There are plenty of ways to attack a tank, but few people would choose to fight one without a helicopter, jet, or a tank of their own. Still, for infantrymen around the world, there’s a constant possibility that they’ll have to face off against an enemy tank.
These 14 photos provide a quick look at the infantry’s anti-tank weapons and tactics:
1. Taking down tanks on foot and in light vehicles is serious business that requires a lot of planning and risk.
2. Anti-tank teams have to prep all their weapons before rolling out on a mission.
3. Some, like the Javelin or TOW launchers, require some assembly and loading. Others, like the AT-4, come ready-to-roll and just have to be inspected.
4. Once troops are in the fight against enemy armor, they have to maneuver quickly to give the anti-armor teams a chance to fire.
5. One of the more common U.S. anti-tank weapons is the Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, wire-guided missile.
6. The TOW missile can be mounted on vehicles and helicopters and has an effective range of over 2.5 miles. This allows infantry to fire from further away than the tank can hit them.
7. The TOW missile can also be deployed on a tripod and carried by the infantry, though its heavy launcher and tripod make this a tough job.
8. Still, when the TOW finds its target, the hefty weight is worth it.
9. A lighter alternative to the TOW is the 84mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle. It has a much shorter range against tanks, about 770 yards.
10. But, it weighs only 20 pounds and a two-man crew can fire 6 times per minute. Anti-tank infantry will deploy in pairs and lie in wait for tanks. As one team is reloading their weapons, the other is firing on a tank.
11. The Javelin provides a man-portable, anti-tank capability for infantry as well. This infrared missile can fly directly at tanks or soar into the sky and then attack down through the thinner turret armor of the tank.
12. The Shoulder-launched, Multipurpose Assault Weapon is a bunker buster that doubles as an anti-tank rocket in a pinch. Its High-Explosive Anti-Armor warhead can pierce two feet of steel.
13. The AT-4 is an anti-tank weapon commonly used by dismounted forces. It has a maximum range against a point target of about 330 yards.
14. The AT-4 is a recoilless weapon like the Carl Gustaf, but it is not rifled and each weapon can only be fired a single time.
The military and Mixed Martial Arts go hand-in-hand. Both cultures are bloody, sweaty, and violent.
So it’s no wonder that MMA is rife with military veterans fighting in anything from the Ultimate Fighting Championship to little MMA promotions around the country.
Former UFC light heavyweight champion and all around MMA legend, Randy Couture, is an Army veteran and former middleweight contender. Brian Stann is a former Marine officer who enjoyed a great deal of success in the sport.
Other veterans include UFC stand outs Brandon Vera, Tim Credeur, and Jorge Rivera.
With Army veteran Neil Magny fighting at UFC 207 on Dec. 30th, we decided it was time to take a look at the best veterans actively fighting in MMA.
1. Tim Kennedy.
Though he lost his last two fights (one under controversial circumstances), Tim Kennedy is the most successful veteran in the sport today. Kennedy spent 10 years on active duty with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to serve his country in the Texas National Guard as a Special Forces sniper.
Kennedy challenged for the Strikeforce middleweight championship and has enjoyed several years in the biggest MMA promotion, The UFC.
2. Liz Carmouche.
Former Marine helicopter mechanic Liz Carmouche once challenged Ronda Rousey for the women’s bantamweight championship and nearly submitted her in the first round.
A tenacious bantamweight with bags of cardio endurance, Carmouche could make another run at a title fight. She’s currently 15-6 and recently defeated Kaitlyn Chookagian at UFC 206.
3. Neil Magny.
An Army veteran with an 18-6 record, Magny is the #8 ranked welterweight in the world and will fight former lightweight champion Johnny Hendricks at UFC 207 on Dec 30.
Magny recently had an impressive 7-fight win streak and has won 10 of his last 12 with big wins over well-known fighters Hector Lombard and Kelvin Gastelum.
Still, he’ll have his hands full with the heavy handed knockout artist Hendricks on Dec 30.
4. Andrew Todhunter.
Undefeated fighter and former Green Beret, Andrew “The Sniper” Todhunter has only fought twice in the last two years, but at 8-0 (all by submission) it’s hard to deny the potential and success he’s had in MMA. When it comes to ground fighting, he’s a prodigy.
