ailment

Ah the sound of liberal hurt feelings:

This is just the crisis to make themselves seem relevant again within the GOP—even if they’re undermining the commander in chief at a pivotal moment.
— Why Neocons Love the StrongmanMichael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

---

It’s likely, then, that the J-20 no more represents the end of US air superiority than did Cope India or the T-50’s debut. What it does represent is the world’s second economy finally joining a club of nations long-accustomed to designing, building and operating advanced fighter aircraft.
— China’s Over-Hyped Stealth Jet, David Axe, The Diplomat.

---

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how much the J-20’s design changes matter and indeed how effective an aircraft it is. But it is evident that the plane’s flight testing, at least, is far more than just a publicity stunt.
—Stealth Changes for China’s Stealth FighterGERRY DOYLE, NEW YORK TIMES. Gobssmacks David Axe.

It must hurt when reality overtakes liberal fantasy.

For decades the left’s orthodoxy was that the West was to make peace with Russia/The USSR, China and that “the tide of war was receding”.

Russia is INVADING the Ukraine. They used TBM’s on Georgia. China is building a modern networked force.

And yet, Michael Tomasky makes current events be all about the left and how those meanie Neo-cons runied everything.

Lest we forget, the media and the left (I repeat myself) went easy on Putin, Hugo Chavez and China. David Axe seems to think that the US military sucks and we have nothing to fear.

So when real life starts to hurt them, they either face reality (and start crying) or escape to fantasy.

President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy.
— Washington Post, Editorial Board

And so it begins.

Chew On This: Truth to Power

And this nation finds itself on the brink of war. Ten years ago we hear the left howl in protest. And we heard many lies from the “reality based community”.

The more things change:

1. A lefty author has the vapors over the phrase “Support Our Troops” This Ain’t Hell takes the whinny leftist down. Anti-war was naver about supporting troops or ending war, it was about Marxist hogwash and hating America.
2. Instapundit looks at the Left’s war on Golden Rice and other GMO’s. Even Slate finds the left’s lies anti-science.
3. Hotair.com links to a report on that Hillary’s press secretary refuses to admits that Alger Hiss was a dirty commie spy. Truth never stopped the left, why start now?
4. Slate doubles down on #waronwomen, Ace o’Spades points out that somehow slience is teh sexist.
5. Roger Kimall on a former US attorney flying into a rage when someone actually speaks truth to power. There are realfacts and there are goodfacts. He just wanted to send James O’Keefe to the Ministry of Love.
6. Someone on Buzzfeed does speak truth to the power and the Guardian’s Fruzsina Eordogh won’t have any of that nonsense. Legal Insurrection is on it like a hobo on a ham sandwich.
7. President goes to war without Congressional Approval. Stop Bushoh wait..never mind!

It was never about stopping war, world peace, science or truth. It’s always about the left and their love of power. The power to control the debate, take from your wallet and push other people around.

If you question the left’s agenda, you’re a tool or a pawn of the rich/Koch/government/GOP/Jews/girl scouts/the church/rich white men/etc. If you don’t believe the left you’re a racist/in denial/stupid.

They don’t what a debate. When there is one, they go insane. Either we take up the fight or we get the left’s boot on our faces.

And speaking of dopes…

“South Korean rapper PSY and the massive YouTube hit “Gangnam Style” seemingly came out of nowhere, but no one can say they didn’t see this coming. After a huge backlash following news that he had performed at an anti-American protest in 2004, PSY has issued an apology this afternoon.

“I’m deeply sorry for how these lyrics could be interpreted,” reads the statement. Huh”
— “PSY apologizes for anti-American lyrics, but do Americans accept? Yankees ‘interpret’ lyrics”, Twitchy.com

”

The wall plus the dome are enabling Israel’s leaders to abdicate their responsibility for thinking creatively about a resolution of its own majority-minority problem with the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Really? I would have said that the fence itself is a creative solution to the majority-minority problem in the West Bank, in that it prevents the majority Arabs from sneaking into Israel proper to commit murder. And Iron Dome creatively protects Israel against rocket attacks from Gaza. Is Friedman seriously suggesting that terrorist attacks from Gaza were a good thing because they forced Israel to “think creatively” about the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Common sense is not Friedman’s strong point”
—
“Iron Dope”: Powerline blog

