When Marines head out of the next deployment later this year, they will operate in a kind of rifle squad that top Marine leaders see as the future of the Corps’ core unit and a way to bring new technologies and capabilities to bear at the lowest tactical levels of warfighting.

The unit is the first fully manned deploying unit in the Marine Corps at the 15-Marine rifle squad configuration. The move is an effort to put more capabilities in the squad, which some see as the base of the fight in a future battlefield that may require small numbers of Marines to operate in contested areas with a lot of firepower at their fingertips.

Experimentation with different squad sizes, gear and weapons began several years ago, and recommendations ranged widely as to what changes would happen in a military element that’s remained largely unchanged for at least seven decades.

At the same time, the Corps is changing some training requirements, shifting retention strategies and adding hefty bonuses to keep critical corporals and sergeants in the squad leader role as they try and transform the infantry.

Marines noiiced an  immediate difference with two more Marines and the gear his squad carried. The first was that by having the assistant squad leader at his disposal, the first fire team had better leadership and he had more time to focus on the “point of friction.” and manoeuvre his fire teams and cover more ground by delegating fires and other communications work off to his assistant.

“We’re realizing we need to be spread out more. Dispersion’s a lot better and we’re not losing command and control with that dispersion.”

And 15 Marines means two more guns in the fight.

“So that’s a lot of people so there’s always rounds going downrange. Just the simple ranges, normally where there will be a lull with the guns going off, there hasn’t been a lull. There’s always somebody shooting, lead going downrange.”

The Bosses are seeing some of the advantages already from his battalion level.

“The assistant squad leader is a hybrid, somewhere between comms and fires.”

The battalion filled out one platoon per company in the 15-Marine model as the accepted Marines from both the fleet and School of Infantry before compositing with the MEU.

The initial exercises, which included weapons and tactics instruction, allowed the commander to see the 15-Marine model in action with some of what will be the full kit to complement the new approach.

While the battalion wasn’t at full strength and didn’t have all of the new gear to play with, it did have enough to do platoon on platoon fights and employ a basic tool now at their disposal — a squad level drone.

During realistic urban training they were able to use the quadcopter in many of their raids, launching it over their combined anti-armor team foes, who they later learned never heard nor saw the small quadcopter drone.

That drone, the Instant Eye, has about a half hour flight time with no payload. It’s ranges depend on the terrain, dense brush can affect the signal but open desert allows for greater distances.

Though a payload can cut the flight time in half, that payload is often worth it because it includes thermal cameras, which make opposing troops easy to spot.

“It’s so much better using the payload. Instead of looking for little things in the trees, we just use thermals.”
And the device controller stores all of the recorded video for playback later and in case the drone is captured or destroyed, no mission information can be recovered by adversaries.

Each squad has a squad systems operator who will not only run the drone or potentially future unmanned ground systems but also work tactical level counter-improvised explosive device equipment and electronic warfare jamming gear.

Those two options are already a sea change in what Marines have seen on past deployment.

In the past there might be a few RQ-11 Raven drones on hand within the battalion. In recent years those have trickled down to the company level and are still one asset in a larger, layered drone approach.

But never before, except in experimentation, has there been a squad level overhead capability. And that is critical in how the battalion hopes to fight.

“The information Marines can get from that really facilitates manoeuvre warfare. And that’s to do with what the high-tech can add to the basic tasks of the infantryman.

“Speed can be security. If you have the ability to see where the enemy isn’t it allows you to move faster. It contributes to decision-making.”

And it can lead to some unorthodox action.

Putting new tech in the hands of younger Marines brings about some new approaches on how to use that tech. Marines saw that in battalion field exercise when one squad used the quadcopter as a decoy.

“Rather than flying it right over opposing force, they flew in the opposite direction from where the attack was going to come. Marines come up with stuff that will surprise you.”

Another tactic the drone operators have adopted in urban settings is to land the drone on a rooftop or ledge. Then then can cut the propellers to save batteries and not make noise but still use the cameras to observe the scene.

Along with the squad drones, each of the Marines in the squad will carry the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, except for one, which will carry the M38, a more highly accurized M27 with an advanced rifle optic.
That gives the squad better range and a designated marksman in the ranks.

At the same time, each squad will have a grenadier with the new M320 grenade launcher, which users have said is more accurate and also takes the front-load problems off of the Marine’s main rifle.

Though Marines haven’t gotten them yet, commanders expect that the unit will carry the Carl Gustaf 84 mm recoilless rifle.

The wider Marine Corps plan is to have one per squad and that will replace the current positioning, which uses a 0351 infantry assault Marine that resides at weapons company in assault sections that are tasked out to the platoons for greater anti-armor firepower.

The unit is also taking the Squad Common Optic and new binocular night vision devices that drastically increase clarity and swap the old green tinted view for white phosphorous imaging, providing greater depth and clarity on night ops.