5. Colton Smith.
The sky was the limit for Army Staff Sergeant (and Iraq veteran) Colton Smith in December 2012 when he won The Ultimate Fighter season 16. But three loses in a row in the octagon forced him back down to the minor leagues where he rattled off four wins in a row. Smith could be poised to make another run at the UFC and realize some of that potential that got everyone excited about him a few years ago.
6. Caros Fodor.
A Marine veteran of six years, Fodor has fought for just about every major MMA promotion from the UFC to Strikeforce to One FC and now the World Series of Fighting.
In May, 2016, Fodor fought and defeated his adopted brother, Ben Fodor in 3 emotionally charged rounds.
7. Matt Frevola.
He’s only 4-0, but Army Reservist Matt Frevola is turning heads and is about to make his debut in Titan Fighting Championships where the management team is excited to see what he can do.
8. Robert Turnquest.
With a record of 6-3 after only two and a half years in MMA, 14-year Navy veteran Rob Turnquest has a bright future ahead. He recently lost a decision to MMA legend, JZ Cavalcante, but that’s nothing to be ashamed of.
9. Sharon Jacobson.
She’s only 4-1 and didn’t fight in 2016, but Jacobson, an Army veteran, ran off 3 impressive wins in a row in 2015 and made a name for herself in the strawweight division.
Will we ever see a military veteran wearing a UFC championship belt around his or her waist in the octagon? Odds are yes. With some determination and a little window of opportunity, it could be one of these nine.
Snipers are a special breed, warriors with a combination of shooting skill, cunning, and patience. Military history has shown that a single sniper in the right place at the right time can change the course of battle, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
Here are the five most legendary among them:
5. U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Adelbert Waldron
As a member of the 9th Infantry Division, he was assigned to PBR boats patrolling the Mekong Delta, at one point making a confirmed kill from a moving boat at 900 yards. He set his record of 109 kills in just 8 months, which was the record until Chris Kyle broke it during the Iraq War and is perhaps even more remarkable considering he was fighting in a dense jungle environment that didn’t always provide easy sight lines.
4. Red Army Captain Vasily Zaytsev
Between November 10 and December 17, 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Zaytsev killed 225 soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht and other Axis armies, including 11 enemy snipers. Before that he killed 32 Axis soldiers with a standard-issue rifle. Between October 1942 and January 1943, he made an estimated 400 kills, some at distances of more than 1,100 yards.
A feature-length film, Enemy at the Gates, starring Jude Law as Zaytsev, includes a sniper’s duel between Zaytsev and a Wehrmacht sniper school director, Major Erwin König.
3. U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle
Navy SEAL Chris Kyle served four tours during the Iraq War, and during that time he became the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history with over 160 kills officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. Kyle’s bestselling book, American Sniper, was made into a movie directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper as Kyle.
On February 2, 2013, Kyle was shot dead at a shooting range near Chalk Mountain, Texas along with his friend, Chad Littlefield. The assailant, Eddie Ray Routh, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
2. U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Norman Hathcock
During the Vietnam War Hathcock had 93 “confirmed” kills of North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong personnel, which meant they occurred with an officer present (in addition to his spotter). He estimated the number of “unconfirmed” kills to be upwards of 400. His warfighting career ended when he was wounded by an anti-tank mine in 1969 and sent home. He later helped establish the USMC Sniper School.
1. Finnish Army Second Lieutenant Simo Häyhä
Nicknamed “White Death,” Simo Häyhä tallied 505 kills, far and away the highest count from any major war. All of Häyhä’s kills of Red Army combatants were accomplished in fewer than 100 days – an average of just over five kills per day – at a time of year with very few daylight hours. He was wounded late in the war when an explosive bullet shot by a Soviet soldier took off his lower left jaw. He lived a long life, however, dying in a veterans nursing home in 2002 at the age of 96.
When asked if he regretted killing so many people he replied, “I only did my duty, and what I was told to do, as well as I could.”
Thanks to the generosity of military members who literally gave up the uniforms they wore on their backs, Alexander Barnes and Kevin Born have successfully authored a new book that is educating readers on the nuances of desert uniforms.
