Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, in a crusade to eliminate gender discrimination in the fleet, was determined to remove all references to “man” in the various ratings titles in the Navy. And in response, rather than telling SecNav that he was looking for a solution to a non-existent problem, the CNO, the former Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, and the Chief of Naval Personnel went off and came up with a complete redesign of the personnel policy of the Navy without so much as running it through the normal staffing process, and more importantly, maybe mentioning in passing to the hundreds of thousands of Sailors that would be affected by such a plan.

Beyond a small working group, convened this past summer and led by then-Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Mike Stevens, next-to no one in the Navy saw this change coming, sources with knowledge of the decision-making process say. And it’s been received with near universal contempt by sailors past and present. Stevens, who retired in September after four years in the top enlisted post, has discussed that process at length with Navy Times going back to the summer. Stevens said he had full support from the service’s top admiral, Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson, and Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Robert Burke.
“I felt it was not optional,” Stevens said, “but my duty to lead this effort, knowing all along that there would be controversy attached to it.” The former MCPON, as the position is known throughout the service, says he believes the move is necessary and that now Navy leaders “must follow through.”

Could the Navy personnel system use an update? Maybe. But this wholesale change in the name of gender equality, which suddenly has morphed into better translation to civilian skills, reeks of change for the sake of change. And one is reminded of Jeff Goldblum- they spent so much time thinking about if they could, and never any time thinking if they should.

As one Pacific Fleet Master Chief said:

When the order came down to provide feedback about possible gender-neutral ratings changes, most sailors were cynical, the command master chief said. Many, wondered why the Navy was prioritizing the issue. “No one,” he added, “not a single sailor — across paygrade and gender lines –  I spoke with saw the need to change the names of ratings based on gender neutrality.”

Word came late last night that Houti rebels in Yemen, supported by the Iranian regime, launched two anti-ship missiles at the USS Mason, operating in the Bab al Mandab straits at the southern end of the Red Sea.

Neither missile struck the ship.

Iranian-backed Houthi rebels fired two missiles at a U.S. Navy destroyer operating off the coast of Yemen in the Red Sea on Sunday — though neither missile hit the ship, the Pentagon said in a statement.

Though the American warship wasn’t struck, the ship was definitely targeted, a U.S. defense official told Fox News. This dramatic escalation comes a week after the U.S. Navy sent warships to the area when a United Arab Emirates flagged auxiliary ship was destroyed off the coast of Yemen by the Houthis.

"We assess the missiles were launched from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen," Pentagon spokesman Capt Jeff Davis said. "The United States remains committed to ensuring freedom of navigation everywhere in the world, and we will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of our ships and our servicemembers."

It was not immediately clear how close the missiles came to the destroyer.

There’s no official word yet on what type of missiles were used, but a good guess would be the C802, a Chinese design supplied in quantity to Iran.

And Iran has backed the Houti rebels in Yemen in their proxy war against the Saudis to their north.

Whether the missiles missed due to countermeasures from USS Mason or just poor targeting and fire control isn’t clear. The Mason did employ countermeasures for at least one missile, per the Fox News report.

The missile attack comes on the heels of a Houti missile strike on a UAE transport last week. The former HSV-2 Swift, used by our Navy in a test and logistical role, was employed by the UAE for transport duties when it was struck by what was likely a C802 in the same waters as the Mason was operating in this week.

HSV-2 Swift after missile attack last week

Of course, Yemen is also where Al Queda linked terrorists attacked the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 US sailors.

Instead of being the diplomatic coup that the Obama administration insists it is, the recent so called “deal” with Iran has instead freed up billions in cash for Iran to fund its operations in Iraq and Syria, and to bolster its efforts in Yemen. In return, the US actually has less access, via international monitors, to the Iranian nuclear program than it had before.

Put a laser seeker on the front of a 70mm rocket, and you end up with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, or APKWS.

Damn shame to ruin a perfectly good M114 like that, though.

Some excellent footage of some classics of Naval Air.

A compilation of various Army and Marine Corps training live fires, some in cooperation with friendly foreign forces.  TOW, AT-4, Javelin and even the SPG-9!

Six soldiers and two civilians were indicted this week on charges they conspired to steal and sell Army equipment, from printer ink to machine gun parts and the sight for a grenade launcher, on eBay.

Soldiers Michael Barlow, 29; Jonathan Wolford, 28; Kyle Heade, 29; Alexander Hollibaugh, 25; Dustin Nelson, 22; and Aaron Warner, 24, all stationed at Fort Campbell, were named in the indictment unsealed on Thursday. Also charged were civilians John Roberts, 26, and Cory Wilson, 42, both of Clarksville.

U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee David Rivera announced the charges Thursday during a news conference at the federal courthouse in downtown Nashville.

According to the indictment, the eight charged "sold certain U.S. Army equipment that is never offered for sale by the U.S. Department of Defense as surplus" in 2013.

via www.tennessean.com

Dumbasses.

The Navy has been talking a lot about distributed lethality lately, and “if it floats, it fights.” There is even talk of mounting cruise missiles on Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships, even though it might compromise their primary mission. But so far there has been little or no discussion of extending this initiative to include the Coast Guard. The Navy should consider investing high-end warfighting capability in the Coast Guard to augment existing force structure and provide a force multiplier in times of conflict. A more capable Coast Guard will also be better able to defend the nation from asymmetrical threats.  

Why Include the Coast Guard?

A future conflict may not be limited to a single adversary. We may be fighting another world war, against a coalition, perhaps both China and Russia, with possible side shows in Africa, the Near East, South Asia, and/or Latin America. If so, we are going to need numbers. The Navy has quality, but it does not have numbers. Count all the Navy CGs, DDGs, LCSs, PCs and PBs and other patrol boats and it totals a little over a hundred. The Coast Guard currently has over 40 patrol ships over 1,000 tons and over 110 patrol craft. The current modernization program of record will provide at least 33 large cutters, and 58 patrol craft of 353 tons, in addition to 73 patrol boats of 91 tons currently in the fleet, a total of 164 units. Very few of our allies have a fleet of similar size.

via cimsec.org

Chuck Hill knows patrol craft. He's my go-to expert on the matter.

And for what it's worth, I'd love to see a much expanded Coast Guard. They do an awful lot with an awfully small budget.