The single-button optic is easier to use and can last up to 48 hours on a single battery charge.

Beyond the equipment and new positions, the Marines in these beefed up squads also are seeing more training. Assistant squad leaders are pursuing joint fires observes path within the new formation. but it’s not a prerequisite for all squad leaders

Marines have linked up with local artillery trainers to put as many Marines as they can fit into the joint fires primer course. While not the fully certified school, the primer course gets Marines exposed to the concepts and prepared for doing those missions.

And training methodologies for those have advanced. Prep work includes online courses to weed out those who might not pass the full course. Virtual trainers and simulations have come a long way from how Johnson and others in his generation were trained.

During a squad leader course the training included a model jet fighter on a stick that was “flown” over a terrain map and when fake bombs were deployed instructors would drop a marble then mark hits with a cotton ball to practice adjusting fire.

A leadership task force has helped redirect funding into better weapons, optics, body armor and training to the infantry and close combat formations in both services. It has also begun an extensive review of training modalities, recruiting and retention to form a “Close Combat 100,000” priority for projects that affect the ground combat element.

But as always, many challenges remain for Grunts.
​
Some of the changes are being made to the fundamental makeup of the Marines’ smallest ground units. A rifle squad has typically consisted of 13 Marines.

Each squad includes three fire teams of four Marines each, built around a single automatic weapon and led by a sergeant serving as squad leader. Fire teams include a corporal fire-team leader or grenadier, two lance corporals — one with an automatic rifle and another assisting — and a private or private first class serving as rifleman.

Under the Commandant changes, fire teams will now feature three Marines. All will be armed with an M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle with suppressors and improved optics.

Though fire teams are losing a Marine, they are gaining two automatic weapons, giving each squad a total of 12.

Two new positions — assistant squad leader and squad systems operator — are also being created for each squad. Rifle squads will keep an additional slot open for one rifleman per fire team should they need to add depth, but the positions will remain unmanned.

The new makeup of the squad will see a squad leader — who will remain a sergeant with five to seven years of experience and formal squad leader training — backed up by a corporal as an assistant, the statement said. The new squad-systems operator will be a lance corporal formally trained in a variety of technologies.

Fire teams will consist of corporals in the leadership role, backed by lance corporal grenadiers and automatic riflemen.

The changes will be implemented across all Marine infantry battalions over the next three to five years. The Commandant said this will ensure Marine Corps infantry formations remain the most “lethal, agile, and adaptable in the world.”

“We are going to change,” the Commandant said in the statement. “Not that we aren’t good; we are. But we must continually strive to get better.”

The Marines will also immediately begin distributing quadcopter drones to every squad. Platoons will gain a drone operator, and rifle companies will get a counter-drone section of five Marines.

Marine squads will also receive improved binocular night-vision devices and improved optics that include thermal capability and improved M320 grenade launchers.

Squads will also get handheld devices that provide a digital link to close-air support and adjacent units, and an M38 Squad Designated Marksmanship Rifle with a suppressor and variable 2.5-8 power optic, the statement said.

The M38 is not a sniper rifle, but provides improved identification and engagement of targets up to 600 meters away. Marines carrying it will be required to complete additional training on range estimation, scope theory and observation.

Beyond the squad level, Marine scout snipers are to receive the Mk13 Mod 7 Long Range Sniper Rifle.

“ New Course of Fire Training Changes Coming to Marine Corps Rifle Qualification”
A small group of Marines with Weapons Training Battalion shot what might become the most drastic changes to the annual rifle qualification in nearly a century.
After years of feedback from marksmanship experts and operational commands across the Corps asking for a more realistic ― and shorter ― shooting qualification, a new experimental course of fire will be rolled out soon
Weapons Training Battalion officials aim to gather data from 600 Marines across the force to best determine what the thresholds for qualification and the shooting badges of marksman, sharpshooter and expert.
It will become more challenging because shooters will be qualifying as they’ll fight.
They’ll wear combat gear, from helmet to body armor and shoot their assigned weapon, whether that’s an M4 or M16 or the M27.
They’ll be drawing one third each from the ground combat element, aviation combat element and logistics combat element. 
In the new course of fire, on day one Marines will run through zeroing the weapon, practicing holds and the shooting short, long and night fire courses, starting from close ranges and moving out to the 500-yard lin.
Then on day two, they’ll start shooting from the 500-yard line and work their way in to the 300 yard, 200 yard, 100 yard, 25 yard and 15 yard lines. It’s the way Marines are trained to fight, close with and destroy the enemy; instead of the current method in which they begin at the shorter ranges and work backward.