After more than two years, their 344-page hardcover reference book “Desert Uniforms, Patches and Insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces” was published in late 2016. It features more than 1,000 mostly color photos with detailed descriptions of a variety of uniforms, different unit patches and insignia and more. They had lots of willing help tracking these down – locally and around the globe.
To handle the massive project, they set up a small studio in Born’s house and spend nights and weekends photographing and scanning several hundred donated and loaned uniforms, patches and insignia worn by U.S. Armed Forces.
Barnes, a former Marine and National Guardsman, and Kevin Born, chief of the Collective Training Development Division in theCASCOM G-3/5/7, and retired Army major, often just needed to walk around CASCOM for help.
“Working in a building with so many military veterans,” said Born “one is bound to run into some who had served during the desert period. Retired Col. Charles (Charlie) Brown, director of the Battle Lab, gave me his 6-colored uniform from Desert Storm and 3-colored Desert Combat Uniform from Afghanistan. And on the day he retired, he loaned me his Army Combat Uniform off his back, which is in the book illustrating the transition to the ACU uniform.”
Born said, “In another example, one day I walked out of my office in the CASCOM G-3 area and 10 feet away in Jason Aleo’s cubicle was hanging a rare desert Close Combat Uniform from his service as a field artillery captain with a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. I asked to borrow it as well as photos of him wearing it in Northern Iraq. It’s included on two pages in the book.
Barnes, who retired as a CASCOM logistics management supervisor in 2015, has similar accounts of those assisting with the book.
“I sent an email to Lt. Gen. (Mitchell) Stevenson (in England), a former CASCOM commander, and asked if he could share a photo of his service. He replied a day later, ‘What do you need, and how soon?'” said Barnes. “He was in a civilian job, but he stepped forward and sent us a great picture of him in the desert.”
Born continued, “I walked by Chaplain (Maj.) Stanton Trotter’s office one day, and saw a set of framed photos from his service with the 10th Mountain Division very early in Afghanistan in 2001. He kindly loaned several for us to scan. These appear in the book with Trotter praying next to a Soldier.”
Barnes and Born together have more than 50 years of military service and share a long history and avid passion for military collecting. Barnes has a master’s in anthropology, grew up in a military family and has co-authored three other books on military history as well as writing many articles on the subject.
Born has a bachelor’s in history and education and has authored numerous articles on military insignia collecting, an area he has focused on for more than 40 years. While they worked at CASCOM for a number of years, they did not know each other until the August 2011 earthquake in Central Virginia.
”Al and I are both members of the U.S. Militaria Forum and he commented about the earthquake on the forum that night,” said Born. “I saw his post and realized there was another military collector one floor above me. I reached out to him through the forum.”
Barnes said, “the earthquake was the catalyst.”
They soon discovered like-minded military collectors on Fort Lee who included Richard Killblane, the Transportation School historian, and then Lt. Col. (now Col.) Robert Nay, the former deputy installation chaplain.
“We met periodically at lunch to talk about our collecting interests,” Born said. “The seeds for the book came out of these discussions.”
They also collaborated on several articles in Military Trader Magazine that allowed them to get used to each other’s writing styles and served as practice for writing the book.
However, there were no plans yet for a book.
Barnes continued, “We started having lunches with others who had the same interest. After several, we decided to have a military swap meet at Fort Lee.”
Three annual gatherings took place and there was a huge interest, Barnes said.
“After one of these, we said, ‘We need to do something about all these desert uniforms. If we don’t, it will be hard to do it in 20 years.'”
A soldier enjoys breakfast in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm in 1990 wearing the so-called “chocolate chip” desert camo uniform. (Photo courtesy of Daniel Cisneros via Flickr)
The two were unsure of any interest in a book about desert uniforms. “It was such a short period of military history,” noted Barnes. Others at Lee changed their minds.
“It was one of these serendipity things,” said Barnes as they began asking veterans about their desert tours. “So, you were there too. I’ll be darned. Would you have any pictures? And they would say ‘sure.'”
Barnes added, “most were surprised anyone cared. ‘You’re kidding. You really want pictures of me in Iraq. Sure – anything I have, you can have.'”
The original project was smaller in scale. “We thought it would be kind of an Army patch book – showing the variations of these with a couple pictures of uniforms,” said Barnes. “But it kept growing as we felt it important to add all services.”
