XBradTC

In the last decade or more of operations in the Middle East, the enemy’s that British forces have faced had not had a great deal of indirect fire capability. Although Iraqi forces in 2003 certainly did have them and used them, they were relatively few in number. In Afghanistan, the majority of indirect fire threat was from mortars and recoilless rifles. To counter, investments in Counter Rockets and Mortars (C-RAM) capability were made; Base-ISTAR, EXACTOR, ground mounts for Phalanx CIWS and lightweight mortar detection radars for example. In addition to the active means of defending fixed locations against sporadic indirect fire, force protection engineering enjoyed a resurgence; HESCO, Defencell and Expeditionary Elevated Sangars for example.Because operations were conducted from a fewer number of fixed locations they was no need to ‘dig in’.

Source: Are we losing the art of digging? – Think Defence

One of the nice things about switching from dismount to Bradley crew was I no longer had to dig two-man fighting positions.

There was still quite  a bit of manual labor involved, but not nearly the backbreaking chore of digging a quality two man position and adding overhead cover.

While China conducts innocent passage around real U.S. islands of Alaska, the U.S. is apparently unable to do so around China’s fake islands in the South China Sea. The transit by Chinese warships in innocent passage through the territorial sea of Attu Island in the Aleutian chain has added an additional wrinkle to U.S. policy in the South China Sea.On May 12, the Wall Street Journal reported that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter had asked his staff to “look at options” for exercising the rights and freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, to include flying maritime patrol aircraft over China’s new artificial islands in the region, and sending U.S. warships to within 12 nautical miles of them. Later that month, a P-8 surveillance aircraft with a CNN crew on board, was repeatedly warned to “go away quickly” from Fiery Cross Reef, even as it flew beyond 12 nm from the feature. Fiery Cross Reef is a Chinese-occupied outcropping that has been fortified by a massive 2.7 million square meter land reclamation into an artificial island with a 3,110-meter airstrip and harbor works capable of servicing large warships.

Source: The Legal Rationale for Going Inside 12

As always, the Obama administration is looking for ways to cede influence and power to other nations.  Pinged on this policy the other day, administration proxies put out a nonsensical talking point about the increased number of Freedom of Navigation missions the Navy has engaged in. The problem is, the number near these artificial islands is still zero.

And as Dr. Kraska’s article shows, China has absolutely no legitimate claim under international law to sovereignty and territorial status. The problem is, unless you challenge that illegitimate claim, and exercise your freedoms, pretty soon, international law becomes moot, and China will impose its will on the region by force or implied threat of force.

That is far more destabilizing that the risks run by having US Navy warships operating within 12 nautical miles today.

President XBrad would have a Carrier Strike Group make a couple laps around Fiery Cross Reef en route to its operating area.

Longtime readers may start to grasp that I’m fascinated by small surface combatants, particularly in our Navy. Historically, our Navy has had to deploy long distances, and operate far from homeport for extended periods of time. That argues for larger ships with greater endurance. However, we’ve also often found ourselves in need of smaller ships to perform a myriad of combat or maritime security operation. The current class of Patrol Coastal ships were actually intended to support special warfare operations when they were bought in the 1990s. It turned out, they were somewhat ill suited for that role, and the Navy started to try to rid themselves of them. But the operations in the Arabian Gulf after 9/11 found the Navy in need of more ships for maritime security, and the PCs were quite well suited for that. The orphans found a new home, with 10 of the 13 ships permanently bases in Bahrain now.

So what is life like on a PC? Here’s a collection of videos showing the PC fleet in action.

If you’ve watched all the videos above, you’ve earned a little splodey.

Military scientists work tirelessly to make modern rations as light, nutritious, and healthy as possible for the warfighter. But they don’t seem to care about them being awesome at all. Here are 7 things they’ve removed from the menu that modern troops may enjoy.

1. Liquor

From the Revolutionary War through 1832, soldiers received a “spirits ration” of rum, brandy, or whiskey. The standard spirits ration was replaced with coffee and sugar, but leaders could still order special alcohol rations for their soldiers until 1865 when an order from the War Department discontinued the practice.

Source: 7 ways military rations used to be a lot better

That’s pretty much all you need to read on the list. There’s a few inaccuracies in the list as well, including the one about soap. Soap is not a ration, but rather an item of supply (in fact, Class VI, just like liquor).

And beer was actually part of the (notional) ration during World War II. Sure, you weren’t likely to get it on the front line, but if you were pulled into reserve (or were a REMF) the ration was two bottles a day per man.

NewsPetition aims to end EA-18G Growler practices over Olympics

An EA-18G Growler soars over mountains.