That’s the entire course of fire, which they’ll repeat for qualification on day three.
Standing, kneeling and prone positions remain, but shooters can now use support. Their magazine, bipod and even rucksack can be used for support, just as it would in battle.
There’s no more sitting position, a holdover from competition match style shooting that informed the early days of Marine Corps marksmanship development.
And there won’t be any prescribed positions for barricade shooting at close ranges. If a shooter wants to stand or kneel or not use the support at all, it’s up to them.

Time might be the biggest factor. Marines now have 10 minutes to get off 10 shots from the 500-yard line.
Technically the actual shooting scenarios remain largely the same, only the course will include elements of all tables of fire and now only uses one target, instead of the five different targets used by Marines for decades.
No more bull’s-eye-style “Able” or shoulder and head silhouette “Dog” or standing body “B-Modified" targets on the line.
The black-shirted, skull cap,  and sunglasses AK-47 target that Marines have grown to love to shoot will be the only target they’ll see ― from the 500 yard line to close range head shot practice.
That’s because the move is to get away from scoring and marksmanship match-style thinking and having Marines envision the lethality they’ll have to deliver when firing on human targets in combat.
To adjust the target, statistical data gathered from years of research on the lethal zones has been used to outline where on the target a bullet would cause incapacitating damage to the enemy.
There’s no more scoring rings. Marines pulling targets in the butts will simply check whether the round was a either a “destroy,” “neutralize,” “suppress” or “miss.”
Only destroys count for score.

And only the target puller is keeping track. That’s because once the clock starts to tick, the target remains exposed for the shooter to fire.
Instead of Marines firing a single round, waiting for it to be marked, noting where they hit and then adjusting fire when the target comes back up, the Marine will begin shooting once the target appears and fire until they’ve shot the rounds for that iteration.
For example, shooters have five rounds of sustained fire at 500 yards in 45 seconds. They’ll shoot all five and then set up for another iteration of five rounds. That’s the longest exposure and nearly the most rounds they’ll fire in one go.
In the short bay they’ll have to make a single, standing head shot in three seconds.
Just hitting black on a target doesn’t mean its necessarily down.
[ See a draft scoresheet here ]
“Our current rifle qualification is outdated, we don’t really use much of it in the Marine Corps outside of the rifle range, said An Infantryman “Frankly, if someone’s not very good, they can still qual.”
That’s been proven by data that Weapons Training Battalion has gathered as well.
A Marine on the current annual rifle training can qualify without ever hitting black on a target. A Marine can make expert without ever hitting the target from the 500-yard line.
Marines basically return from their annual ranges, away from the unit for two or more weeks, with a score and a badge for promotion.
“Commanders across the fleet will cut out that time for training for their Marines and they will come back only marginally better, if better at all,” Hall said.
Sixty-five percent of Marines who shot the annual range in the past year qualified as expert. The Marine Corps made no scoring changes when it introduced optics to weapons qualification years ago, which resulted in a 5 percent increase in scores.
That doesn’t provide much detail for commanders to know how their Marines are shooting.
Marines will have to make minimum scores on each of the components of the annual rifle qualification, long bay, short bay and night fire.
That makes for a more complete shooter.
It will require Marine combat marksmanship coaches and trainers to better tailor their training methods and recognize that teaching Marines to shoot isn’t a one size fits all approach.
As the annual rifle qualification is being further tested, the battalion is making changes to the training courses for coaches and trainers.
But, a lot of the work will fall on the unit training managers.
They’ll have more shooting data to look at and be able to see weak spots for their shooters before they head to the three-day range for qualification.
“The difference between recruit training and this ARQ, is it;s realistic, it will prepare every Marine, for an actual combat scenario, one Marine said. The adjustment was the reduced time, though all of the shooters were able to get their rounds off in the time limit.
An immediate difference Marines have noticed was keeping gear in position so they could acquire and fire on the target.
Shooters have been advised to give the moving targets more lead time, as they looked smaller and moved faster than the moving targets he’d shot on previous ranges.
New course of fire takeaways:
1. Marines will wear combat gear, helmet and body armor to shoot 
2. Badges remain the same. Scoring thresholds still being determined.
3. Three days to qualify. One day of snapping in, zeroing, positions and a run through. Days two and three are the same. 
4. One target to rule them all. No more bull’s-eye or silhouette-style match targets. A single, exposed enemy target, the same size for all distances.
5. More realistic. Moving targets, box shooting, failure to stop shots and head shots matter.
6. No more sitting position. Only standing, kneeling and prone. Barricades positions at short range are up to the shooter.
7. No more scoring on the line. Target pullers will mark destroy, neutralize, suppress or miss. Only destroys count.
8. Less time. The longest exposure is five rounds at 500 yards for 45 seconds. The shortest is a single round, three second head shot at 25 yards.
9. Starting long. Shooters will begin prequalification and qualification from the 500-yard line and work into the 25 yard line.
10. Night fire for score. Shooters will be evaluated on the same short bay course, from 100 yards in, at night as they shoot during the day.
[ See the new Course of Fire here ]


​

​

​“Marines Exploring Use of Immersive Virtual Reality Tech to Train Troops for Maintenance/Combat”
 
VR may prove useful as a way to provide cheap and convenient training for maintenance tasks. Using off-the-shelf motion sensors, an HTC Vive headset and controllers with a trigger and sensing pad, the program takes a service member step-by-step through an aircraft repair job, from diagnosing the problem to re-testing the part after the fix to make sure it works.
 