Schiffer Publishing – the publisher of three other books by Barnes – quickly gave the go-ahead. Both were surprised to get a positive response. They were given nearly a year to pull it together – write the chapters and captions, gather the content, take photos and more.
After 10 months of gathering content and expanding the book, they submitted their package in August 2015. In December, they began receiving sections of the book from Schiffer. After receiving proofs, both saw areas where more details were needed, and they started a Facebook page to help in this process.
“We got more interest from around the world,” said Barnes.
In preparation for the book, they accumulated more than 1,000 government and theater-made desert patches and over 300 uniforms. A large number are in it. These came from numerous veterans and collectors.
Others at Fort Lee (some retired or at other bases now) who were helpful include retired Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jeffie Moore, formerly with the CASCOM Proponency office; Maj Mike Bethea, an Enterprise Systems Directorate officer in CASCOM; Dr. Milt Smith, a dentist at Bull clinic; and Capt. (now Maj.) Vance Zemke, a former instructor at ALU.
Born added, “I found out two weeks before Maj. Zemke was to PCS to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., that he had a huge collection of theater-made patches acquired in his deployments. He kindly loaned them to me with the provision I get them back in a few days’ time for him to pack them up for the movers. I spent day-and-night scanning them. They can be found throughout the book.”
The book foreword is by retired Maj. Gen. Ken Bowra, a former Special Forces officer, a friend of Barnes and Born.
“He not only wrote the foreword, but he allowed us to take pictures of his personal uniforms and shared many photographs as well,” said Barnes. “He served in the entire desert uniform period, wore these uniforms and patches in Desert Storm/Somalia/Operation Enduring Freedom and many other places. Most importantly, he always had a great respect for all the men and women who served during this era.”
Bowra also is a military history writer and author of two Osprey Vietnam-era books.
There were some hard-to-get uniforms and patches, notably CASCOM patches.
“Most collectors do not have these,” noted Born. “These units are not normally in the desert environment, and fewer people were deployed from the schools. I only had a loose copy of the patch. But Al beat the bushes with all of his contacts to find a photograph of one being worn in theater, which are both in the book.”
They completed their final review in August 2016 and were pleased to receive finished copies in late December.
Born said, “writing the book was about two things for us – recognizing the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the armed forces who wore the desert uniform as well as advancing this area of military collecting. Whenever a reference like this is published, there is an increased interest among collectors.”
The original GI Bill, officially known as the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, was as much social engineering as it was a benefit of service. Congress was concerned about the impact millions of World War II veterans would have on the nation.
It hadn’t gone well after World War I. Discharged veterans got little more than $60 and a train ticket home, and their situation was made worse by the Great Depression. Congress tried to intervene by passing the World War Adjusted Act of 1924 (a.k.a. ‘the Bonus Act’), but it just made things worse in that — while vets were paid based on number of days served — most of them wouldn’t see a dime for 20 years. Disgruntled vets camped out around Washington DC (known as the “Bonus Army”) and refused to leave until they were paid. They were later kicked out of town following a bitter standoff with U.S. troops. The incident — ironically American troops fighting American military veterans — marked one of the greatest periods of unrest our nation’s capital had ever known.
So the return of millions of veterans from World War II gave Congress a chance at redemption. But the GI Bill had far greater implications. It was seen as a genuine attempt to thwart a looming social and economic crisis. Some saw inaction as an invitation to another depression. But the legislation wasn’t without controversy. Some shunned the concept of sending battle-hardened veterans to colleges and universities, a privilege then reserved for the rich.
Before World War II, college wasn’t an option for most Americans. Thanks to the GI Bill, millions who would have flooded the job market instead opted for education. In the peak year of 1947, Veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions. By the time the original GI Bill ended in 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program.
The GI Bill encouraged vets to go back to school and, once they did, to move out of the city and into a new thing called “the suburbs” where they could afford to live courtesy of their no-down-payment VA home loans. No other legislation, not to mention military benefit, has shaped the nation as dramatically.
The Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 changed the nature of military service in America by extending benefits to veterans who served during times of war and peace. At first there was some opposition to the concept of a peacetime G.I. Bill. President Dwight Eisenhower had rejected such a measure in 1959 after the Bradley commission concluded that military service should be “an obligation of citizenship, not a basis for government benefits.” President Lyndon B. Johnson believed that many of his “Great Society” social programs negated the need for sweeping veterans benefits. But, prompted by unanimous support given the bill by Congress, Johnson signed it into law in 1966.