The Navy has been conducting electronic warfare training with the aircraft in the Olympic mountains for years. – U.S. NavyAn EA-18G Growler soars over mountains. The Navy has been conducting electronic warfare training with the aircraft in the Olympic mountains for years.— image credit: U.S. Navy

Another group is taking aim at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station’s jets.Members of Protect Olympic Peninsula delivered a petition with more than 120,000 signatures to the United States Forest Service protesting the Navy’s plan to introduce electromagnetic transmitters to its electronic warfare training on the peninsula.The group joined with other activists, including Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve, which would like to shut down EA-18G Growler flight training at the outlying field at Coupeville.THE PETITION states: “Unfortunately, if the Navy gets their way, these wilderness areas will be assaulted by 118 of the world’s loudest jets, flying thousands of training exercises, hundreds of days a year, as low as 1,200 feet above the ground.”The petition goes on to describe the peace and tranquility of Olympic National Park and urges people to take action “to keep the Navy from destroying this wonderful area with their ear-splitting jets.”“In addition, the Navy will be using these war games to test electromagnetic weaponry, which has some experts raising concerns about potential health impacts to birds, amphibians and humans, as well.”

Source: Petition aims to end EA-18G Growler practices over Olympics – Whidbey News-Times

Here’s the problem with online activism and petition. First, the petition is completely misleading. The Navy isn’t asking permission to overfly the Olympic peninsula. It already does, routinely. It’s not asking permission to conduct electronic warfare training there. It already does, to some extent.

What they Navy wants is permission from the Forest Service to operate three vans with emission simulators along fire roads in the area.

And just how dangerous are these vans? As the article notes, they’re effectively just the same as a TV news van.

For that matter, the emitters on the vans are an order of magnitude less  powerful than the weather radar already blasting EM energy into the peninsula, but you don’t see environmentalists panicking over that.

Heck, only about half the petition signatures are from the US, and only 8000 from Washington!

If the Navy had simply gone ahead and operated the vans without asking for public comment,* the public likely never would have even noticed the change in operations.

If you want to see a really honking big EM transmitter in the area, look across Puget Sound to the Navy’s facility at Jim Creek, where they’ve been blasting RF energy out for 50 years, and *still* no two headed kids are being born in the region.

*Not that the Navy should ignore the law. The Navy tries hard to be a good neighbor.

While V-22 Ospreys can fly as fast as an normal airplane and land like a helicopter, the unique tilt-rotor aircraft have relatively little space for troops, cargo and fuel. Which led the U.S. Air Force to think about reviving plans for a radically modified C-130 Hercules transport.A C-130 that blasts into the air with rockets.WIB iconIn January 2013, the Air Force’s top special operations headquarters cooked up a set of requirements for a new specialized cargo plane. The Mobility Requirements Branch proposed an all new aircraft, as well as a modified Hercules.“The proposal … stemmed from the desire to have an enhanced short take-off/landing (STOL) capable … platform capable of carrying larger loads then the CV-22,” the Air Force Special Operations Command’s annual history for 2013 stated.War Is Boring obtained a heavily redacted copy of the historical review via the Freedom of Information Act.First nicknamed New Magic and then Super Sport, the project borrowed heavily from a design — codenamed Credible Sport — that the Air Force developed more than three decades earlier.

Source: The U.S. Air Force Thought About Bringing Back This Crazy C-130 | War Is Boring

This sounds like mostly a paper “what if” study. There *are* times and places where the USAF and SOCOM would like to use something bigger than the CV-22. But for the most part, aerial refueling an Osprey is good enough.

And operating MC-130s in the wild isn’t without its own risks. See Desert One during Operation Eagle Claw. We’ve come a long way in special operations aviation since those days, but risks are risks.

Air & Space: Do you think there was ever a time when we needed an independent Air Force?

Farley: No. I think it was a serious mistake to give the Army Air Force its independence in 1947, just as it was a mistake to make the Royal Air Force independent in 1918. The experience of the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II demonstrated that American airpower could win decisive victories as a part of pre-existing military organizations.

What do you think the Air Force has gotten right?

The Air Force has gotten a lot right. Especially in the period between 1972 and 1991, when it identified many of the internal problems that had caused difficulties in Vietnam, and engaged in the slow, hard process of reform that was necessary to create an organization that could act as a partner for the Army and the Navy. This included training reform, procurement reform, and doctrinal reform.

Source: Is It Time to Abolish the U.S. Air Force? | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine

This is probably Quartermaster’s favorite subject.

Got busy today, and didn’t have much time to write stuff, so here’s some links.

Via AirLive.net

Aviation Week is going to put its entire archive online sometime next year.