The system is still a prototype, but the plan is to develop an automated guide so troops can train on key tasks with little oversight, wherever they are.
 
In the loaded virtual reality maintenance scenario, a windshield washer pump needed to be replaced in a Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft. Using the controllers, users could flip switches to test the pump, then perform the needed maintenance step-by-step in a 360-degree simulation of the aircraft.
 
“Certainly, you could do it with just about any aircraft, things that require troubleshooting,”
 
There are some things the system won’t do well. It can’t simulate resistance for more strenuous maintenance tasks, and a user can’t feel around in some area out of view to find a part, the way a maintainer might in a hard-to-reach area. But in an era of high operational tempo, when senior maintainers might be deployed or otherwise unavailable to train more junior troops, engineers envision the system will allow troops to meet training goals and maintain proficiency wherever they are.
 
The system is designed to be lightweight and easily deployable. Troops can complete a virtual training session, then send a video of the session to a supervisor located anywhere in the world for approval or correction.
 
Development of the system is still in the early stages, but the system has so far received a warm reception at demonstrations for Air Force and Marine Corps audiences.

Army is gearing to launch the first iterations of its new virtual reality simulators, which will lay the foundation for synthetic training environments at multiple bases.
 
A squad advanced marksmanship trainer will be delivered to several Army locations next year for close-combat troops. A squad immersive virtual trainer will closely follow.
 
The building blocks that will become the synthetic training environment, or STE, will eventually include computer-generated avatars incorporated into the battlespace, among other virtual military elements.
 
The surroundings the trainers simulate will represent real environments around the globe, from "mega-cities" to dense urban areas.
 
The service is collecting data to reconstruct cities, mountainsides, bunkers and more to more accurately represent what soldiers will see in the virtual-reality environment. Officials said that poses a challenge, but service members must get an accurate representation of what they may face in combat.
 
Soldiers will be exposed to more realistic combat scenarios, "enabling units to enter live training at a much higher level of proficiency. The goal is to rely less on bulky hardware for simulations, and more on software and networks, including virtual reality goggles and iPads for streaming services.
 
While the Army is looking for more personalised training, the new, simulated environments are intended to boost the collective squad, which would face a high-end threat together.
 
Army is looking at it from a collective -- a squad, a crew, a team, a platoon and then on up. But we have to get the individual piece correct in order to be able to do that.
 
Referencing the service's unusually swift acquisition effort and collaboration with industry, cross-functional team had been asked to be disruptive, and Army believes they have done just that.
 
Training is changing as the Army pursues dynamic live, virtual, and mixed-reality training that offers data analysis supported by artificial intelligence and other smart systems.. Being able to take the data from your training to be analyzed for trend analysis and predictive analysis is going to be a game changer."
 
Let's say there's a four-man team preparing to clear a building in a training exercise. As the first man busts through the door, a biometric feedback sensor indicates that his adrenaline spiked off the charts while muzzle and eye tracking sensors showed the soldier looking one way while his gun pointed another. When the third man enters, a motion sensor indicates that he froze momentarily.
 
And all this data is being run through machine learning systems for trend and predictive analysis, producing a readiness score for essential tasks. Imagine soldiers training to fight augmented reality adversaries in virtual battle spaces, showdowns that like video games can take place in cities around the world.
 
"We have these abilities, and have seen it from our industry partners. Instantaneous feedback. While the Army is not there yet, the service is quickly moving in that direction.
 
Soldier lethality is one of the priorities of the newly-established Army Futures Command, a new four-star command focused on rapid research and development for future weapons and warfighting capabilities, as well as enhanced training options.
 
"There are systems that we're looking at that can allow the soldiers to train as they will fight, train where they will fight and train against who they will fight while back in the home-station training environment.
 
One option for the Army is next-level synthetic training environments, where troops can train individually or in groups in both fixed or mobile live, virtual, or mixed-reality battle spaces of all sizes.
 
This is a big deal given the inadequacies of some of the existing training platforms. The current training systems are limited in their capabilities. For example, the technology for the existing virtual trainers does not allow the Army to bring in all of the enablers, such as logistics, engineering, and transportation teams.
 
“We can only bring air, ground platforms, and a few other capabilities. We need to train combined arms to prepare for large-scale combat.
Terrain is also a huge challenge. "We are trying to get to one-world training," the general introduced. "Terrain is a stumbling block We are trying to get after that quickly."
 