Critics within the veterans’ community and on Capitol Hill charged that the bill did not go far enough. At first, single veterans who had served more than 180 days and had received an other than dishonorable discharge received only $100 a month from which they had to pay for tuition and all of their expenses. Most found this amount to be sufficient to pay only for books and minor fees, but not enough to live on or attend college full-time. Veterans of the Vietnam War felt slighted that the bill did not provide them with the same educational opportunities as their World War II predecessors. Consequently, during the early years of the program, only about 25 percent of Vietnam veterans used their education benefits.
The United States military moved to an all-volunteer force in 1973, and veterans continued to receive benefits, in part as an inducement to enlist. The GI Bill was again revamped in 1984 by Mississippi Congressman “Sonny” Montgomery, which is why that version is known as the “Montgomery GI Bill.” The Montgomery GI Bill was complicated and required that service members forfeit $100 a month in order to receive their education benefits.
In 2008 Senator Jim Webb began working legislation for a more comprehensive benefit in the spirit of the original GI Bill. The bill was officially called the “Post 9-11 GI Bill,” but it was more commonly referred to as the “new GI Bill.”
The new GI Bill provides for tuition, a book allowance, and a housing allowance. To qualify for the benefit, a veteran must have served at least 90 days of active duty service post-9/11, or have served 30 days and was discharged due to a service connected injury or illness. Veterans will be paid a monthly housing allowance based on the military’s Basic Allowance for Housing rate for an E-5 with dependents. (The living allowance can range from $1071/month in Bellville, OH, to $3,744/month in New York City.) The last and most novel feature of the Post 9/11 GI Bill is that currently serving troops have the opportunity to transfer education benefits to a spouse or a child.
Like any major legislation, the Post-9/11 GI Bill had some growing pains, most notably payments from the VA were slow in getting to colleges and in some cases veterans had to reach into their own pockets for periods of time to keep from getting disenrolled, but ultimately the benefit has proved to be a worthy heir to the original GI Bill, a benefit for both the veterans and the nation that will leverage their education and skills.
Grantham University was founded in 1951 by WWII Veteran Donald Grantham to provide other veterans a way to better their lives through distance learning. Today, Grantham continues this commitment by offering military students targeted, online degree programs in the most convenient, flexible and affordable manner possible. For more information go to Grantham University’s homepage.
A new poll from the University of Maryland indicates that the majority of Americans favor of cutting funding from the U.S. defense budget in five out of seven major areas.
Specifically, they favor defunding one of the U.S.’ 11 aircraft carriers, and the F-35 Lightning II, DefenseNews.com reports.
“Given all the talk about increasing the defense budget, we were surprised to find how much Americans are not sold on increases, including a majority of Republicans nationwide,” said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.
Indeed the survey, which polled more than 7,000 U.S. voters across the nation, shows that a majority of Republicans would prefer to keep defense spending where it is, a majority of Independents favor reducing the defense budget by $20 billion, and Democrats favor slashing the budget by $36 billion.
The survey presented 2015 figures on spending and offered alternatives. For example, when informed that cutting funding to the F-35 program would save $6 billion this year, and $97 billion through 2037, 54 percent of citizens polled supported cutting the program.
Though the desire to save money and be fiscally responsible is admirable and understandable, top brass in nearly all U.S. military services have expressed concern that nations like Russia and China threaten the U.S.’ foreign interests, and some have even gone as far as to call them existential threats.
On Tuesday, top Air Force acquisitions personnel took to Congress and re-asserted the need for the U.S.’ fifth generation fighter planes. “We’ve seen both Russia and China develop airplanes faster than was anticipated,” said Lt. Gen. James “Mike” Holmes, according to the Air Force Times.
The survey suggested that Americans supported cutting the number of U.S. aircraft carriers to 10 from 11.
Surprisingly, nationally, the majority of Americans did not support shrinking the submarine fleet from 12 to eight, nor did they want to cut funding to development of a new long range strike bomber.
