All the military news that’s fit to link, or that I stumbled across and found interesting: ~Tempest in a Teapot? There’s a controversy brewing about Army Medevac missions with one side claiming we should remove the red crosses and arm them and the other side claiming that would compromise their mission. The most compelling argument against arming them, in my humble opinion: "Arming our medevacs would significantly impact the operational capability of the aircraft. It would require additional weight due to the machine guns(s), personnel and ammunition. Those extra pounds would hinder the aircraft's ability to work at higher altitudes in Afghanistan because of reduced lift. Additionally, Army medevacs can carry four litter urgent patients, but if weapons were added, that would be reduced to two litter urgent patients, which would in turn require the commitment of more medevac aircraft. This additional weight would also impact the aircraft's speed and range which could also result in the need for more medevac aircraft, an already low density/highly deployed asset." ~The Army considers who and what to cut under the new defense budget: Army officials are considering eliminating 10 brigade combat teams, Cox reports, and now the big question inside the service is exactly which ones will go away. ~Meanwhile the Army struggles to define itself under the constraints of the new strategy. ~Sheep beating? Seriously? ~Marines take delivery of their first F-35B. ~I know you Army guys have been waiting on this with baited breath (yup, another new cammo pattern): ~Star Trek capability for the future? Ok this is just cool: ~Marine Amphibious Warfare Taskforce made permanent: The group's ongoing work will give the Marines "the seed corn for the changes" needed to update amphibious ops to the modern day battlefield, Mills said during his speech at the Surface Warfare Association's annual symposium. ~ And that’s because they don’t want to be left out of the new “AirSea Battle” strategy. ~Meanwhile the Navy is concerned that the new budget may "sink” plans for new carriers and even reduce their current numbers. That would kind of put a crimp in the “Sea” part of “AirSea Battle” I’d think. ~What will the cuts to defense spending mean in real terms to the economy? However rosy things may look from the ivy-covered walls at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, the experts on the real front lines of this debate are in virtually unanimous agreement– cutting investment in research and development and new systems will cost critical high-skill jobs that drive middle-class growth and fuel the strongest military in the world. The Pentagon believes an additional half trillion in cuts would add a full point to the national unemployment rate. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon says the total jobs lost could rise as high as 1.5 million. Stephen Fuller, director of George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis, who has performed this kind of analysis for governments for years, concludes that cuts to procurement and research alone would kill a million jobs and suck $86 billion out of the national economy in 2013. This would kneecap an aerospace defense workforce that has been a national treasure for decades –- one that has birthed a host of civilian and military technologies and capabilities that have long been the envy of the world. ~But, even with that, business as usual can’t continue, a position articulated well by Mark Styen. That said, he also notes what our defense posture has meant to the world and why its important. ~Who said you can’t learn things from the military. Your new vocabulary word, courtesy of the US Marines – micturition. ~And then, there’s robo dog! That ought to keep you busy for a while.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/DEnDXk1ssAY/milnewslinks.html
Posted
Jan 19 2012, 12:29 AM
by
BLACKFIVE