User assessment testing for re-configurable virtual trainers began earlier this year. Within the next two years, the Army wants AI-driven trend and predictive analysis based on biometric and sensor data collected during training exercises.
 
"Right now, we are only as good as someone's experience and their eye and what they catch or what we see in video. "We want to be able to assess training, and we have some of that capability right now, but not to the degree we need."
 
 
For much of the U.S. military’s history, live training has been key to preparing personnel for their missions. However, staging a live training event can consume significant physical and fiscal resources, from aircraft, ground equipment and ships to all the personnel involved. Plus, the risk of accidents resulting in damage to equipment, or worse yet, endangering personnel, can increase.
 
That’s why the military started utilising virtual training to provide many of the same positive benefits while minimising the negative impacts of live training. These benefits, including personnel safety, readiness improvement and cost reduction, have led the military to take training a step further and utilise live, virtual and constructive, or LVC, training that brings together multiple systems using networking and even cloud capabilities.
 
LVC training allows personnel not physically present at a live training event to participate virtually and through constructive simulations that inject battlefield effects and simulated or constructed threats into live systems.
 
A recent example of LVC training is the Air Force’s investment in a common software architecture for its training simulators, creating the Simulator Common Architecture Requirements and Standards program. Also, the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are all looking to connect simulators and live assets to enhance air warfare training.
 
As LVC technology advances, commercial off-the-shelf technologies play an increasingly critical role. By leveraging the advances in commercially available IT, DoD can gain significant advantages, including reduced development and deployment times as well as the ability to reuse capabilities to gain significant efficiencies. Advanced server technologies and cloud capabilities can maximise reusability and rapid reconfiguration of infrastructure for numerous training needs.
 
As the military continues to explore the use of LVC training and simulation, and blends real equipment and personnel with virtual assets, commercial off-the-shelf IT capabilities will enable high fidelity, speed and immersive training experiences to grow skills and develop proficiency for our military forces.
 
Identify and mitigate risks quickly: To keep up with evolving threats, an intent-based network can serve as both a sensor and enforcer of security policy, leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to move at machine speed and counter advanced threats. Software-defined networks can also provide the ability to rapidly reconfigure given changes in real-world conditions or across various training scenarios.
 
Reduce the attack surface: Zero trust or white list segmentation can greatly reduce a cyber adversary’s maneuverability within an operational space in the event of an attack. Maintain an accurate and timely view of the threat landscape, segment access based on roles for devices, people and applications, and utilise security policies that are software-driven to support rapid changes based on threats and real-world environments.
 
By combining LVC with the right network strategy, DoD can securely achieve significant benefits in costs and efficiencies, as well as lower stress on existing systems, reduce wear and tear on operational systems, and decrease the chance of mishaps, which can occur using traditional live training. Building LVC capabilities on a sound network architecture minimises risk and ensures the mission is accomplished.
 
 

Marines Consider How to Build Future Fleet with Unmanned, Expeditionary Vessels
​
Navy is taking a step working on an Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment that also includes emerging unmanned and expeditionary platforms to support new concepts of warfare.
The planned force structure assessment (FSA) would examine how many of today’s ships – today’s hull designs, with current or near-term capabilities – the Navy needs to meet operational requirements around the world.
However, questions have been swirling for the last year or so about what unmanned surface vessels – into which the Navy is planning to invest significantly in the coming years – will mean for the future force size and composure, as well as what the Marines’ desire to leverage alternate platforms to get more people and gear afloat might mean.
Navy leadership had previously said a new FSA was in the works and would be out by the end of the year, though it was unclear if this FSA would begin to tackle the changing face of what a Navy warship could look like.
 
This integrated naval force analysis will be the first to “assess an optimal force mix that includes Large Unmanned Surface Vessels, Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vessels, and Expeditionary Advance Bases.
 
Marines are no longer planning to field 38 traditional amphibious warships and instead would rely on the FSA to point to a new number and a new balance of traditional ships with other available platforms and connectors.
 
“We must also explore new options, such as inter-theater connectors and commercially available ships and craft that are smaller and less expensive, thereby increasing the affordability and allowing acquisition at a greater quantity. We recognize that we must distribute our forces ashore given the growth of adversary precision strike capabilities, so it isn’t a great idea to continue to concentrate our forces on a few large ships.
The adversary will quickly recognize that striking while concentrated aboard ship is the preferred option. We need to change this calculus with a new fleet design of smaller, more lethal, and more risk-worthy platforms.
We must be fully integrated with the Navy to develop a vision and a new fleet architecture that can be successful against our peer adversaries while also maintaining affordability. To achieve this difficult task, the Navy and Marine Corps must ensure larger surface combatants possess mission agility across sea control, littoral, and amphibious operations, while we concurrently expand the quantity of more specialized manned and unmanned platforms.
“As the preeminent littoral warfare and expeditionary warfare service, we must engage in a more robust discussion regarding naval expeditionary forces and capabilities not currently resident within the Marine Corps such as coastal/riverine forces, naval construction forces, and mine countermeasure forces.
We must ask ourselves whether it is prudent to absorb some of those functions, forces, and capabilities to create a single naval expeditionary force whereby the Commandant could better ensure their readiness and resourcing. “
The interim FSA that follows the traditional model will be used to inform Fiscal Year 2021 budget planning,.
 