The sight of a low-flying Warthog — the Air Force’s A-10 Thunderbolt II tank killer — may strike fear into the hearts of ISIS in Syria. But in Charlotte, North Carolina, it just raises questions.
Air Force blogger JohnQPublic says the A-10s were from Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. The Air Force grounded the pilots after receiving FAA complaints about the August 29, 2016 low-altitude flyover. Regulations say aircraft must be at least 1,000 feet higher than the highest structure.
The Warthogs flew over the stadium in the middle of a practice game August 29. The Panthers were understandably surprised.
The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing Thursday on whether to confirm Gen. James Mattis as the next defense secretary, and plenty of interesting bits came out of the roughly three-hour session.
The retired four-star general gave frank and concise answers on everything from cybersecurity policy to what he expects will be the biggest threats to the United States.
Shortly afterward, he was approved for a waiver for the requirement of having a seven-year gap between being active-duty in the military and serving in the civilian role at the Pentagon.
When asked whether the US can confront the terror group in its capital of Raqqa, Mattis said he believed the US could, but he added that the anti-ISIS strategy needed to be reviewed and “energized on a more aggressive timeline.”
He told members that “we have to deliver a very hard blow against ISIS in the Middle East so there is no sense of invulnerability or invincibility there.” For the US, according to Mattis, that means attacking ISIS’ main areas of strength so they cannot pop up elsewhere.
He mentioned Russia as the biggest threat
Despite President-elect Trump’s restraint on calling out Russian aggression and cyberwarfare, Mattis didn’t pull punches in his assessment of Moscow.
“Since Yalta, we have a long list of times that we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia,” Mattis said. “We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard.” He praised NATO and its effectiveness, and added that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “trying to break” that alliance.
In some areas Russia and the US can work together, but in many others, Mattis said, Putin remained a strategic competitor or an outright adversary.
“I have very modest expectations about areas of cooperation with Mr. Putin,” he said.
Mattis says he wouldn’t roll back the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or the change on women in combat roles
In the past, Mattis has not really been a fan of women being integrated into combat roles, such as infantry. He was asked about this repeatedly — at times having his speeches quoted to him — and asked whether he would reverse the 2013 policy change.
“I’ve never come into any job with an agenda, a pre-formed agenda of changing anything,” he said. “I assume the people before me deserve respect for the decisions they’ve made.”
That answer did not satisfy Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), however, and she continued to press him. In the end, Mattis told her: “I have no plan to oppose women in any aspect of our military. In 2003, I had hundreds of Marines who happened to be women serving in my 23,000 person division … I put them right on the front lines with everyone else.”
He was also asked about protections for LGBTQ service members, and he had a very blunt answer to that. “Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with.”
He says the Iran deal isn’t perfect, but it should remain intact
Mattis called the Iran deal an “imperfect” one, but still supported the US keeping its end of the bargain. The answer was a break from the President-elect, who has promised to “rip up” the deal with Tehran.
“I think it is an imperfect arms control agreement — it’s not a friendship treaty,” Mattis said. “But when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Later, he said, “It’s not a deal I would have signed.”
Mattis says cyberwar is a big problem that still has no clear doctrine in place
Mattis was asked interesting questions on cyberwarfare, which were especially pertinent in the wake of Russian hacks of Democratic party officials and their affect on the presidential election. Unfortunately, he said he did not believe the US has anything resembling a sophisticated cyber doctrine.
In other words, there is no strategy in place for the US to respond to cyber attacks, like there is for other physical examples, such as a nuclear strike or an attack on a NATO ally.
Mattis said there needs to be a comprehensive plan developed to address this shortfall, because “cyber cuts across everything we do today.”
He added: “Because of the cyber domain, it’s not something the military can do in isolation.”
On April 25, Iraqi troops drove out Islamic State militants from the largest neighborhood in the western half of the city of Mosul, a senior military commander said, a major development in the months-long fight to recapture the country’s second-largest city.
U.S.-backed Iraqi forces declared eastern Mosul “fully liberated” in January, after officially launching the operation to retake the city in October.
In February, the troops started a new push to clear Mosul’s western side of IS militants, but weeks later their push stalled mainly due to stiff resistance by the Sunni militant group.
On April 25, special forces Lt. Gen. Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi told The Associated Press that the sprawling al-Tanek neighborhood was now “fully liberated and under full control” of the security forces. Al-Saadi did not provide more details.