“A new Global Terrorism Index this week showed that terrorism went up from 2002 to 2007 – largely because of the conflicts in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq — but has declined ever since.
…
In any event, it is a good idea that the United States find a way to conduct its anti-terrorism campaigns within a more normal legal framework, rather than rely on blanket wartime authority granted in a panic after Sept. 11.”
— Useful idiot Fareed Zakaria, via Hotair.com

The thing the people like PSY and Tom Freidman forget is that US troops have gone to bat for their freedom. PSY can dance his stupid horsey “Gangam Style” dance because US troops kept him and his parents from the North Korean Army. His “K-pop” sound comes from the music US troops brought over. If not for the US military, he’d be in a communist labor camp. Friedman is a jew-hating leftie. He liked it when the savages of Hamas could murder with impunity because that fit is Marxist narrative. Underdogs and all that rot. Now that Israel can defend itself, he’s all pouty. Fareed Zakaria is the typical leftie dumbass. He hates American “power”, but if he were to say anything critical of the foreign governments he supports, they’d toss him in jail.

PSY realizes that pissing off his biggest market is a bad move. When will Friedman and Zakaria realize that they’re sleeping with the enemy?

Brad hammers this point home with pictures.

About that Pacific Re-alignment…

As seen on DEW Line: Chinese and Russian aircraft.

Via Dewline: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

So the DoD wants to shift to the Pacific. Here’s the reason why they should be worried. The Russian plane has a radar that poses a deadly threat to fourth generation aircraft. The Chinese are putting a real fighter on board the carrier most lefties think is just for show. So a real fighter with their new navy.

And this is why the Pacific is becoming a dangerous place.

BTW: lost in the disappointment in the “Arab Spring” and it’s failure in Egypt:

“CAIRO – Egypt’s Islamist president ordered his defense minister and chief of staff to retire on Sunday and canceled the military-declared constitutional amendments that gave top generals wide powers”

Egypt’s president cancels amendments that gave military power, names vice president: Associated Press.

Patriot Missile Operators:

Egyptian Air Defense Command:
MIM-104(PAC-3) missile: 4 Batteries (4 Stationary (towed) units per Battery, 16 missiles per unit plus 2 reloads each)

Israeli Air Force (GEM+)

This won’t end well….

Reforming Defense: Lockheed makes a “jeep”

“Lockheed Martin would like you to know that just because it’s an aerospace titan that moonlights as a shipbuilder, that doesn’t mean it can’t also build a new fleet of ground vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps.”
High stakes in the JLTV competition: By Philip Ewing, DoD Buzz.com
—

There are companies building the replacement for the HMMWv, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). It’s a new jeep for the military.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Humvee was too light. It was a soft skinned taxi for soldiers and a whip for commanders. There were “up armored” versions, but they are rollover queens. I used to drive a command post variant. After upgrades, our M1113 was 500 lbs away from both axles snapping and was top heavy. The JLTV is designed from the ground up to be an armored anything: taxi, truck, command post, ambulance or gun truck.

Now Lockheed has some issues with building things for the military. There was the scandals over foreign military sales. Yet this same company built the SR-71 and F-117.

JLTV three variants during the Technology Development phase

Judging from the comments in the DOD Buzz article, some just don’t have faith that Lock-Mart won’t screw the truck up:

tee June 22nd, 2012 at 7:35 pm

“With LM’s current recorder as a benchmark if they get it, it will be way over budget and years behind schedule.“

And that’s the tamest one.

I for one welcome out of the box thinking. I do have doubts however. Boeing decided to get into the lucrative jetfoil business, the Future Combat Systems and the KC-767 lease. They ended well, in that jetfoils are forgotten, the FCS was canceled and the KC-767 lease sent an Air Force official to prison.

What’s needed is out of the box thinking, but not so out of the box people lose their minds. I hope Lockheed Martin delivers the goods. If they are making junk, they deserve to lose. It’s not the 80’s anymore, political connections, pork barrel politics or lobbying shouldn’t decide who builds what. Make stuff that works.

Why We Should Use Technology

In National Review, Clifford D. May writes:

Wars of the future will be very different from wars of the past. Everyone gets that. What many do not grasp: The present war also is very different from wars of the past.

Among the ways: Those defending the West try hard to abide by the laws of war. Those attacking the West say clearly that they will not be bound by any “infidel” rules. They are committed to what they call a “Koranic concept of war.”

It’s not just uniforms and ID tags/cards. It’s not shooting civilians. Not flying jets into buildings. Europe frets over kill lists but that’s because they want to appease the evil hordes at the door.