At the same time, “we will work together to develop a new, comprehensive naval force architecture which integrates the concepts and doctrines required to project naval power globally in the year 2030 and beyond.
This architecture will be evaluated analytically, with insights informing an initial Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment – an update to the Interim 2019 FSA – characterizing the integrated naval warfighting capability and capacity required to conduct missions, functions, roles, and tasks in support of the National Defense Strategy.
 
Even ahead of the drafting and release of the National Defense Strategy, the Marine Corps was already moving in a direction of the service – staying agile aboard ships and connectors – contributing to sea control while afloat and ashore as well as benefiting from surface combatants’ protection while taking beaches for temporary missions. This type of maneuver, laid out in the Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE) concept and its Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) ancillary concept, leverages advances the Marine Corps is investing in long-range precision weapons, heavy-lift capabilities from the CH-53K helicopter, sensing and data processing capabilities in the F-35B and more. However, the amphibious ship, alternative shipping and connector piece was still a question mark.
 
The joint memo notes that the integrated naval FSA will “provide additional detail of the effects of afloat and ashore EABs and the connectors and amphibious platforms that enable those operations.”
 
Release of the first iteration of the integrated naval FSA will inform the FY 2021 budget request, 30-year shipbuilding plan and related testimony, but it will likely have a greater impact on 2022 budget decisions.
 
 

“Marines Plan to Arm MV-22 Tilt-Rotor Aircraft with Rockets, Missiles or other Forward-firing Weapons”
 
The Marine Corps is now arming its Osprey tiltrotor aircraft with a range of weapons to enable its assault support and escort missions in increasingly high-threat combat environments.
 
Rockets, guns and missiles are among the weapons now under consideration, as the Corps examines requirements for an "all-quadrant" weapons application versus other possible configurations such as purely "forward firing" weapons.
 
"The current requirement is for an all quadrant weapons system. We are re-examining that requirement—we may find that initially, forward firing weapons could bridge the escort gap until we get a new rotary wing or tiltotor attack platform, with comparable range and speed to the Osprey.
 
A more capable and heavily armed Osprey will be able to provide its own escort protection, a development the Corps has been pursuing for several years now from lessons learned in the field.
 
Adding weapons to the Osprey would naturally allow the aircraft to better defend itself should it come under attack from small arms fire, missiles or surface rockets while conducting transport missions; in addition, precision fire will enable the Osprey to support amphibious operations with suppressive or offensive fire as Marines approach enemy territory.
 
Weapons will better facilitate an Osprey-centric tactic known as "Mounted Vertical Maneuver" wherein the tiltrotor uses its airplane speeds and helicopter hover and maneuver technology to transport weapons such as mobile mortars and light vehicles, supplies and Marines behind enemy lines for a range of combat missions -- to include surprise attacks.
 
Also, while arming the Osprey is primarily oriented toward supporting escort and maneuver operations, there are without question a few combat engagements the aircraft could easily find itself in while conducting these missions.
 
For example, an armed Osprey would be better positioned to prevent or stop swarming small boat attack wherein enemy surface vessels attacked the aircraft. An Osprey with weapons could also thwart enemy ground attacks from RPGs, MANPADS or small arms fire.
 
Finally, given the fast pace of Marine Corps and Navy amphibious operations strategy evolution, armed Ospreys could support amphibious assaults by transporting Marines to combat across wider swaths of combat areas.
 
The Corps’ latest plans to put forward-firing weapons on the Osprey comes at a time when the Marines are rethinking their long-standing hopes for a reliable all-quadrant weapon system that can shoot in many directions.
 
All weapons under consideration have already been fired in combat by some type of aircraft, however additional testing and assessment of the weapons and their supporting systems are necessary to take the integration to the next step.
 
"We want to arm the MV-22B because there is a gap in escort capability. With the right weapons and associated systems, armed MV-22Bs will be able to escort other Ospreys performing the traditional personnel transport role.”
 
Efforts to build and deploy an all-quadrant weapon have had some trouble in recent years.
In the long run, the additional guns on the Osprey would be a somewhat temporary stopgap measure while the Corps continues to develop a massive futuristic sea drone. The future expeditionary sea drone program is known as the MUX.
 