Also April 25, the government-sanctioned paramilitary troops, made up mainly of Shiite militiamen, launched a new push to retake the town of Hatra to the south of Mosul. The force’s spokesman, Ahmed al-Asadi, said the operation is being conducted from three directions with aerial support from the Iraqi Air Force. Al-Asadi did not elaborate.
Hatra is home to a UNESCO World Heritage site of the same name that was destroyed by IS as part of the militant’s efforts to demolish archaeological sites in and around Mosul. The extremists consider the priceless archaeological treasures — some dating back as far as 3,000 B.C. — as idolatry but have at the same time smuggled and sold many looted artifacts to fund their war.
Mosul fell to IS in the summer of 2014, along with large swaths of northern and western Iraq.
The United Kingdom’s current drone fleet is made up primarily of aircraft purchased from the U.S.
But the country is now working on its own unmanned aerial vehicle dubbed “The Protector” which will feature specialized sensors and will be armed with Britain’s Brimstone missile, a low-collateral-damage version of America’s Hellfire missile.
The Protector drone is based on the Predator-B and is being created by the Predator’s manufacturer, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.
Britain owns 10 Reaper drones but was never able to fly them in European airspace. That’s because current drones don’t support certain devices required to fly in American and European civil airspace such as a detect-and-avoid system and an airborne “due regard” radar.
General Atomics is working on the required radar upgrades as part of the contract with the U.K., but the technology will also support U.S. projects like the MQ-4C, a surveillance UAS for the U.S. Navy.
The Protector will also fly on longer wings that will increase its lift capacity as well as its maximum fuel and weapons payload. The design is a compromise which will lower the Protector’s maximum altitude — 45,000 feet versus 50,000 feet in the Predator B — and top speed — 200 knots versus 240 knots.
The other significant upgrade that the Protector will boast is the ability to carry Britain’s Brimstone missile.
It carries a 14-pound warhead that creates less collateral damage than the Hellfire’s 20-pound warhead, but that also limits its effectiveness against the main battle tanks the Hellfire was designed to kill.
The CIA’s drone and surveillance programs are starting to wear on al-Qaeda’s leadership. The latest trove of Osama bin Laden’s captured personal documents from the Director of National Intelligence included personal letters, al-Qaeda memos, and even a personal letter to the American people.
The release shows a rising paranoia about drones, spies, and the various agencies tracking their movement. Al-Qaeda is still waging their brand of global jihad, but are wary about how they continue their operations.
In one memo, bin Laden warned kidnappers about tracking devices in ransom payments. Another letter discusses the wrongful execution of four accused spies. He also tells negotiators in Peshawar to only leave their homes on cloudy days, he tells operatives to be aware of infrared markers on their cars, and even worrying about Iranian dentists implanting tracking devices in their dental fillings.
The documents were seized in the May 2011 raid on OBL’s Abottabad compound when members of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six killed the terrorist leader and captured his “bookshelf.”
This second release has been translated to English and declassified, and reflects events between 2009 and 2011. Just days before the raid that killed him, bin Laden wrote about the ongoing “Arab Spring” revolutions in the Middle East. He urged more attacks against the U.S., but did not fully appreciate the battle space.
“He was somewhat out of touch with the (actual) capabilities of his organization,” an unnamed source told Business Insider. “Many of his best leaders are dead.”
The VH-3 Sea King has faithfully served Marine Helicopter Squadron One since 1962, operating as the official rotary transport for every president for over 55 years. But even though the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” rings through for many pieces of military hardware, these aging Sea Kings, known as “Marine One” whenever a president is aboard, need to be replaced.
A lack of parts, considerable flight hours, and performance inefficiency (by today’s standards) make a worthy case for why the Sea King needs to be supplanted by something newer, faster and more capable. Just last week, Sikorsky’s answer to HMX-1’s request for a new helicopter took to the skies above Owego, New York, for the first time.
Known as the VH-92A, Sikorsky and its parent corporation, Lockheed Martin, hopes that this helicopter will be what finally sends the Sea King to a museum in the coming years.
The VH-92 is based upon Sikorsky’s S-92, a proven multipurpose utility helicopter that has been functioning in the civilian world as medium-lift platform since 2004. When it enters service with HMX-1, the VH-92 will have been refitted with a new interior and a slew of other features needed for presidential transport.