The French used to find terrorist camps and level them. They’d send their commandos in, they’d kill the terrorists and take as much as they could carry. This put an end to a lot of terrorist groups. The SAS hit the Irish Republican Army hard. Between bad publicity and bullets to the head, the IRA has committed to disarming it’s stockpile.

But special forces raids are risky. Bunkers full of equipment need to be hit somehow.

Cyber warfare was discussed, too. Indira Lakshmanan, a generally sensible Bloomberg reporter, argued that if Americans use cyber weapons, “let’s not think that the Iranians themselves won’t learn from what we’ve done to them and couldn’t release similar bugs on us with potentially devastating consequences. So that’s something we really need to think about.” Yes, and let’s start by considering whether it is remotely plausible that Iran’s rulers, the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism, would conclude that it’s not quite cricket to use such weapons — if only Americans would refrain from using them first.

Lakshmanan’s thinking was befuddled on another score as well: “If we’re sitting at the table with [Iranians] in Moscow next week, how are they going to believe that we’re actually trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with them if at the same time we’re admitting openly that we’re engaged in outright cyber warfare with them?”

Fighting fairly went out with kings and princes. Chivalry is dead. We have laws of warfare, but it’s assumed that all sides will agree to the rules. Terrorists, communists (yes there are still commies), drug lords and other “non-state” actors. China and North Korea don’t take prisoners. African and Middle Eastern regimes are famous for using missiles and artillery to settle disputes.

We don’t fight wars by lining up men, stacking numbers against numbers.

We have stealth jets and stand-off weapons to overcome the numbers of anti-aircraft missiles. We use tanks, APC’s and IFV’s that are part of a network. A Marine Corporal or Army Sergeant can call on the radio and bring the rain. He or she has access to firepower that Patton or MacArthur could only dream about. Sensors, firepower, communications, the “strategic corporal” is the tip of the spear. And a diplomat, and an aid worker.

Forrest Gump is roadkill on the modern battlefield.

So what if we use “cyberwarfare”? Do those lefites with a case of the vapors want US troops to go and dig out nuclear bunkers? Every Predator drone means less pilots and troops at risk. If a computer virus can disable a WMD lab, that means no shooting, no dead Americans paraded through downtown Durka-Durkastan.

JLENS is a radar and optical combo that looks down. It can see cruise missiles and aircraft trying to hide. It can also see enemy troops on the ground many miles away. That means no scout aircraft getting shot at. It means US and Allies have early warning.

The left loves the myth of the underdog. That somehow the Vietcong, Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban are some ragtag “army”. Bull.

Most “non-state” actors are scum. The Lybian and Egyptain revolution have devolved into Islamist takeovers, as the Arab Spring turns into a Fascist Winter. Syria is a hell of advanced weapons and a mad regime desperate to hold on to power.

We use out technology to decimate the enemy. There is no fair in warfare. We respect the enemy, but we’re gonna rain fire down on him. Non-combatants are protected. Those who fight are gonna get set on fire, in uniform or not. From standoff weapons, drones and cyber “weapons”, the bad guys are in for a world of hurt.

Terrorists are only victims in the twisted logic of the left. To us in uniform, they’re targets.

Reforming Defense: Tempting Fate

Some words of wisdom in this time of crisis:

• “No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.”
• “An Army is a team; lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap.”
• “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
• “Wars might be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the victory.”

—GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON, JR. QUOTATIONS

---

“In his book, Fast Tanks and Heavy Bombers, David Johnson (who just took over Army CHief of Staff Odierno’s Strategic Studies Group) asks why nothing remotely like “Blitzkrieg” tactics and innovations emerged inside the U.S. Army. What Johnson discovered is worth remembering. A combination of factors ensured the Army was the wrong force for war in 1942. Of these, the most significant was not a lack of funding. First, there was almost total ignorance in Congress about what was really happening inside the Army. And, second, it was the intellectual — not the fiscal — deficit that obstructed useful change in the Army. As for those who argued after World War II that if the Army had been better resourced a different army would have emerged, Johnson discovered it was not true. Had more money been available, Johnson concluded, the Army’s generals would have simply done more of the same. The American people don’t need more of the same and the American Taxpayer cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Military institutions, grounded as they are in the past, are not particularly adept at dealing with the future. This is especially true for the Army. Congress can and must ask the tough questions and demand real answers, not platitudes before increasingly scarce funds are lost on yet another wrongheaded Army program, yet another false start.”
–“Congress: Don’t Let Army Botch GCV, The Bradley Replacement“:By Doug Macgregor, AOL defense.