Over the next decade, the Corps wants to develop a serious-heatpacking expeditionary armed sea drone that can complement the long-range capabilities of newer aircraft like the F-35B/C, CH-53K and MV-22.
 
But it’s going to be years before the Corps can field that, so new modifications for the MV-22 could fill the void in the meantime.
 
We may find that initially, forward-firing weapons could bridge the escort gap until we get a new rotary wing or tilt-rotor attack platform, with comparable range and speed to the Osprey.
For now, the official Marine Corps requirement remains an all-quadrant weapons system, but Marine Corps officials are rethinking that.
 
Several years ago, the Ospreys were armed with the Defense Weapon System ― in essence an underbelly-mounted 7.62mm chain gun.
 
Officials at Naval Air Systems Command claim the chain gun does “not provide adequate all-quadrant capability due to restricted zones of fire to protect the aircraft.
 
The Defense Weapon System has gone through a slew of testing and has been operational with the Osprey. But past reports have been critical of the system’s overall quality and capability. After testing of the Defense Weapon System in 2015, the Corps found damage to the fuselage on several test aircraft.
 
The MV-22 is also armed with the GAU-21 .50-caliber machine gun or an on ramp GAU-18 7.62mm machine gun.
 
The Corps has looked at several options for forward-firing rockets and missiles to bridge the escort gap, including the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, or APKWS, which turns 2.75-inch rockets into precision-guided munitions, and Hellfires.
 
Some weapons, possibly including Hydra 2.75inch folding fin laser guided rockets or .50-cal and 7.62mm guns, have been fired as a proof of concept.
 
The Hydra 2.75inch rockets, called the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System APKWS, have been fired in combat on a range of Army and Marine Corps helicopters; they offer an alternative to a larger Hellfire missiles when smaller, fast-moving targets need to be attacked with less potential damage to a surrounding area.
 
But the Corps is also looking at other forward-firing weapons beyond rockets and missiles.
"Further testing would have to be done to ensure we could properly integrate them.”
 

This ticket schedule item is currently under review by several dispatch 
teams. Installations have not yet responded with a quote


Under the deal, valued at about 400 billion won ($305 million), KAI will develop four prototypes of the T-50 trainer into advanced light attack  jets by 2012; the new jet will be designated the FA-50. A separate deal  on production will be sealed after that, according to DAPA and KAI  officials.


Developed in 2006, the $21 million Mach 1.4 T-50 is South Korea's first indigenous supersonic aircraft and the world's only high-performance supersonic trainer in production. KAI is the prime contractor and  Lockheed Martin is the principal subcontractor, assisting with  development and  international marketing 

With the modifications, the FA-50 will have advanced tactical data link  systems and
precision missile guidance equipment, the officials said.For example, the jet will be outfitted with the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) kit, incorporating an internal navigation system and  flip-out control fins to guide bombs. The WCMD corrects launch errors,  determines atmospheric conditions and computes optimum flight paths and cluster bomb release points.


The Air Force wants to introduce up to 150 FA-50s to replace the A-37  attack aircraft and F-4/F-5 fighters currently serving as a low-tier  backup to its higher-class KF-16 and F-15K fighters, the source said. According to DAPA officials, the FA-50 will be equipped with the  EL/M-2032 radar from Elta Systems, which is credited with a  look-up tracking range of 65 to 100 kilometers.


The FA-50 program had been stalled for years over the selection of a  radar system. DAPA originally wanted to equip the plane with the lightweight Vixen-500E active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, developed by U.K. firm Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems, and to  launch the project. But co-developer Lockheed Martin opposed the move, citing protection of its technology
 

 

This ticket schedule item is currently under review by several dispatch 
teams. Installations have not yet responded with a quote


SSM-700K Hae Sung I (Sea Star) Anti-ship Missile is a ship launched anti-ship cruise missile developed by the  Korea Agency for Defense Development (ADD), Nex1 Future and the Republic of Korea Navy in 2003. The missiles are deployed on KDX-II and KDX-III destroyers as of 2006, each carrying 8 and 16 of the missiles respectively.



During the 1970s the Republic of Korea Navy decided to import Exocet anti-ship missiles to deter  naval provocations.  Considering the fact that the DPRK Navy is composed of numerous small to mid size ships, a cheap small size guided anti-ship missile was  proposed. In 1978 the Korean Agency for Defense Development (ADD)  started the development of the Hae Ryong anti-ship missile, and by 1987 the ROK Navy approved for the mass production of the missiles. But the Hae Ryong was fitted with a semi-active laser guidance system, limiting its  tactical capability during bad weather. Additional pressure from the USA ultimately resulted in the termination of the
project.