It has taken years for a suitable replacement for the VH-3 to materialize as part of the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program (VXX). The program was initialized in 2003, though it suffered a setback in 2009 when Lockheed Martin’s proposal – the VH-71 Kestrel – was nixed even though the Department of the Navy had already spent billions of dollars building 9 Kestrals for HMX-1.
The following year, VXX was restarted, and a joint Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky team offered a revamped S-92, replete with a comfortable and plush interior worthy of the president and other VIPs who would be using the aircraft from time to time. In 2014, the S-92 proposal was selected and the VH-92 began taking shape.
These new presidential transports will only bear an external resemblance to their civilian counterparts. Their insides will be completely redone as per the requirements of HMX-1 and the Secret Service.
This includes defensive systems that afford each VH-92 a degree of protection against threats on the ground, from shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, to heavy-caliber machine gun rounds.
In addition to armoring the VH-92, all fleet helicopters will receive advanced communications systems, allowing the president to interact with members of the government and military while flying. Redundancy and safety systems round off the rest of the tricked-out VH-92’s modifications list.
HMX-1 also operates the VH-60N White Hawk, essentially UH-60 Black Hawks reconfigured for VIP transport. These aircraft have been serving in the presidential fleet since the late 1980s, and will also be replaced in part, or as a whole, by the new VH-92s.
The VH-92, like its soon-to-be predecessor, won’t just operate in North America… it will also serve as the president’s short-range transport overseas on official visits. Like the VH-60N, it will be able to be folded up and stowed inside US Air Force strategic airlifters like the C-5M Super Galaxy for foreign travel.
Replacing the Sea King isn’t the only big move HMX-1 has made in an effort to modernize its fleet. The squadron’s complement of CH-53 Sea Stallions were recently replaced with newer, more versatile MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors, which can function like both a helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft. Older CH-46 Sea Knights, formerly used as support aircraft, are also on their way out.
HMX-1 is expected to begin taking delivery of its new VH-92As in 2020, phasing out the VH-3D and VH-60N soon afterward.
In mid-December, the Army will receive the first of nearly 150 Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles from British Aerospace for what is officially described as the “Engineering and Manufacturing Development” phase.
What they’re really doing is testing out the replacement for the M113 armored personnel carrier in Army brigade combat teams.
The M113 does seem to be due for replacement. This vehicle is old — as in it entered service when John F. Kennedy won the presidency.
It’s stuck around for 56 years, even as it became obvious that it could not keep up with the M1 Abrams main battle tank nor the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
The AMPV will likely continue its testing for at least another four years, according to an Army release. Per a handout from April 2012, the Army is looking for five variants of the AMPV.
The first is a General Purpose vehicle, capable of mounting a “crew-served weapon” (let’s be honest, it will likely be a M2 heavy machine gun), with a crew of two and capable of carrying six personnel.
This will often serve as an escort for convoys, medevac missions, and even be used as an emergency supply vehicle.
The next vehicle is a Medical Evacuation Vehicle, intended to pull wounded troops from the fight, and to help deliver medical supplies forward (to treat casualties on the spot and prepare them for evacuation).
The vehicle can carry four litter patients, six ambulatory patients, or a mix. Given that the AMPV is being used in the heavy brigade combat teams, this is meant to handle the aftermath of an armored vehicle being hit.
The third variant is the Medical Treatment Vehicle. You might think at first that this is redundant with the MEV, but these are very different things.
The MEV is intended to get wounded troops to medical treatment. The MTV is meant to be a place where troops are treated. This vehicle – really a mobile emergency room – will be also to carry one litter case, and has a crew of four.
The Mortar Carrier is variant number four. Pretty much the same 120mm mortar used in the mortar carrier variants of the M113 and the Stryker will be in the AMPV.
It will carry the crew for the mortar and 69 ready rounds.
The final version is the Mission Command Vehicle. This is where officers at battalion level and higher handle their fights. This vehicle will have a crew of two and two mission personnel.
In other words, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle looks to finally be the end of the line for the M113 … eventually. But there were over 80,000 M113s of all types produced, according to the current owner of the design, BAE Systems.