Brad brings us the tale of woe concerning the Army’s quest to field a new APC.

The first try was the FCS. It was so awesome it was canceled for being over budget. Before that there was this:

Back to the present. The Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) prototypes wound up at 70+ tons. About as much as an Abrams. The C-17 can lift one, the C-5 only 2 Abrams or 1 M-1 and two M-2 Bradleys. So much for the mobile Army. Now before you think I’m picking on the treadheads, the Marines had their Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and ADA had Medium Extended Air Defense System(MEADS). In each case, specs were changed, then changed again. Since they were new programs, they needed new systems and new software. That means training, contractors and new parts. That means mucho dinero. Big Army is trying hard to keep costs down by looking at existing designs this time.

But I fear this is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Are there 80-90 ton tanks and APC’s rolling off Russian and Chinese factories? No. In fact “smart” anti-armor weapons are getting cheaper. Every tango, technical and two bit militaman will have missiles, IED’s and perhaps UAV’s. No layer of armor will be sufficient. No network will save you if the radios don’t work and your computer crashes. And contractors just add more money to any program they touch.

The FCS and EFV failed due to rising costs. The FCS had software problems, just like the Joint Tactical Radio. MEADS died because of costs and complexity. A MEADS battery has 3 radars to Patriot’s one.

What is needed are review boards. In college, experiments with human or animal subjects had a review board of about 3-5 members. At least one board member was from a department that didn’t use animals (i.e. the Physics Dept). So if the biology department wanted to cut up mice or frogs, the prof or grad student had to have a good explanation. And a budget, and safeguards. This oversight keep all experiments above board.

I know, Uncle Sam’s children in uniform tend to not get along, but we can’t afford more of the same. No more field grades sitting in an air-conditioned office, ducking deployments yet designing the gear and systems for those downrange.

I propose the following:

Each new weapons program should undergo a review by a review board with:
• 10 senior members and five junior enlisted members.
• They will be nominated by the Chief of Staff for each service, selected by the President and confirmed by Congress.
• The ten voting members are current, retired or former Field Grade officers (0-4 and up) and senior NCOs (E-6 and up)
• The five junior enlisted members are junior enlisted chosen on a rotational basis. They are Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airmen of the year picked from posts assigned to a major command. All must have at least 15 months combat/overseas experience. At least two should be married.
• The senior board members will not have any ties to a contractor or current unit.
• All proceedings will be public, the press will be invited.
• The board will report to Congress.
• Special Operations and “black” projects are exempt. This is for line units only.
• Military aid to other countries is also exempt, there is Congressional oversight for that.

Why junior enlisted? Those of us E-4 and below turn the wrenches. We’re the ones stuck with the “good ideas” of the E-ring. If the program office or defense contractor can’t explain why their reasons to a private, what business to they have selling to the DoD? By making the process transparent and concurrent with the development, we can avoid the mistakes of the past.

It’s a start at least. What do you guys think?

Mission Creep

Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.[1] Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
— Wikipeida

“The U.S. Army doesn’t want it, but the Department of Defense is saying: Yes, you do. The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) would be scuttled if Army commanders had their way, saying the missile defense program is too costly to develop, with a price tag of $19 billion. However, Pentagon officials and others in the Obama administration want MEADS, which is being developed in partnership with Germany and Italy, because killing the program could upset relations with the two European allies.”
—Army vs. Lockheed Martin in Battle to Cancel Missile Defense System

“Future Combat Systems (FCS) was the United States Army’s principal modernization program from 2003 to early 2009.[1] Formally launched in 2003, FCS was envisioned to create new brigades equipped with new manned and unmanned vehicles linked by an unprecedented fast and flexible battlefield network. In April and May 2009, Pentagon and Army officials announced that the FCS vehicle-development effort would be cancelled. The rest of the FCS effort would be swept into a new, pan-Army program called the Army Brigade Combat Team Modernization Program.[2]”
— Wikipeida

“January 11, 2011: The U.S. Army has finally, after over a decade of development, and no orders, cancelled its SLAMRAAM antiaircraft missile system. The U.S. defense budget is being cut, and those items lower on the “must have” list are being eliminated. Some $3 billion has been spent on SLAMRAAM so far, and it would cost another $12 billion to put it into production.”
—SLAMRAAM Dies From Loneliness

---

“But the replacement program for the OH-58 was supposed to be the ARH-70, and it should have been generally a low risk program. Take the existing Bell 407 airframe, itself an evolution of the Bell 206 that gave us the Kiowa, and add sensors and weapons. Easy peasy. How that program fell to pieces is beyond me. I’m not an engineer or an aviator. I know there are always challenges, but the collapse of that program was a big surprise to me.”