In 1990, the problem of large proportions of the defense budget going into buying anti-ship missiles from foreign countries was brought up.  The ROK Navy ordered the ADD to develop a missile that was in par with  or better in performance than the Harpoon Block 1C missile. The new missile was code-named Hae Sung, and research of the following core missile technologies was started in 1996

This ticket schedule item is currently under review by several dispatch 
teams. Installations have not yet responded with a quote



The F-CK-1's GD-53 Golden Dragon X-band pulse-Doppler radar is derived from the F-20's AN/APG-67, which itself is a descendant of the AN/APG-66 of the F-16. This radar provides the F-CK-1 with look-down/shoot-down  capability, and enables ten targets to be tracked and two to be engaged  simultaneously using Sky Sword II active radar-seeking AAMs. The GD-53  has a maximum effective scanning range of 57 km (35 mi).


The F-CK-1 can carry two AAMs - either TC-1 Sky Sword Is or TC-2 Sky Sword IIs. The Sky Sword I is the ROC's first indigenous-developed  missile system, first deployed in 1993. It is a short-range  infrared-guided AAM roughly comparable to the AIM-9 Sidewinder. The Sky  Sword II, in comparison, was deployed in 1999 and is a radar-guided  beyond-visual-range AAM. Its seeker head, based on a Motorola-Raytheon  design, was originally intended for use on the AIM-120 AMRAAM, however  the contract was lost to Hughes. The TC-2 provides the IDF aircraft with a maximum missile range of 60 km (37 mi). Both missiles remain the  primary AAMs in service with the ROCAF.

In addition to the Sky  Sword missile systems, the F-CK-1 is also equipped with a single M61A1  20 mm cannon, mounted on the port-wing strake corner. An air-to-ground  weapon, the GPS-guided Wan Chien cluster bomb, is currently undergoing  testing and evaluation with the ROCAF.

This ticket schedule item is currently under review by several dispatch 
teams. Installations have not yet responded with a quote



F-16Cs are Block 25, 30 and 32. F-16CGs are Block 40/42s. F-16CJs are Block 50/52s. Recently, the use of the unofficial term CM designates a Block 40/42 or 50/52 with CCIP mod which essentially  levels the field between them and renders the CG/CJ designations  obsolete. You will occasionally see F-16C+ in various places, which is fairly convoluted, and has to do with  various upgrades to the series such as CUPID but the essential math on  that is a C+ is a jet that is able to use targeting pods and GPS guided  weapons. 


Block designations: F-16s were built with Pratt & Whitney engines from day 1. The C models used the F-100-PW-220 in the first production  Block, the Block 25. Up until that point, F-16A/B Block #s had been 1,  5, 10, 15 and 20. The 25 was a continuation of that Block designator  system. The Block 30 was slated to merely be the same progression,  but it was decided that  General Electric produced a great fighter engine, the F-110-GE-100, and  since Pratt had the F-15C/E contract locked, it was unfair that GE was  frozen out of the F-16 production. The original intent was to have the  engines be interchangeable between airframes. The Block designations were changed to reflect which motor was installed in the Block 30 series. A Block with 0 is a GE so the Block 30s are GE powered. A 2 designates a Pratt powered jet, so the Block 32s are  Pratts. The Blocks are the same otherwise……same jet, different engines.

This ticket schedule item is currently under review by several dispatch 
teams. Installations have not yet responded with a quote



New naval threats include an apparent goal to provide new naval  attack Su-30MK2 fighters with multiple ISR assets to ensure the  targeting of U.S. ships. The M400 locating radar, new radar satellites  and possible new radar equipped strategic UAVs may all be combined with new ground-based long-range radar systems to provide an overlapping ISR  picture for PLA attack platforms.  It can then be expected that a common naval battle zone picture can then be used to coordinate strikes by  Su-30s, multi-role J-11s, J-10s, submarines and surface ships.  Land-based ballistic and cruise missiles may also be used in naval battles.  


The U.S. is going to face greater pressure to augment  its airpower assets in Asia.  A PLAAF with more than 300 Su-27/30 class  fighters plus hundreds of J-10 fighters, with modern ISR and weapons,  means the PLAAF will no longer be a sub-standard airforce.  The advent of modern combat jet engines also means that the PLA will be increasingly  able to develop new indigenous fighters such as the “XXJ” program. The PRC can be expected to sell what it makes, increasing threats in other  areas critical to U.S. interests.


Given U.S.  global commitments, it may no longer be sufficient to purchase 300 or less F/A-22 fighters.  To sustain deterrence the U.S.  will require fighter platforms that are significantly superior to  current or anticipated Russian or PLA fighters.  It is also necessary to accelerate the introduction of advanced versions of the F/A-18E/F in  order to give U.S. carrier battle groups a margin of superiority.  In  addition, the Navy should ensure that its version of the F-35 should also be superior to anticipated threats. Just as important the U.S. should  continue to develop and
field superior aircraft weapons and invest in  truly effective combat UAVs which can defeat or avoid expected PLA  aerial threats.