. Photo courtesy BAE Systems.
Lockheed Martin’s ACV 1.1 prototype. Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin.
Click on over and read the whole thing.
-
The Army’s new basic training: More tests, peer evals coming Oct. 1
Basic combat training gets tougher Oct. 1, when the Army rolls out a battery of tests mandatory for graduation. These aren’t written tests, but trials in the field. Soldiers may be asked to load and unload an M249 machine gun, treat an open chest wound or use their rifle as a bludgeon.Also new: peer evaluations and a 16K ruck march with a time limit as part of the final test.“We looked at making training a little more rigorous,” said Thriso Hamilton, a training specialist for basic combat training at Victory College, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. “We wanted to add an increase in Army values and discipline, a renewed focus on physical fitness, and updated rifle marksmanship training.”With tougher standards, officials also expect more failures and an increase in recruits getting “recycled,” and having to re-take portions of the course.
Source: The Army’s new basic training: More tests, peer evals coming Oct. 1
This is pretty sad. I get that the challenges of the war in Iraq, particularly around 2006, meant some standards slipped. But that was 9 years ago.
I joined in 1985. BCT in those days was only 8 weeks long, not today’s 10.* But in those days, they had an End of Cycle Test. Pretty much every single task taught over the course of BCT was tested. And there was no question of passing four out of five. You had to pass them all. You’d get a couple of do-overs on things, sure. But not many. Fail too many, and you’d recycle back to another training cycle. Fail that, and you were gone.
I’m a little conflicted on the road march part of the revised training. Yes, soldiers need to be able to road march. But this makes four timed marches across 10 weeks. As I recall, we had three timed marches in 13 weeks (and the time was a heck of a lot shorter than six hours for 10 miles!). Road marches also tend to produce injuries, so they often end up costing time and money, as troops have to recuperate and recycle to complete training, or even end up discharged.
Finally, the damn “everybody gets a trophy” patch is just straight up stupid.
*But I didn’t go to BCT. I went to One Station Unit Training. 13 weeks of initial entry training for the Infantry career field. BCT soldiers still have to attend their Advanced Individual Training in their career field.
-
Load HEAT- Emilia Clarke
You probably are used to seeing her with blonde hair on Game of Thrones.
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
XBradTC 