Brad On why the Army is still flying Vietnam War-era choppers.

“found it surprising as well. From what I could determine the downfall of the program was the bane of so many programs in the military these days, refusing to freeze the specs. They allow a continuing larding of the program and change orders are expensive. Successful acquisition programs freeze the design and build more capability into the follow on models. The Army didn’t force a freeze, so costs ran away from them, and instead of getting a good first effort, they got nothing instead. Great, huh?”

Quartermaster nails it.

When defense contracts go beyond paper specs and RFP’s we’re talking about real money. And jobs. And promotions for those involved in the program. THAAD and the F-22 have parts made in almost all the 50 states. Military bases employ thousands all around the country. Of course Big Army and Congress also think about the men and women who’ll be fighting and fixing these systems. Of course.

The problem is that, like the Navy, Big Army wants cool and shiny. New computers? Sure why not. New radios and a new network? Okay. MEADS had three radars as opposed to the Patriot systems one. A maintenance headache that became a nightmare since the new radars have new parts. Add to the fact that our Warrant Officers and Soldiers under them would all have to be retrained. Adding to the costs of trying to field a new system.

The FCS tried too much at once. New network, new computers and sensors, new weapons AND new vehicles all under one roof. Almost all were canceled. After Iraq, the 50 ton FCS vehicles were dumped for the 70+ ton monsters. IED’s are a threat, but the infantry would ride in a vehicle with a weight approaching Hitler’s Maus. The only Ground the “Ground Combat Vehicle” may end up fighting on is a reinforced concrete runway.

SLAMRAAM died because the Army has to pay for the the FCS GCV and other shooty projects. Short range air defense? Who needs it with the Air Force and it’s F-22’s and F-35’s running the skies. Um..wait a minute…

We need reform, but most of the “reform” the pundits have in mind is to cancel everything. The left wants to stick it’s fingers in it’s ears and pretend that our ships and air craft don’t age. That our enemies are getting smarter and more deadly. The deficit hawks on the right only care about defense cuts when they threaten jobs in their districts. Otherwise they’ll cut and cut in the name of “savings.”

When contracts are fixed, cutting the number of widgets built skyrockets the price. In the 80’s the Dod let the contracts write in the costs of items. Nowadays we have “single source”, “no bid” and fixed price contracts coupled with design specs that waste more money than they save.

We can do better. We need to do better.

Mighty Mites: Zumwalt, “high tech” and China

“Zumwalt reshaped the Navy’s effort to replace large numbers of aging World War II-era vessels, a plan called “High-Low.” Instituted over the resistance of Admiral Hyman Rickover and others, High-Low sought to balance the purchase of high-end, nuclear-powered vessels with low-end, cheaper ones —- such as the Sea Control Ship — that could be bought in greater numbers. Rickover, the Father of the Nuclear Navy, preferred buying a few major ships to buying many ordinary ones. Zumwalt proposed four kinds of warships to fit the plan; in the end, only the Pegasus class of missile patrol boats and the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG 7) class of guided missile frigates became reality, and only six out of the planned 100+ Pegasus class hydrofoils were built. But the Perrys stood as the most populous class of U.S. warships since World War II until the advent of the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) destroyers.”
—
Wikipedia

USS Oliver Hazard Perry

Brad wrote about the Houbei missile boats. Small, fast, with stealth tech and anti-ship missile launchers.
At 36 knots, its just 12 knots shy of the Pegasus’s 48. But that’s still fast for a patrol ship. And it’s cheap.

Fear my l33t missile skillz!

Admiral Zumwalt wanted to expand the Navy as the USSR was building up. The Sea Control Ship was a mini-carrier, with VTOL aircraft. That fighter was supposed to be the XFV-12but the Navy had to settle for the British designed AV-8 when Rockwell couldn’t deliver.

Artist conception

Between the SCS, the Perry class frigates and the hydrofoils, Zumwalt wanted to expand the Navy quickly. He didn’t see the ships as a replacement for the big ships but as a way to meet the Reds. Those three ships could hold the line until the big carriers and cruisers could be brought to bear. They’d protect the carriers and add firepower to the cruisers. The SCS would chase the subs away from the strike groups as its aircraft added to the big carrier’s wing. The Pegasus and Perry’s would missile spam the Soviets. With all their powers combined, the Soviet Navy would wilt under Navy firepower.

Pegasus-class hydrofoils

It was called the “High-Low” mix. For every big ship, dozens of smaller ships could be bought along side it.

The Soviets had their Kiev class. It was a mini-carrier and a missile cruiser in one. They liked’em so much that they went full carrier.  One sailed, the Cold War ended before the second one could be built. Guess where the second carrier is? (Hint: CHINA!)

In the end the “Nuclear Navy” won out. Like the “Sea Shadow“, most of the ship Zumwalt wanted had fewer crew. Less people for officers to boss around. Rickover wanted his subs and the carrier skippers wanted their big decks. The Pegasus class was limited to a few ships, all withdrawn after 1993. The SCS was seen as an outright threat to the big carriers and the Marines had the “Gator Navy” so the SCS never left the drawing board when Zumwalt retired. The Perry class served for many years. However they are limited, worn out and the navy wants to withdraw them from service. Their replacement is the Littoral Combat ship.

Next War-itis cast in steel

How did the Navy honor Zumwalt? Two of the most expensive and trouble plagued ship building programs in American history.

“Lawmakers and others have questioned whether the Zumwalt class costs too much and whether it provides the capabilities the U.S. military needs. In 2005 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the acquisition cost of a DD(X) at $3.8–4.0bn in 2007 dollars, $1.1bn more than the Navy’s estimate.[52]

Specific issues have been raised about the design:”

4.1 Ballistic missile/air defense capability
4.2 Missile capacity
4.3 Naval fire support role
4.4 Structural problems
4.5 Tumblehome design stability

— Zumwalt Class Destroyers, #Controversy

---

“On 23 August 2010, The US Navy announced a delay in awarding the contract for 10 ships until sometime near the end of the year.[58] A meeting of the Defense Acquisition Board scheduled for 29 October 2010 has been delayed and The Navy has indicated that no decision on the contract can be made until this meeting is held.[26]

The GAO found that deploying the first two ships will delay the overall program because these two ships were not available for testing and development so changes may have to be made in the second pair of ships during their construction instead of being planned for before construction started.[59] The U.S. Navy responded that “Early deployment brought LCS operational issues to the forefront much sooner than under the original schedule, some of which would not have been learnt until two years on.””
— Littoral combat ship

In other words, a massive “fuck you” to the man who cared so much about the US Navy. Two large costly ships that may not be able to fight, one of the ship classes even has his name.

Ex-Varyag under two.

China hasn’t been standing still. Most of their Cold War era ships were scrapped or are now floating theme parks. They are studying the carrier they bought cheap and have large missile to take ours out.

Between that carrier (and it’s follow on), the DF-21 missile and that fast missile boat, the waters around China could get nasty real quick. With the small Houbei zipping around, the PLA can harass Taiwan and put a dent in our operations. Their carriers are nowhere near the size, firepower or punch of one 90,000 ton US carrier. They don’t need to be. With the newer missiles, cruisers, frigates and destroyers, they can get protection. With the Houbei’s they can add that to their sting. With the DF-21 hitting our carriers (and its sister missiles hitting our airfields in the pacific), GAME OVER.

Sound familiar?

It’s a damn shame that the Navy Brass is hung up on the NEXT BING THING[tm].  The LCS doesn’t have a single mission module that works right. But the modules are it’s firepower, with out them it’s just got a wimpy deck gun. The Zumwalt class has delay after delay. Of the planned 32, only 3 will be built. T-H-R-E-E. The both LCS versions been shown underway covered in rust.

China, like Russia, sells to who ever has the money. That some of the potential buyers for the fast missile boats and new frigates hate our guts is a bonus. It’s sad The Navy just might have it’s head handed to it by a high-low mix. The same idea they spurned so long ago.

4) Small ships can only damage a well-equipped Navy if many of them attack at once. A number of explosive-laden suicide craft in a tight waterway such as the Straight of Hormuz could be remarkably effective

— 5 Reasons the U.S. Navy’s Scared (and What They’re Doing About It)

Basic Training at Fort Bliss circa 1985

Back in the day, Fort Bliss was a basic training post. Many soldiers did their basic “up on the mountain” known as Logan Heights. Today that complex is all housing. Basic ended in 1990, AIT went to Fort Sill in 2009.

But back in the day, the Sun City was the start of many an army career: